President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 15, 2008 09:27 AM UTC

John Edwards: Path to victory

  • 50 Comments
  • by: WinstonSmith

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Update: A second poll has been released in Nevada and it also shows Edwards within striking distance.



http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Despite the media’s obvious bias against John Edwards, and despite a critical loss in Iowa, John Edwards still has a path to victory. That said, it feels a bit like pulling for a 9-7 football team in hopes that, if somebody loses, they can make the playoffs.

First of all, Edwards has to get back in the media’s eye somehow. The first step to doing so is to avoid being written off entirely. The first step starts immediately. Today (Monday the 14th), the Reno Gazette-Journal released poll showing the front runners in a close race:

Barack Obama: 32 percent

Hillary Clinton: 30 percent

John Edwards: 27 percent

http://www.rgj.com/blogs/insid…

How the media handles this information is up in the air. It seems to me that, without contradictory polls, they should certainly rethink their write-off of John Edwards.

Next, Edwards would actually have to win or tie in Nevada on the 19th. A win would be something the press couldn’t ignore. Also, it would likely give him a much needed boost to compete in South Carolina on the 26th. Another must win for Edwards at this point. If he can’t win in South Carolina, where can he win?

Two wins in a row would carry him into Super Tuesday with enough momentum to pick up a good number of delegates. It is unlikely he would win any of the big states, but “winning” in these states is only something that matters for the media–delegates are what get you nominated.

Assuming Edwards picks up enough delegates on Super Tuesday to keep him alive, the race is wide open. Finally, Edwards doesn’t even need enough delegates to win when the convention comes to town, only enough to make him a reasonable contender. The reason being this: If Clinton, Edwards, and Obama make it the national convention, it is unlikely that any of them will have a majority of the votes. That means that the delegates will be able to pick whoever they want. A real nominating convention where the delegates decide then and there who the party’s nominee is!!

Well, I might be dreaming a bit. But we will know before too much longer–won’t we?

Tweet
Share

Comments

50 thoughts on “John Edwards: Path to victory”

  1. I, too, have noticed a distinct manner of oversight when it comes to Edwards and the media.  Even after slightly beating HC in Iowa, it was still about BO (!!!) and HC. The media just talked around his win. While he didn’t do as well in NH, it was still quite respectable.

    Sadly, we have a way of thinking bi in this country.  That there are only two outcomes, only a winner and a loser even when there are degrees of winning and losing.  Our two party system feeds this thought process, unlike a parlementarian one.

    If the media gave as much coverage to JE as his rivals, he would do even better.  

    1. Edwards seems to hate the Clintons, and he’ll stay in as long as he can take votes and delegates from Hillary.

      He doesn’t have a chance of being on the ticket. Too divisive and liberal. He’s sold out to the unions, but not all unions support him.  

      1. I would have assumed that if Edwards drops out, most of his supporters would sway towards Obama. Don’t you think he’s taking votes away from the candidate that is closer to his populist platform?

    1.    South Carolina is going to be his swan song.  He was born there, won it in ’04, but is now facing a humiliating third place finish.

        The official reason he’ll drop out is to care for his wife.

          1. …noticed the Enquirer getting sued for printing it on the front page of their newspaper by the poster boy for all trial attorneys.

            I don’t care about that so much.  It’s fun to stick it to him (and you folks) about it because of the holier-than-thou piety the party that’s out of power always portrays in themselves. The R’s do it too, and we’ll have plenty of opportunity to be out of power if we don’t stop spending so much money.

            I do dislike his willingness to spend trillions of dollars in new entitlement programs, and I think his politically expedient faux populism is sickening.

            That said, I really do hope he gets the nomination.

            2. I note the FACT that the monster deficit we have is nearly 100% due to 1 party; Yours. In addition, the real scandals are all associated with one party; Again yours.

              Lack of logic?

                1. I will trust Hillary to balance the budget LONG before I trust any of the pubs, save paul. All the pubs are talking more tax cuts and giving the same lip service to spending cuts.

                  Hmmm. Good point. He is one of the few dems (well at least caught). I do have to admit, that it has pissed me off how much the pubs have looked the other way for all the corruption in the white house and the party, and I certainly bought into the dems saying that they would clean it all up. But I have noticed that they have not gone after W/white house corruption. Shoots, they have done nothing about Sibel Edmunds. They continue to allow her to be gaged. Yes, it would bring down a few top dems (in particular, harry reid), but it would bring most of the top pubs esp, W. and Cheney. In addition, they promised that they would be out in the open on their earmarks, and that has been a total joke. Finally, I am AMAZED that jefferson is still there. The man belongs behind bars with all the rest of the trash (w, rove, cheney, delay, etc).

          1. Far less credible sources than the Enquirer are sourced here daily.  Sorry the scandal is about  one of your guys, but tough titties.



            But a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcГ©e says Rielle has told a far different story privately: “Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant, she said he was the father.”

            Rielle loves Edwards and will do anything to protect him, the source says.

            Like I said, his ability to impregnate someone is one of the least frightening things about him.

            1. hehehehe. You, and others here, know that I am a paul supporter (though I would also support gore which is funny because they really are at opposite ends of the spectrum).

            2. That’s credible evidence? She said, not even a he said?  Any woman can say anything she wants about the alleged father of her baby.  Until there is a confession or a DNA test, you should be a whole lot more skeptical, you know better.  

