Why I'm Voting For John Edwards in The NJ Primary

why your vote for Edwards in NJ will be wasted (1.00 / 2)

To win a delegate in NJ, a candidate needs to get at least 15% of the vote in a delegate district.

As hard as our good friends, Rosi Efthim, Jeff Gardner, Carol Hoernlein, and Mitch Manzella are working in their respective districts, it is unlikely that Edwards will reach 15% in any delegate district with the possible exception of Dick Codey's.

In fact, no matter how well or poorly Edwards performs in NV and SC, it is unlikely that NJ will be one of the states that he will visit or dedicate any resources to between now and February 5.

Barack Obama is the only candidate who is positioned to compete with Hillary in NJ.  And every vote that John Edwards gets here will only serve to prevent Obama from being able to pull off a miraculous and meaningful upset in NJ on February 5.

The 5-10% of the vote that Edwards gets in any delegate district will most likely enable Hillary Clinton to claim a  majority of delegates in most districts no matter how close the statewide vote might be.

Even if Obama is able to get enough votes to split the delegates in districts that are allocated 4 delegates, Clinton will probably get 2-out-of-3 delegates or 3-out-of-5 delegates in most of the others.

Thus, even if she only beats Obama 47%-43% with Edwards and Kucinich claiming 10% of the statewide vote, she will most likely get 60% of the district-level delegates plus all of the state's superdelegates.

Your delegate district, which is a five delegate/alternate district, in particular is going to be hotly contested, because  Clinton and Obama are going to be represented by Valerie Huttle and Loretta Weinberg respectively.

Despite the fact that both are Real Democrats and allies, both Huttle and Weinberg want to go to Denver and are going to be working very hard and using all of the resources at their disposal to win.

As great as Carol is, it will be very hard for her to compete with them.  Unfortunately for her, even if Edwards gets the 15%, she probably won't get to go to Denver (at least not as a delegate or alternate) since the district's alternate seat is a male seat.  For this reason, I wouldn't even vote for Edwards for her sake.

It isn't too late for progressives in NJ to unify behind Obama and give him the best chance to upset Hillary or at the very least narrow her margins of victory and delegate claims on February 5.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM UTC

look who is ready to jump ship (0.00 / 0)

After reading this, ignore what I said above about Edwards possibly winning delegates in Codey's district.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:24:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Codey Would Lose a Measure of Respect From Progressives if He "Jumps Ship"...... (0.00 / 0)

......and I assure Senator Codey that the future of NJ politics is progressive.

If the sole criterion for supporting Edwards was being assured that he would win the nomination on the first ballot; then everyone would "jump ship".   Fortunately, it's not that simple.

I hope Senator Codey reads, and carefully considers, the points/ideas I've raised above before he decides to retreat.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:51:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Don't Think The NJ Caucus Results Were a Fluke (4.00 / 1)

A solid majority of NJ progressives prefer Edwards.   Why?   Because he's more progressive than either Obama or Clinton.

The only way you can even try to get around that obvious fact is/was to question Edwards' sincerity; and, my friend, that's a low blow that serves no one well.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:02:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not a fluke, but... (1.00 / 2)

...not representative of the people who will be voting in NJ's Democratic primary election by any stretch of the imagination.

If NJ was holding a caucus instead of a primary, it is very possible if not likely that Edwards would be much better positioned to win, because the pool of voters would be much smaller and be much more representative of the active and engaged progressives who are members of organizations like NJ for Democracy and regular participants here on Blue Jersey.

This is probably the best argument that I can think of why NJ should have had an Iowa-style caucus instead of a primary in addition to the fact that it would be much cheaper.

I am sorry that you think my unwillingness to believe a word that John Edwards says is a low blow, but it is a fact.  I don't believe that he is the sincere advocate for progressive issues that he claims to be.

I don't believe that people change as dramatically as his campaign would have us believe as quickly as he has.  I do not accept his apologies for his votes on the war, the Bush tax cuts, and bankruptcy legislation that stripped poor, working, and middle-class families of protections that they need so badly today, and I do not believe that someone who really cares about the poor, working, and middle class would have ever voted the way that he has in the past.

In my opinion, John Edwards is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:34:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Equally "Strong" Negative "Cases" Could Be Made... (0.00 / 0)

...for the whole Democratic field; and I'll leave it to the Republicans to do their worst.

Obviously, the bottom line for you is that you sincerely believe that Edwards is lying to us about virtually all he says.  You've made that clear.  It's OK.   I believe your own intentions are for the best.   I just think you're instincts, in this case, are wrong....as, obviously you think mine are wrong.

Clearly, Edwards isn't the Dalai Lama; he has not fully transcended his own subjectivity/ego....but then, who among us has?

I dare say, we are all "mixed bags" and all quite capable of "messing up" here and there.   I could go down the list and talk about the flaws and foibles of every great Democratic president of the last hundred years...but you know the fact as well as I...but I wonder if you understand all that you know?

Comparing a John Edwards to a Mitt Romney is imho a wee bit outrageous.

For what it's worth, chill out, your guy is very likely to score more points than Edwards; by scraping and clawing to keep Edwards down you actually reflect poorly on  Obama, whom I firmly believe to be a brilliant, noble man of the highest character (though, also, not a saint).

Meanwhile, I forgive you your cynicism in this case and look forward to working with you in the future....

