Word.
I've been hoping [John Edwards] could consistently get at least 15-20% of the vote, and just enough delegates to prevent either Hillary or Obama from winning outright. Edwards's voice is needed.
I think it's a small and shrinking possibility for the Dems to get to a brokered convention. But I think it's still a strong chance that the GOP nomination will be undecided.
At least you're not mixing hemlock or contemplating the ceiling joists with a belt and look in your eye. Both DK and MyLeftWing are miserable places today.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 19, 2008 02:28 PMCongratulations Hillary.
I have a feeling we're going to find out that the 49% of Dems voting for Obama and Edwards today (and the people they "represent") are very strongly opposed to a Clinton Restoration, with ex-prez Bill padding around the WH and redecorating the Lincoln toilet room. Many of them likely won't come around.
The conventional wisdom is that a Hillary candidacy reunites the dispirited Repub ground troops around an Anti-Hillary candidate and makes them think they have a chance after all. Independents refused to vote for Bill's VP in 2000. So now I guess they're gonna just love voting for his wife.....
Add in the fact that she comes from a state and region which we are certain to win no matter what (and from the same region that our 2004 loser came from) and you just have to shake your head.
Posted by euzoius at January 19, 2008 02:32 PMDid Harry Reid guarantee a Clinton win in Nevada?
Posted by Seven of Six at January 19, 2008 02:43 PMYes. Several months ago.
Those so inclined, get the Reynolds Wrap out.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 19, 2008 02:50 PMOh for god's sake, seven of six, give it a rest. Harry Reid can't guarantee *himself* a win in Nevada.
I agree with Turkana, I have been hoping for Edwards's voice to stay strong given that Obama is refusing to come out as a real progressive and Clinton is a known moderate. I've got my fingers crossed that I will still get a chance to vote for him on February 5th. My main fear is that considering how *&^% tone deaf both the Obama and the Clinton camps are to both what their progressive critics are saying *and* what this country needs in the way of action I don't see either of our "main" candidates moving left. I see Obama moving further in a vague, speechifying, all things to all people mode and Clinton just hanging on until Obama drops out before resuming her centrist style.
Its as though our high hopes of having a truly progressive knock down run to the left by three great candidates has resulted in this depressing "more moderate than thou" run for the center. I'd have been happier having three gravels and kuchinic's in the race than having the standard bearer "first post racial" black and first woman candidates be so *&^% timid in espousing liberal and progressive ideals.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 19, 2008 02:50 PMJust asking.
Posted by Seven of Six at January 19, 2008 02:50 PMThe idea that all of Edwards' supporters would go to Obama is probably not true. The normal scenario in the real world is that they'll go to the other candidates proportionally. And I think the NV results shows that. Edwards probably did not make the cut in a lot of precincts. If his supporters had all gone to Obama, the result would have been very different.
A case can even be made that Clinton will more likely benefit from Edwards dropping out, since his support is strong amongst white union voters, and Clinton is stronger amongst them than Obama
The strong anti-Hillary sentiment just isn't there amongst Democrats in general. For some reason it reigns supreme at dKos, but it just doesn't exist to that extent in the real world.
Posted by Frank at January 19, 2008 02:52 PMidio,
i'm not a passionate supporter. i've always thought the differences between the big three are marginal, which is part of why i don't get the hysteria.
euzolus,
i think the hemlock-drinking bloggers are not a representative sample. she polls well enough, and her debate performances have been encouraging. if she wins, i think we'll do fine.
7o6,
harry reid was neutral, but his son probably had a huge institutional impact.
Posted by Turkana at January 19, 2008 02:54 PMeuzolus,
I for one really worry that Hillary will do for the Republican's what their candidate never could, motivate people to come out and vote for them.
But I came back to this most pro-Hillary of blogs to confess that I wrote her off early (and gleefully) and I was wrong. I used to think that the Edwards folks would default over to Obama, but I a may have been wrong. In that case the "anti-HIllary" vote was smaller than I imagined.
No doubt I would support Hillary in the general. Let's just hope that she wins mainstream folks over as she has Dem's.
Posted by midwestdem at January 19, 2008 03:13 PMmidwestdem,
I would worry about the republicans coming out "against" hrc but I believe (without evidence) that the republicans are actually dying to get the job of running the country off their hands. Secretly, they are just as sick of their own party as we are and they are pretty sure that the next person they put in is going to be a screw up too. I think they will just sit this one out not only *whether or not* HRC is the candidate but perhaps *all the more so* if she is. Despite a huge anti HRC movement all these years I think most non-insane republicans actually grasp that there isn't any livnig female who could be that evil. The more they've seen her campaigning the more obvious her ordinariness and even her moderate rockefeller republican roots start showing. Sure there's a hysterical "hillary is satan" crew out there but they are actually a relatively small percentage of the voting population. They always were. They are comperable to the die hard and evangelical base and even with both of those I don't think any republican can win without bringing over substantial numbers of democratic and independent voters.