                1. I linked to the Enquirer.  As shitty as it is, they haven’t lost any lawsuits lately, and one would think that with such a direct, provable accusation against the king of the trial lawyers that they have to be fairly confident in their source.

            2. I don’t think the Republican Party will win the Presidency in 2008. That was the point of the exchange, and it’s simply an opinion of mine based on a gut hunch, unencumbered by hubris.  

  3. This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but if anyone can help me out here, I’d appreciate it.

    I was hoping one of you, Pols included, could explain the convention process and why there are rumblings of a Republican “brokered convention” on the Washington Post’s web site. There’s all sorts of speculation, but one of the things all the articles fail to do is explain how or why that would come about.

    Anybody?

    1. Usually candidates go to the convention with enough delegates to secure them the nomination.  But if no one has enough delegates, campaigns broker with one and another to get enough delegates to get them the nomination.

      So in theory at that point someone could emerge as the nominee who was far behind or didn’t even run

      1. when deals were made on floor of the convention. Big fat guys with stogies making deals delegates couldn’t refuse.

        Ahhhh….

        So much more interesting than the no suspense, Hollywood, sound bite short attention span catering conventions we have today…

    2. For the first part of the twentieth century (even somewhat into the second half) candidates rarely went into the convention with enough delegates to secure nomination on the first ballot.  Certainly since 1972 there has been a clear front runner and in most cases the only candidate to be nominated.

      I remember in 72, Nixon had a ‘challenger’.  And while Nixon won on the first ballot there was at least 1 delegate vote cast for the challenger.  It is driving me crazy that I cannot remember his name at this point.  He was a congressman from northern California and if I remember correctly was an ex-marine.

      In the early part of the century there were often numerous ballots taken until a candidate was nominated.  Woodrow Wilson was nominated after something like 25 or 30 ballots.

      After Roosevelt most conventions had more than one candidate and deals would be cut, operatives would work state delegations to try to pick up votes.  I remember specifically the 60 Dem convention when Johnson, Humphery and Kennedy were all in it up to the convening of the convention.

      In 64 the same was true of the R convention, where Goldwater was clearly going to get the nomination but Rockefeller was still in it.  Those of my generation will remember scene at the Cow Palace in San Francisco when Rockefeller was trying to speak.

      Today, parties have taken much tighter control of the process.  Today delegates don’t have the opportunity to vote as they please – or change their vote on the first ballot.  If you go to convention as Candidate Y delegate that is how you vote.  In fact state delegations now cast their votes in a bloc, without even a caucus to allow delegates to apportion if they so choose.

      That may be different this year as some states will be sending delegates pledged to different candidates, who may still be viable – meaning no candidate has enough votes going into the convention to take it on the first ballot.

      Party leaders hate this, but it might just be the best thing for the two-party system and democracy.  People are energized in no small part because there are real choices to be made and people are actually feeling like there vote may mean something not just a rubber stamp of what two small states said in January.

          1. at the Convention?  He was a delegate himself, IIRC, and did cast a vote for himself, but I don;t remeber whether he had any other votes.

            thanks for the update on his subsequent congressional run.  I had forgotten that, too.

            1. That’s a good question.  According to wiki…

              [edit] The primaries

              Nixon was a popular incumbent president in 1972, as he seemed to have reached dГ©tente with China and USSR. He shrugged off the first glimmers of what, after the election, became the massive Watergate scandal.

              Polls showed that Nixon had a strong lead. He was challenged by two minor candidates, liberal Pete McCloskey of California and conservative John Ashbrook of Ohio. McCloskey ran as an anti-war and anti-Nixon candidate, while Ashbrook opposed Nixon’s dГ©tente policies towards the China and the Soviet Union. In the New Hampshire primary McCloskey’s platform of peace garnered 11% of the vote to Nixon’s 83%, with Ashbrook receiving 6%.

              Nixon won 1323 of the 1324 delegates to the GOP convention, with McCloskey receiving the vote of one delegate from New Mexico.

              Primaries popular vote result[21]:

              Richard Nixon – 5,378,704 (86.92%)

              Unpledged – 317,048 (5.12%)

              John Ashbrook – 311,543 (5.03%)

              Pete McCloskey – 132,731 (2.15%)  

            1. second guessing myself.

              I just remember the coronation in 72 in Miami.  There was that great moment when Sammy Davis Jr. hugged Nixon on stage.  I never saw Nixon look more uncomfortable.  Not because it was Davis, but because he was not a man who liked to be hugged.

              Someone once said that Nixon always looked uncomfortable in his own skin, and I think that is apt.

              Thanks for setting me straight on the year.

    1.    He has the clearest and strongest programs among major (Dem) candidates on Iraq withdrawal, health care, carbon reduction.  He openly confronts the growing imbalance between wage earners and corporate ownership class.  He consistently and powerfully frames issues from a progressive perspective.

        Nonetheless without a groundswell of public support he will not get equal coverage from the media for three reasons that I can see:  (1)His challenge to corporate structure threatens corporate-owned media. (2) He does not have equal celebrity-star power compared to HRC and BO, and media and public love celebrity. (3) He appears not to schmooze well with the press, and they seem to need stroking.

        In this situation the best he can do is leverage his support for a voice at the table, shaping policy, or commanding a prominent appointed position.  I hope he brings all the heat he can, becuz Hilary and Obama need to be pushed.      

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

70 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!