...and we'll see if Edwards (assuming he isn't our next president ;-) maintains his commitment to fight the institutionalized corruption that permeates American governance/business as his life's mission.

BTW

The comment you're responding to was posted in error as I was in process of editing it....the finished product is the one that followed.  Sorry for any confusion.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:45:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Might I also suggest.... (0.00 / 0)

...that Edwards was voting as a Senator from a SOUTHERN STATE???

It's easy to forget if the only part of NC you experience is the Raleigh/Durham area (which is where I go to visit family), but much of NC is quite conservative.  Running for president, one can represent a far larger constituency.

---

by: brilliantatbreakfast @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 22:03:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The NJ "Presidential Caucus" Wasn't a Fluke (3.33 / 3)

A solid majority of highly informed/active NJ progressives preferred John Edwards.  Why?  Simply because he's more progressive than either Obama or Clinton.

The only way you can even try to get around that obvious irrefutable fact is/was to question Edwards' sincerity/motivations; which you have done repeatedly on this site.  My friend, that's a low blow that serves no one (especially Democrats)  well.

IF progressives throughout the state actually get out and vote, and are not dis-couraged by voices like yours, Edwards will get more than 15% in NJ.  

Your negative affirmation that I (and all other progressives who are supporting Edwards) are somehow "wasting" our votes is only true if we believe you.  Then your curse becomes self fulfilling.  Why not let folks vote their consciences and highest aspiriations whenever possible?

If you've read my diary above in full, and understood its nuances; then it should be clear to you that we're on the same side.   We both wish to see the most progressive candidate possible emerge from the Denver convention.

As I've said, we/I should enthusiastically support any of the Democrats running in the general election; that's how we win the general!

All, this internecine nonsense just serves to weaken the party; let the Republicans do that, not us.

Hell, if any of the Republicans up now were running against Joe Ferriero in November; I'd hold my nose and vote for the Democrat.  

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:37:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

An Obama supporter sez (4.00 / 2)

Hey, losers, compromise before you're  forced to & vote for my candidate. That's the same "wasted vote" crap  I aways hear from the establishment types. &  good reason for Obama supporters to be nice to us  Edwards supporters. I am casting a pro-Edwards vote, not an  anti-Hillary vote. & this  diary  should  be promoted,  it's an important discussion.  

---

by: Wesleylake @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 23:39:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Wesley, In Effect, The Diary HAS Been Promoted Thanks To Dick Codey and Huntsu!!! And that's WONDERFUL!!!! :-) n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:03:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm Still Voting for Edwards, too (And so should you) (4.00 / 7)

I find it somewhat an affront that some Obama and Clinton supporters are asking that John Edwards, who is only 7 delegates behind them at the moment, to drop out of the race right now.  This campaign season has been particularly unfair to Edwards, who has done remarkably well thus far despite not being a celebrity candidate, getting about 4 to 5 times less media coverage than Obama and Clinton, and having less than a third of their funds.

Edwards came out with an economic stimulus plan last year, well before Clinton and Obama. Edwards' global warming plan was called the "most comprehensive" to date by the League of Conservation Voters, and his health care plan was hailed by Paul Krugman and others as the best among the Democratic field. Edwards has been shaping the Democratic debate for the 2008 for so long; he had the big ideas and big initiatives out well in advance of Obama and Clinton.

Regarding the delegate threshold in N.J., I would think that Edwards could get 15% in several places, especially if he wins Nevada and gets a top-two finish in S.C. McCain was an afterthought in the Republican race until recently; both the Republican and Democratic races are still volatile, and Edwards can make a move.

---

by: Martin @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:38:17 PM UTC

Edwards remains the most progressive AND the most electable (4.00 / 7)

I'm glad we are having this discussion.  I have heard the argument, the one that Bertin is espousing here, that John Edwards supporters should direct their support to Barack Obama in order to prevent Hillary from winning NJ.  I've thought about it thoroughly and decided that we need to stick with Edwards, for a variety of reasons which i will outline below.

1. We should not let the corporate media determine who is worthy of support and who is not.  Just because Edwards gets the least coverage of the big 3, does not mean he is least deserving candidate

2.  He's won every single debate.  I've watched the last 3 of them and Edwards won them all hands down.  Even my undecided friends said the same thing.  Focus groups done after every debate have revealed the same thing

3.  He remains both the most progressive AND the most electable candidate in the race.   Why should we throw our support to the candidate with the most style in the race (Obama) over the candidate with the most progressive substance? (Edwards)

4.  He consistently beats all the leading Republicans by the widest margins.   Codey clearly sees this, he identifies it as his reason for endorsing Edwards in the first place.  Is there any doubt that John Edwards at the top of the ticket would run away with states like Ohio, Michigan and Virginia?

5.  He is the true heir to Jefferson, Jackson and FDR.   The truth is that we are in another gilded age, where big wealthy corporate interest dominate our media, control our political system, even name our college bowl games and sports arenas.  The corporate profits are through the roof, meanwhile middle class Americans are working longer and harder and getting less for it.  Edwards realizes this more than any other candidate in the race.  He will restore the power in America back to the middle class and away from wealthy corporate special interests.  

6.  The argument that he cant get 15% in any delegate district is also off.  What i have found is that the MORE engaged and interested in Democratic politics people are,the more likely they are to be for Edwards.  I was at a Corzine town hall meeting in Morris County last night, i had no less than 5 people tell me they wanted to vote for Edwards but were upset he doesnt get the media attention.  