I just don't see it. I think if HRC plays her cards right by the time the actual election rolls around most republicans will stay home, either out of rage or out of secret relief because they want to be able to say "see, your icons screw up as badly as our do too! You think bush was bad! You try running things for a change."
just my two cents from talking to republican voters.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 19, 2008 03:20 PMCongratulations to Hillary, but Turkana, I think it's over for Obama, delegate count be damned. Don't believe it. If Obama can't do it in Nevada, he can't do it in California and many other states besides. It's Hillary's now.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 03:37 PMMy thoughs have pretty much been stated by others already here (mostly turkana and aimai)...and I'm disappointed in Edwards showing for sure....sigh.
My order of preference from the beginning has been Dodd (he's out), Edwards (if he stays in til I vote on super Tuesday I'll happily vote for him) , Obama and then Hillary.
However after witnessing the hysterical mood swings of the Obama supporters (running the gambit from total cocky arrogance to whiny vicious victimhood)over the past several weeks, I'm not so convinced he's the candidate for me in the event Edward's drops out before I vote. And now what do I see from them after one close vote in Nevada their "take my ball and go home if he doesn't win it all" attitude. Jeesh! That's a horribly selfish and juvenile attitude to have today! It's not over until everyone votes...remember what happened in NH people? And that attitude does nothing to convince me to change my mind and vote for him on super tuesday in my primary...and does not convince me to support him in the event that Edwards' bows out before I vote.
I've said it before and I'll say it again..it's always been a difficult choice for me because I liked parts of what each candidate has to offer...but not the entire package...but most importantly and certainly they are all much better than any of the repubs!
Turk, it's going to get nastier---bank on it.
Did you see the diary over at DK by cherbear?
She says she and her entire black family will register Republican if HIllary is the nominee.
Obama owes Hillary if she is the nominee, after the way he has poisoned her reputation with blacks.
emal hits it on the head again. If only we could hav e taken the great parts of each of the candidates and combined them--like the super buffy who combined with all her friends to fight the cyborg/demon "adam"--. I would have loved for our top three to get together and produce some kind of reasonable compromise and at the very least I would have liked them to get together and promise not to savage each other but to go after the republicans. And I agree with emal the hysteria and the accusations of bad faith by the obama supporters are just bizarre. First they annoint themselves and obama as the only visionary/progressive/change agents in the race, then they extend that backwards and forwards in time so that all previous democrats and democratic voters are somehow too negative, shrill, old, or whatever to count (check out those kos threads if you don't recognize this characterization) and then they compliment themselves on bringing new people into the party who aren't self defined progressives or democrats--and then they stamp their feet and insist that they won't vote for the democratic nominee! No wonder older voters and more experienced political viewers thought that Obama's cross party pull was a mirage--as it turns out he can't even convince his own in party supporters to be loyal to the party. This is always the flaw in the charismatic leader model. When the going gets rough his "true believers" can't function.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 19, 2008 03:56 PMI agree, I'd hoped that Edwards would make more of an impact. The problem with caucuses is that you need more people on the ground to organize and get people to the polls, and the majors were bringing in reinforcements into Nevada to help. No way that Edwards was going to be able to match that, so his support inside the caucuses wasn't going to match the polls.
I honestly haven't seen the polls for the Super Tuesday states yet. Are they posted anywhere? I have only people I talk with to rely on for here in the San Francisco Bay Area but I hear more about Edwards, and some support for Obama. Then again, Southern California always swamps the north, and in California these days television wins, which means whoever has the most money wins. If Clinton's got enough to sink into ads she can do great damage to the others.
But let's see how the voting goes.
+++
Meanwhile The Mittster is going strong and his five sons have pledged to serve their dad instead of their country.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 19, 2008 03:57 PMDon't listen to them Brian.
Go ahead and drink the hemlock. Listening to your "Jump on the Obama bandwagon" crap for the last few weeks has been like torture.
All the supposed Dems who are claiming that they'll stay home or vote Green or, if you can believe, vote Republican in November rather than vote for Hillary Clinton will have no one but themselves to blame if this country is saddled with a Rep. president for another 4 years.
Posted by snark at January 19, 2008 06:11 PMHey, Snark. Don't be a sore winner, now. And I've decided I won't drink the hemlock, I couldn't live with myself by voting "R," which is poison to me. I'll vote Green or some kind of socialist or something instead. But, no, Hillary won't get my vote. I'm sure she'll do fine without it, sincerely. It's hype to think the liberal vote not voting for her will sink her. It won't. Same with less African-Americans voting for her. She doesn't need them, clearly. She'll be fine.
Posted by Brian Bell at January 19, 2008 10:46 PMThe Edwards lose was skewed by the NV caucus sytem. My understanding is that if any indidividual caucus did not receive 20% support for a candidate those voters needed to choose another candidate.
What a contrast to watch Edwards move on without dwelling on this, while Obama's people are still spinning. If Edwards does well in the South, he'll have a voice.
Posted by allansfca at January 20, 2008 10:04 AMBrian, I don't get it. I am a big Edwards supporter but I will vote for Hillery in a minute. On issues she is more liberal than Obama. You might not like her, but why sit it out? If you are truly liberal the repubs should scare you more than she does? How could you not vote democratic whoever nominee is? You know, the republicans are banking on your backlash!
Posted by allansfca at January 20, 2008 10:10 AMfyi - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225994/
The MSNBC exit polls put Edwards support at a little above 8%.
Posted by allansfca at January 20, 2008 10:22 AM