European Tribune

Display:
He'll make a fine Atty Gen.

He lost my interest when he couldn't make NC competitive in 2004.  So much for making the South competitive.

I disagree with your IA assessment.  He'd been going there non-stop for years.  If the best he could do was 3rd in delegates that shows he's not going to out sell either of the other 2 anywhere else.  It was a flop.

After that it was all down hill in the voting booth figures.  Forget the media.  The votes didn't come in states with small media markets (only a very few watch cable political bs) and where grass roots campaigning is the key.  Edwards supporters need to blame something but can't stand the idea that the problem was the voters having a look but deciding to go with one of the other 2 by 5:1....

by irrelevant, I only meant if he was a very distant 3rd and only got a few delegates, he would have lost any relevancy before the convention.  

As for a future political career, maybe he should try Governor of NC to polish up that claim of southern appeal.  

by HiD on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 02:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, to be fair, I'm not sure NC could've been made competitive even if Kerry had chosen Jesus as his running mate.  Edwards was still the obvious choice for his compelling story and speeches, and the fact that he lent Kerry some "ruralization" when Kerry was being painted as some kind of Yankee aristocrat.

Was he third in delegates for Iowa?  I know he ran second among state convention delegates (the tally shown on television that night), but I wasn't aware of him coming in third on actual DNC delegates.

Some Edwards supporters do, indeed, have a need to blame something, and some are quite nasty, but I think they make a valid point on the media.  The press coverage of this race has been complete shit.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 02:42:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Edwards was always the 'We're still a democracy because we have a real fire-breathing eat-the-rich stand-up but aw shucks what a shame he didn't win' candidate.

I'd love to believe otherwise, but he was never really in the running.

There's no solid progressive narrative in the US, and no media space for progressive ideals. dKos isn't much better. The Dems would rather eat each other than agree on real change.

There seems to be an incredible blindness to practical issues. It's all about the most superficial take on superficial narratives, with people apparently supporting whoever makes them feel good about themselves.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 04:40:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Dems have been eating each other for at least forty years, so that's nothing new.  Edwards was very much in the running prior to the post-Iowa blackout, and let's be honest: It was the cry and Bill Clinton's pre-NH meltdown that did the most to assist that.

There was only ever going to be one anti-Clinton vote.  The press made sure of that by solidifying her status throughout 5/6s of 2007.  There was a shot at changing that -- or at least I'd hoped there was -- after Iowa, but they're the Clintons.  For all the talk of the press "hating them" (a total crock of shit given how reporters play into their narratives), the primaries were written as Hillary vs Someone Else long ago, as anyone who's watched the whole time knows.

Of course people vote for whomever makes them feel good.  And Edwards is no exception there.  And, yes, it fucking stupid.

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 05:00:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agreed on all counts.
I've marveled for many years at the American lack of the ability to cooperate, to compromise, to adopt a strategy incorporating common social goals, on all sides of the social spectrum in the US. The Repubs don't really do much better- the rank and file Repub just surrendered his or her input, and took what was served up on the political/ideological plate--and their party has been largely destroyed as a consequence. And now that I've a good big dose of life and politics in Europe, it's the same-a bloody epidemic of squabbling over chicken bones, while the same old oligarchy eats the chicken.
I search for central causes- social processes, ideas that might be the major influences in producing such a gigantic body of tame people, and ironically, it often seems to come down to "competition" as embodied in the neoliberal/capitalist story.
A linear, two-dimensional mechanistic story that reifies "competition" as a way to improve things, and is widely believed, made Edwards' story of strength through cooperation, compassion, class consciousness  --- just incomprehensible.     He never had a chance.


"There is mysterious music in democracy, when people decide to believe in themselves." ---Bill Greider, The Nation.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Fri Feb 1st, 2008 at 03:58:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Edwards came out of Iowa with one less delegate than Clinton--and six less than Obama.  On the day he dropped out, Edwards was still quite competitive in the delegate numbers, all of which are still tiny compared to the number needed to nominate anyone.
by keikekaze on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 07:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A VP candidate can't "make a state competitive" if he is not sent in to campaign for that state. Indeed, selecting a running mate from NC and then refusing to send him to campaign in NC would, if anything, reduce the chances of the ticket ... NC will understand that they've been written off, if they see the "favorite son" at the campaign launch and then he never comes back to campaign.

Up here in Ohio, the counties where the Kerry campaign sent Edwards to campaign in, those were the ones where they outperformed Gore/Lieberman. Where Kerry campaigned, they did no better.

I put the result down to the top of the ticket and voter suppression, but still and all, Edwards helped the ticket in Ohio, and the Republicans have never taken the White House without Ohio.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Jan 31st, 2008 at 08:22:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bollocks

If you can't carry your own state, where you've been a Senator etc etc you don't have much to add to a ticket.  Same with Gore in 2000.  Says a lot when your home state won't even hold their nose and back you.

nice try though.

by HiD on Fri Feb 1st, 2008 at 12:22:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Its entirely hypothetical whether or not he could carry his home state, since he was not permitted to try.

So, yeah, I'm calling BS on you dropping an old stale turd of right wing talking point that falls apart if someone pokes at it with their toe.

All it says when a campaign does not ask people for their vote and then the campaign loses is that you are likely to lose where you don't try to win.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Feb 1st, 2008 at 01:54:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yes it was put to the test.  An election was held.  Not even close.

If you have to campaign aggressively to win your home state there's a problem.  

I realize you are an unhappy Edwards backer, but get real.  He came in a distant 3rd in this race.  Time to get over it and move on.

by HiD on Fri Feb 1st, 2008 at 04:53:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... there's a problem'.

No, having to campaign at all in a state is not a problem, its a fact of life. If US Presidential politics, a campaign that abandons a state where it does not enjoy a strong PV advantage at the outset to the other party, does not win the state.

Putting the hypothesis "to the test" involves campaigning and losing. The top of the ticket conceding a state and losing is not something that the bottom of the ticket can conceivably do anything to change, so a bottom of the ticket not flipping a Republican PV state to blue in those circumstances is a "no observation" data point.

Judging a candidate on that basis says either the person making the judgment is gullible to Mess Media talking points, or else the person making the judgment is arriving at a foreordained conclusion and and finds the argument a convenient rationalization.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri Feb 1st, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
but Edwards ran behind him.  Says something.

If John Edwards had insisted on campaigning in his home state, he could have given it a shot.  Suspect he also knew he couldn't flip that situation given his own weak standing there.  C'est la vie.  He added nothing to the ticket in the end like a 20 yr younger John Glenn might have.  Favorite sons usually have some extra support.

I get very little info from the mass media.  Blaming your problems/losses on them also says something.  Edward's message did not sell.  Not in 2004 and not again in 2008.  Not in states with retail politics nor in those with wholesale messaging.  Sorry.  At some point you gotta move on.  Or you can wring your hands until they are sore.  Up to you.

by HiD on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 06:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series