I could go on and on about the reasons for supporting Edwards.  Here's my final argument:  Even if Edwards only gets 10-15% of delegates nationwide, he still will play a decisive role at the national convention and likely force Obama to pick him as Veep in order to assure himself the nomination.  

I'm going to continue to support Edwards through February 5th, and strongly.

---

by: BootGOP2006 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:39:23 PM UTC

most primary voters are not engaged (0.00 / 0)

6.  The argument that he cant get 15% in any delegate district is also off.  What i have found is that the MORE engaged and interested in Democratic politics people are,the more likely they are to be for Edwards.  I was at a Corzine town hall meeting in Morris County last night, i had no less than 5 people tell me they wanted to vote for Edwards but were upset he doesnt get the media attention.

If most Democratic primary election voters in NJ were 1% as engaged and interested in Democratic politics as Chip and the rest of our state's progressive community, there is no doubt in my mind that John Edwards would be positioned to do much better here.

But the fact of the matter is that they aren't.  In a state of 9 million people, 40% of whom are Democrats, 30% of whom are Republicans, 15% of whom are Democratic-leaning independents and unaffiliateds, and 15% of whom are Republican-leaning independents and unaffiliateds, there are probably no more than 10,000 who are engaged and interested to the degree that Chip is envisioning and probably less than 1,000 who are as engaged and interested as Chip himself.

These estimates do not include federal, state, county, and municipal employees or county committeepersons who to varying degrees and for a variety of reasons are inextricably linked to the Democratic Party.

Most of the are regular people, living regular lives, who pay just enough attention and have just enough interest to get them to go to the polls and vote in the primary election.  Far more people are even less engaged than them.

How many people are we expecting to vote in the NJ's Democratic primary election on February 5?  One million?  More?  Less?  Assuming for a moment that one million is a good estimate, 15% of that is 150,000.  Divide that by 20 delegate districts and Edwards needs to average 7,500 votes per delegate district.

Of course, Chip and Rosi are in red delegate districts that contain far less Democrats than Carol and Jeff, so it is possible that they might only need to get 3,000 votes for Edwards, while their peers in the blue delegate districts might need to get 12,000.

But even if the threshold for Chip and Rosi is only 3,000 votes, I would be curious to know how many 1s and 2s they and their fellow volunteers in their districts have recorded through their canvassing and phonebanking to date.  I would be shocked if any of them came forward and said that they had 1,000.

As far as Edwards being Obama's VP goes, I seriously doubt that he wants to be anybody's VP again, unless he is counting on the possibility that if Obama were elected President, he would be assassinated by a white supremacist during his first term like JFK was, which is too calculating and craven for even John Edwards.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:05:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Putting Aside The Counterproductive Dark Implications/Imagery... (0.00 / 0)

....you again, are making what is an, essentially, cynical/negative argument that isn't based on any numbers I've seen or logic that makes sense to me.

If Obama got the 60/40 split you'd "settle for" do you really see Obama coming into Denver with more than half of the delegates, even if Edwards were to drop out immediately?    I don't.

My own gut (and I sure have one these days ;-) tells me that the only real chance we have of nominating either Edwards or Obama is the scenario of a brokered convention in which the two more progressive candidates strike an accord.

Further, it will be great for the Democratic party as a whole i.e. every Democrat running for office across the nation if these three smart sharp informed passionate candidates spend the next six or so months righteously/factually exposing/impeaching the Bush/Cheney fiasco for the abomination that is was/is.  Let them do in the court of public opinion what Pelosi and Reed don't have the courage to do in the congress.  

The Bush/Cheny administration has been a total abomination; three people could easily spend six months competing to see who can expose the incompetence and the corruption best; while also offering positive/alternative agendas.

Let the competition for the Democratic nomination be one in which the candidate who can most effectively kick Republican ass  (by simply telling the truth)  win!

There are good reasons that various polls conclude that Edwards is the most electable in November; it would behoove Obama/Clinton and their supporters to simply accept Edwards as an honorable competitor.

This is one of those times in which the "high road" is clearly the winning way.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:31:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I am only talking about NJ (0.00 / 0)

There has actually been some discussion that in certain states (SC and other Southern states in particular) that a three-way race actually benefits Obama, because Edwards has the capacity to attract voters who would never vote for a African-American.

But such talk is way too speculative for me.  I would prefer to see a two-ray race between Clinton and Obama, because I think that race gives Obama the best chance to win or at least come very close to winning a state that many has assumed was locked up for Clinton.

If Obama can win NJ or lose by 5 percentage points or less, it should have a huge ripple effect on the election as a whole.

Any strategy that is based on a brokered convention is pointless.  I should know, because I was the one talking about it when I was advocating for a Draft Gore movement.  While not impossible, a brokered convention on the Democratic side is highly improbable.

What is more likely is that a Clinton sweep or split of NV and SC, should give her enough of a boost when combined with a divided progressive community for her to win a significant majority of the February 5 delegates and enough momentum to lock up the Democratic nomination by the end of February or beginning of March.

However, if Edwards were to drop out and endorse Obama, I think he sweeps NV and SC and gets enough delegates on February 5 to become the clear front-runner and lock up the Democratic nomination by the end of February or beginning of March.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:15:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Let's Hope That The Obama Folks Who May Be... (4.00 / 2)

...trying to negotiate the  result you suggest are more skilled in diplomacy than you have been here.

Meanwhile, Edwards is still running as hard as he can; and we should all (imho) respect his right to do so without resorting to personal attacks on his sincerity/motivations....aren't such attacks/arguments the epitome of ad hominem?

Again, I understand that you are passionate; but you aren't doing Obama any favors here.  (Though the Clinton folks might have a bit of a smile on their faces about now, eh?)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:55:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Take A Breath (0.00 / 0)

Let's see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina.  Maybe Edwards will win one.  Arguing about it right now just seems to be a lot of plumage waving to no great benefit.

We can renew this discussion after South Carolina.  Right now, the only potential thing to occur is having words said that just harden hearts.

There is a lot of practical work that can be done for your preferred candidate in the meantime.  Perhaps we should focus on that.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:52:21 PM UTC

If Two Weeks Before a Presidential Primary Isn't.... (0.00 / 0)

....the time to have a civil, intelligent informed discussion/"argument" over who folks should vote for; then there isn't any appropriate time.  lol

Meanwhile,  let us agree to all strive to avoid "hardened hearts" by keeping the discussion civil, intelligent, good willed and fact based.  (That applies doubly to the candidates, and their surrogates.)  You are right on that score.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:13:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Check your math :-D (0.00 / 0)

It is two days to Nevada; nine days to South Carolina and 19 days to New Jersey (which I would say is closer to three weeks).  :-)

All of this discussion is moot until after South Carolina which is still ten days before New Jersey.  I would be very surprised if Edwards stays in if he loses both.  Unless there is a discussion about donating money or traveling to SC (and I doubt that anything said here is going to result in either of those actions happening), the rest has about as much significance as trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  If Edwards wins one and stays in, then a discussion of your point of view would be useful.  But, if he leaves the race then all of it is moot.

Polls that occurred before Iowa and New Hampshire are worthless.  So, all the grand analysis is also worthless.

The second sentence of your diary showed the reason you wrote the diary.  If you are writing in reply to people, you cannot be surprised when they reply back.  If you feel that they haven't been civil before, what makes you think they are going to be civil now?

Sticking to actual New Jersey events and commenting on them is worthwhile.  Your diary could have gone on Kos or anywhere else and been just as timely.

Finally, we are probably two of the last people able to lecture others about being civil.  ;-)

However, I have tried to stay out of these horserace discussions because I knew where it would lead and that they are a waste of time.  I wouldn't have bothered to make any comment (even a cooling down one) if it wasn't for the diary being recommended.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:09:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I meant The NJ primary referred to in the title of this diary; Thanks for eliciting a clarification. 19 Days it is! n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:01:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The surest way to elect Hillary (3.00 / 2)

is to vote for Edwards.  Edwards is not even close to leading in any state poll.  There is no mathematical way he can possibly gain enough delegates to win.  If he would stop splitting the anti-Hillary vote with Obama, Hillary would be struggling.

As it stands now, HIllary will be halfway to the nomination after Super Tuesday (expect Obama to win SC and HRC to win Nv).  If Edwards isn't in the race, Obama is very close.  If Edwards is in the race, Obama trails by 300 or so.

At some point, Democrats have to learn how to vote strategically.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:00:54 PM UTC

As the numbers quoted in the diary show.... (0.00 / 0)

the second choice of Edwards voters in NH was around 60% or so for Obama; certainly not the 90%+ that, I believe, would lend weight to your argument.

As you know all Hillary has to do is get to Denver with something close to a majority of elected delegates and she wins based on the unelected establishmentarian "superdelegates" who will likely mostly break her way.

As I said above; there is a fair chance that Edwards keeping in the race may lead to a brokered convention; which, frankly, is the only way I see anyone other than Clinton winning the nomination.

Edwards delegates would, I dare say,  break for Obama at the rate of 90%+ ....so long as Obama was appropriately politic about the process.

My vote is strategic; it's just a different strategy than yours...and it also allows for any potential implosion of Clinton or Obama between now and the convention.

Edwards and Obama, together, can pull in larger numbers of voters/delegates in a Democratic primary than either separately.

To me it's obvious that they should find a way join forces by running on the same ticket; but perhaps I ask too much. :-)

In any event, if the three of these wonderful Democratic candidates spend every minute of their time shedding light upon the dirty little details of the Bush administrations perfidious perniciousness and challenging the Republicans to either support or reject their president; I predict that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will win the presidency in a landslide that gives us a virtually filibuster proof majority in the US Congress!!!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:36:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'll take a 60/40 split, but... (0.00 / 0)

...I actually think that in NJ, it would be closer to 70/30.  If Obama can win both NV and SC, he will be very competitive with Clinton going into February 5.  

When you consider the strength that he will have in the state's urban areas, if you combine that with a unified progressive opposition to Hillary Clinton, there is a chance that he could win NJ or at the very least, come close enough to claim the kind of victory that Bill Clinton did in NH in 1992.  But if Edwards is still an active candidate and his supporters in NJ are still working on his behalf, then Hillary probably wins by 10-12 points.

Even if Edwards were to somehow win both NV and SC, because of his campaign's limited financial resources, NJ (as well as CA, CT, MA, and NY) is not going to be one of the states that Edwards targets on February 5.

As much respect as I have for Carol, Chip, Jeff, Mike, Mitch, and the rest of my fellow Dean Democrats who are supporting Edwards, they do not have enough resources to mobilize enough voters between now and February 5 without an official campaign presence and a minimal amount of paid media to crack the 15% threshhold.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 18:29:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hillary is hardly wonderful (3.00 / 1)

She is better than any of the Republicans, which isn't saying much.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:16:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

amen (0.00 / 0)

Thank you, XT, for reinforcing my argument with far less words.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:42:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The breakdown (0.00 / 0)

is here.  Edwards is polling in the single digits in half of the super-tuesday states.  He's done.  Stick a fork in him.  Obama should go ahead and offer him the Veep and get him out of the race.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:00:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

VP? (4.00 / 1)

Do you really think that Edwards would take it if offered?

I don't see it, but I could be wrong.  It definitely wouldn't be the first time and most certainly won't be the last.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:19:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Either One Of Them Might/Could/Should Be Willing To Serve On A Winning Ticket (0.00 / 0)

At some point, both Obama and Edwards should realize that they are complementary.

I really don't care if they flip a coin.   There are good reasons for either one of them to yield to top spot to the other and lead America to 16 years of a progressive evolution.

Obviously, I'm reaching for an ideal result.  Is that so terrible?

As I've said, I'm supporting any Democrat that emerges from the convention.

I dare say that even Hillary Clinton wouldn't dare veto a single payer bill if it was ever put to her; and any Republican certainly would.                 :-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:30:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

single payer (0.00 / 0)

President Hillary Clinton would never let a single payer bill get to House/Senate floor.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:22:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree That She Might Try.... (0.00 / 0)

...to block it; but the premise of my projection was that is was passed.   She wouldn't dare veto it.

Any Republican would.....and I suspect, Mike Bollomberg would too.

That'll be an interesting hypothetical to be put to him if he puts a billion bucks to try to buy the presidency.   (What the hell, he would still have 10 bil left!  ;-)

Money =Free speech!  Right?

Sorry for the minor digression there...I couldn't resist.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 17:46:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards (0.00 / 0)

Edwards, I am sorry to say, is a lost cause in this race.  Obama has the best chance of winning in November and leading our party in a way that creates a more solid Democratic majority and put us in a better place than the Minority Party status the Clintons ushered in.

"That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be-it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be." -Saul Alinsky

---

by: BlueBergen @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:10:38 PM UTC

You're not counting all known delegates (0.00 / 0)

the positions of many of the super-delegates (the ones whose purpose is to keep democracy from functioning too well) is pretty well known.  Jon Corzine, for example, is pretty well guaranteed to cast his vote for HRC.  Why act like these delegates are not a known - and powerful - entity.

The real count (as of today) is:
Clinton - 190
Obama - 103
Edwards - 51
Kucinich - 1

It's pretty clear that what is really keeping Obama from competing closely is Edwards' delegate count being taken away from him.  No matter how you slice it, releasing those delegates makes it a closer race.  Keeping them locked up - and staying in to keep even more away from Obama - only works to Hillary's advantage.

---

by: Thurman Hart @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:53:07 PM UTC

Yes the CNN numbers.... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...
...you quote include the "unelected delegates.....which makes the question clear enough.

Given the arcane "rules", would the more progressive two of these candidates be better off with each trying to reach out to a broad spectrum of progressives during the primary electoral process so that it becomes clear to all that, in terms of the actual numbers of primary Democratic voters, that Hillary only attracted a minority......and then, at the convention create a coalition with the garnered delegates (again, assuming that Clinton couldn't get 50% even with the unelected appointed delegates).

Or would they be better off joining forces now ? (I don't see them anywhere near ready to do that as they are both heavily emotionally/pridefully invested in strongly "staying the "coarse".

I don't see any scenario in which Obama alone can stop Clinton given her institutionalized advantages.  

I wonder what Corzine would do if Obama yielded to Edwards after a first vote failed to generate a majority?

I spent nearly two hours sitting a few rows away from him Monday night, and my gut tells me he still has a connection with his own soul/conscience.

The combined ticket would be strong and would have the rank and file nominating the candidate (as opposed to the appointed cogs) up in arms!  The demonstrations/atmosphere would be high voltage.

If it ever became clear that the "super" delegates were stood in the way of a truly progressive team I suspect the "Democratic Party" as weve known it would be rightly shattered by the grass roots explosion that would follow.

My sense was/is and remains that the only way the establishmentarian DCC jjuggernaught can be stopped is if Obama and Edwards coalesce and galvanize the Democratic primary electorate.

All indications are still that, in a general, Edwards remains the strongest candidate and that the Republicans are lusting to run against Clinton.

Obama and Edwards have an opportunity, each of them, to positively shock the world by putting aside their own individual "plans" in service to a higher purpose.   ;-)

Let me pre-empt the cynics; I plead guilty to the crime of projecting visions of common human decency.  lol

Frankly, all the possible permutations and possibilities are more than I can ascertain and/or calculate.    All I'm doing here is declaring/sharing my own vote and attempting to then rationalize what is, essentially, a hunch.

This discussion has been most enjoyable, and informative for me, and I hope it's been good for y'all too!!!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:13:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"All I'm doing here is declaring/sharing my own vote and attempting to then rationalize what is, essentially, a hunch. " (0.00 / 0)

I see.  We should not be denied the opportunity to bask in your brilliance and well-reasoned conclusions.  :-)

Well, you certainly don't have to worry about a self-esteem deficit!  :-D

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:59:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have You No Shame? n/t (0.00 / 0)

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:37:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And if You're going to quote me.... (0.00 / 0)

.....please do it in context.

Obama and Edwards have an opportunity, each of them, to positively shock the world by putting aside their own individual "plans" in service to a higher purpose.   ;-)

Let me pre-empt the cynics; I plead guilty to the crime of projecting visions of common human decency.  lol

Frankly, all the possible permutations and possibilities are more than I can ascertain and/or calculate.    All I'm doing here is declaring/sharing my own vote and attempting to then rationalize what is, essentially, a hunch.

This discussion has been most enjoyable, and informative for me, and I hope it's been good for y'all too!!!

It's just like you to extract a snippet of something and to put the ugliest kind of spin on it.

You make it hard for folks to love and forgive you; but I'm working on it; so help me God!  :-)
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 04:51:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't... (0.00 / 0)

try to speak for "folks."  Just speak for yourself.

Fortunately, whether YOU "love and forgive" me isn't something that is going to keep me up at night.  :-D

You wrote this diary to reply to people who urged an Edwards withdrawal and then act surprised when there is a reaction to your "well-reasoned" arguments.  I sincerely doubt that there are many (if any) genuinely undecided people who read the blog.  If you care enough about progressive Democratic politics to read it, then you already have (at least) a first preference.

Trying to convince people to support Edwards (using this blog) when we don't even know if he'll be in the race is just premature.  I have been critical of those who urge some sort of immediate withdrawal for the same reason:  let's see what happens in Nevada and South Carolina.  No matter what is said here, nothing is going to happen until they vote.  Nothing that is said here will have ANY effect on what happens in either state.  So, other than the pleasure of hearing your own brilliance, what is the point?

At least on THIS blog.  If you want to write rapturously about anybody or anything, there is space on Kos or a number of other national blogs--which MIGHT have some effect in NV or SC.

A more useful idea would be that instead of TALKING about it HERE, to actually spend some time and effort getting real voters to support your chosen candidate.  That wouldn't just be for you Nick (although spending some time working in real politics would do wonders for you), but for others who want to discuss the Presidential race on the blog over the next week.  Contacting real voters will do far, far more for your preferred candidate than the most "brilliant" diary here.

We have plenty to talk about with state politics and government.  Let's do that.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 13:14:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Don't try to speak for "folks." just speak for yourself." Yes SIR!!! ;-) n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 17:51:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards for VP? (4.00 / 1)

I don't think he'd be interested--been there, done that.  

Please, let's not let this discussion become so overheated that we lose sight of the major issue:  winning the White House and getting veto-proof majorities in Congress.  To say "my candidate is better than your candidate" is one thing--but I don't want the Republithugs to get any ammunition from us that they can use against whoever turns out to be the Democrats on the national ticket.  Can we refrain from candidate-bashing--please?

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:44:00 AM UTC

No Matter Who The Democratic Nominee is... (4.00 / 2)

...we must anticipate, and prepare for, the lowest, dirtiest and most vicious attacks imaginable from the Republicans.  What those will be should be obvious to all; and, this time around I pray our candidate let's nothing dirty go by without an immediate, powerful, truthful and righteous response that thoroughly rebuts, exposes the ploy and redirects attention to real issues.

They have nothing else to try to run on.   In any objective discussion based on the merits/facts of real issues; the people who have strongly supported Bush are bereft at best.  

Only in a mudfest might there be sufficient distraction to permit a Republican win.

That's why I would like to see these three (and let's not forget Kucinich!) spending the next few months having informed, sharp, intelligent discussions/debates in which they are competing to show us (and the nation/world) just what was/is wrong with all the dirty details of the Bush/Cheney administration and to show how all of the Republicans running enabled various elements of those mistakes, incompetencies and corruptions.....and articulate each of their own alternative solutions/approaches/options.

Imagine how politically muscular and lean our team would be by convention time in such a scenario!  Imagine how much information/understanding might be conveyed to the overall electorate by such a prolonged civil, dynamic and even entertaining series of discussions/debates.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:35:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

nope (1.00 / 1)

I seriously doubt that any of the Republican Presidential campaigns are lurking around here, looking for ammunition.  They have more than enough of their own.  Nothing that is being discussed here is new info.

This is not the Cub Scouts.  Please stop trying to play den mother.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:27:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why play into it? (0.00 / 0)

What I'm concerned about is primarily attitudes.  There's no need to descend into personal attacks on anybody--even me.    

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:25:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what personal attacks? (0.00 / 0)

Nick Lento and I and others have been having a discussion, heated, but polite, about why voting for Edwards in NJ is a wasted vote if one recognizes that because of the lack of resources his campaign has dedicated here and the way votes in NJ translate into delegates, he is not going to win a single district-level delegate (I don't know, but XT can probably tell us if there are any superdelegates in NJ who are pledged to John Edwards) in this state.

If you think that me asking you to stop trying to play den mother was a personal attack, I am sorry.  I will rephrase.

We are all responsible adults here and at no time have either Nick or myself or anybody else participating in this discussion said anything that can be described as a personal attack.

It is not necessary for you or anyone else to tell us to stop talking about a particular topic or that we are going to have to come together to support whomever the Democratic nominee will be.  Dean Democrats like myself stepped up and supported John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004 and there will be unity behind Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as well.

But it is not necessary for you to remind us of this ad nasuseum anytime a conversation about the candidates gets heated.

I don't know about anybody else, but I know that every time that somebody beats me over the head with the party unity mantra, it makes me less interested in being unified, not moreso.  If the alternatives weren't so reprehensible or ridiculous, I would probably look elsewhere, but in this country, we are stuck with the choices that we have.

I wonder if this is why Democrats are so afraid of a Mike Bloomberg independent Presidential run.  Maybe because they know that so many of us are tired of having mediocre choices rammed down our throats.

This is yet another reason why Obama would be a better Democratic nominee than Clinton.  I believe that a Bloomberg run is much more likely if Clinton is the Democratic nominee than if it is Obama.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 15:03:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nevada endorsement (0.00 / 0)

Here's The Nation's take on the endorsement of Barack Obama by a reactionary Nevada newspaper.  

http://www.thenation.com/blogs...

Certainly food for thought--as are Obama's remarks in an interview with that paper's editorial staff.  (You can find it on Youtube if you haven't seen it already.)

This geezer remembers all too well the Reagan "trajectory" and the beginning of the campaign to roll back the New Deal--a path that culminated in 8 years of Dubya.  No matter who wins the presidency, we may never recover.  I hope Jim Florio was right when he said that in January 2009 we'll have a grownup in the White House.


"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:21:50 AM UTC

an interesting take on this... (0.00 / 0)

...from the Huffington Post.

As far as Jim Florio goes, how wonderful would it be if we could somehow send him back to Drumthwacket.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 18:16:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Reagan "issue" IS Kinda Silly... (0.00 / 0)

Clearly Obama was speaking of Reagan's (superficially) positive style and the "success" Reagan had in forming bringing together a winning electoral coalition.  I don't think anyone should infer that Obama approved of Reagan's policies/philosophy.

On the other hand, underneath that jovial demeanor (I always sensed that) Reagan was a cold disconnected  deluded fool, at best....and often a mean spirited bastard (air traffic controllers/Contras etc etc) at worst.

Jim Florio was/is an under rated Governor; I only wish he had had the chutzpah to spend forty hours in the month before election day  as a "guest" on the right wing hate radio shows that were constantly/daily lambasting.    

I still think Bob Grant's incessant "flim flam Florio" mantra, and the results thereof, may well have made the difference in that fairly close (as I recall) election.  (such an old fart I am to remember this! ;-)

Whether it's Obama, Edwards or Clinton I would love to have a nominee who had the chops to go into the "lion's den" and go toe to toe with the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh etc etc and expose them for what they are.  

Obviously, so long as our politics are driven by risk averse consultants and "focus grouped" verbiage...that scenario isn't likely.

Hmmm, matbe that's what Edwards needs to do to beak through the main stream media's boycott?:  Spend a week on all the right wing programs and do mano a mano battle with the monsters!!!   LOL

---

by: Nick Lento @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 21:56:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Long time lurker, first post in a long time. (4.00 / 8)

I will be voting for John Edwards on February 5th as well. I think that he is articulating the true progressive platform, and whether he wins the nomination or not (unlikely), he is one driving the dialog about social justice. I think it's a message that needs to be heard for as long as possible.

As for the others, I personally think we've been lucky to have such a strong Democratic field. I like all of our candidates, although none of them are perfect. I don't need perfection, but I do want a candidate who is ready to take on the Republicans in the General Election campaign. I will support the Democractic nominee in November and I hope all of you will too.

That being the case, I would ask that my fellow Democrats to respect our diversity of opinion and avoid the politics of destruction that will certainly aid the Republican cause in the fall. Whatever family squabbles we have, we need to remember the goal: having a Democrat in the White House will be miles better than four more years of Republican incompetence and willful negligence.

---

by: MaryS-NJ @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:58:56 PM UTC

Welcome!!!! Thanks! And Please Don't Ever... (0.00 / 0)

...hesitate to throw in your "2 Cents".

We need all the progressive input possible here......the more the merrier!!!

You said it well, and it bears repeating....

...he is articulating the true progressive platform, and whether he wins the nomination or not (unlikely), he is one driving the dialog about social justice. I think it's a message that needs to be heard for as long as possible.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 17:59:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well said! (0.00 / 0)

Welcome--and bravo!  If we get all wound up and start hysterically attacking the candidates we don't support, we are doing ourselves, and the country, no favors.

Keep posting--please!    

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 22:36:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm With You Nick!! (4.00 / 2)

My family and I will vote only for John Edwards in the upcoming primary. It's simple for us. No one but John Edwards is ready and willing to fight for the lower/working/middle classes as president and push a veritable progressive agenda as Commander in Chief. I'm upset that the media has never given him his due in terms of covergae and airtime to get his message out--but alas, what are we to expect of the corporate-owned media?

Edwards presents an immediate threat to their overlords and their entrenched influence in Washington. Edwards will kick them all out of the Capital Building halls and offices and take this country back for the people as it was intended.

Obama and HRC will be more status quo and more of the same nonsense with little if any effectual change.

I hope enough Americans wake up to this fact and go out and vote Edwards when the primary comes around. This is NOT a 2-person race.

There are 3 individuals running for the Dem nomination and no one touches John Edwards when it comes to supporting the unions, the workers, universal healthcare, ending the war in Iraq, and taking on big Oil and Pharm lobbyists that have been preventing true reform in healthcare and in protecting the environment.

I'm donating another $100 to the Edwards campaign today--we're trying to get John 7 million in one day to get his name back into the headlines or to get any kind of positive media coverage.

John Edwards--he's the people's candidate. NO money from lobbyists and PACS his entire political career. He's got our backs and we have his.

---

by: pacifist @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 14:12:14 PM UTC

I almost forgot to mention... (0.00 / 0)

sorry folks, but Edwards is in this through the convention and beyond. This man is a bonafide workhorse, not a showhorse, and he's primed to storm through the country , namely midwestern and southern states where, he's positioned to amass delegates, growing support, and the momentum to shape this race for the better.

You see, the more Edwards stays in this, the more a true progressive democratic agenda gets pushed onto the scene and becomes part of the general platform.

So please, take your MSM-soaked, psuedo-pundit talking points elsewhere and accept that Edwards will stay in this "through the convention and beyond". And millions of his loyal supporters yet to vote in a primary, and have their voices heard, couldn't be more excited.

John Edwards 08!!

---

by: pacifist @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 14:23:16 PM UTC

John Edwards is the best choice (4.00 / 1)

---

by: pacifist @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 16:29:43 PM UTC

I see you just signed to BlueJersey: Welcome!!! (4.00 / 1)

Please stay with us and don't ever hesitate to share your progressive passion in any and all political matters related to NJ.  

John Edwards--he's the people's candidate. NO money from lobbyists and PACS his entire political career. He's got our backs and we have his.

You're the kind of spirited "pacifist" that (I dare say) MLK would be proud to have at his side!!!  (Present tense used intentionally ;-)

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 18:07:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once Again (0.00 / 0)

the logical choice is Edwards.  Anybody else just see the CNN debate?  Hillary totally lost it against Obama, then against Edwards when he asked if she would kick the lobbyists out of the White House.

She loves those lobbyists.  She loves Joe Ferriero too.  Wednesday she's coming to Hackensack to get some of his support.  Edwards was right tonite when he said that folks who donate millions want something in return.  Hillary has already sold her soul.  And its only still January.

At least Edwards was considered a serious contender tonite and was given equal time.  

One Vote.  Yours.  It really does matter.

---

by: carolh @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:50:43 AM UTC

NJ primary votes (4.00 / 1)

Honestly, i'd be shocked if anyone other than Hillary wins our state on Feb 5th.   why not cast a vote of Conscience for Edwards?   Martin Luther King III sent a letter to Edwards today encouraging him to stay in the race and ignore the pundits and keep fighting for Justice.  He's completely correct.   Here in Morris County, if we just focused on pundts and popularity we wouldnt be so staunchly supporting Tom Wyka for Congress.  He's a staunch fighter for social and economic justice, so we'll fight for him, regardless of the polls or how much money Rodney has

---

by: BootGOP2006 @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:12:31 AM UTC

You said it well! "...why not cast a vote of Conscience for Edwards?" (0.00 / 0)

The more votes Edwards gets; the more of a message it sends to the political establishments that we are ready for, and demand, profound/genuine "root to branch" change.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:32:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

because a vote for Edwards will be a wasted vote (0.00 / 0)

You probably know as well as anybody how many votes John Edwards will need to get the 15% to claim at least one delegate from your district.

Earlier, I guessed that it is around 3,000 votes, but based on your extensive field work, I am sure that you can give us a more accurate number.  Then, you can tell us how many 1s and 2s the canvassing and phonebanking in your district for Edwards has yielded.

How close are you to your magic number.  Do you have 10% of what you need?  25%?  50%?

Even if John Edwards wins SC, which is highly unlikely, NJ is not one of the February 5 states where he will be dedicating resources.

I don't believe that there is a single delegate district in this state where Edwards will reach 15%.  Thus, the thousands of votes throughout the state that he will receive will only serve to help Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama should perform well enough in cities like Edison, Jersey City, and Newark where he has the support of the Mayors and their organizations to be competitive in NJ.

It may not be enough to win, but Obama could surprise a lot of people by losing by less than 5 percentage points and splitting the delegates in a lot of districts.

And it is not outside the realm of possibility that Obama could get enough momentum from a win in South Carolina to pull off a major upset here in NJ.

The only vote of conscience that progressives should be considering is one that tells the Clintons that their era of triangulation, executing mentally disabled African-Americans, and pre-emptively blocking the right of same-sex couples to marry is over.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 17:07:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You Might End Up Being Correct.... (0.00 / 0)

....your "take" is a self fulfilling prophecy; and, on the surface, it can seem compelling.

On the other hand, if all the people who like what Edwards has to say actually vote their conscience instead of buying into the strategy you're selling; then Edwards may indeed get his 15%!

We'll see.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 22:29:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Does that mean you may have actually done some political work OFFLINE??? Perish the thought! :-D n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:11:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

but why take the chance? (0.00 / 0)

Unless you believe that there is no difference between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, why would you or any other Edwards supporter risk wasting your vote when it could have a positive impact in determining the future of our party, country, and world?

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 15:17:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]