Edwards didn't get a bump from Iowa

[cali]

And it's not because of the media, it's because he essentially tied with Clinton. Realistically, he's coming to the end of his run. I'm not suggesting he should quit after he almost certainly comes in third in NH- that's clearly up to him- but the odds of his getting the nomination are now very, very small and shrinking. I would have liked to see him overtake Clinton but that just isn't going to happen. There's not enough time between now and Super Tuesday, and there's not a state he can win. It is just about Obama and Clinton now.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Sure. The well-funded presumed front-runner finishes third...

...and the underfunded underdog who finishes second is the one who is toast.

:rofl:

NGU.

[THUNDER HANDS]

4. the underfunded underdog who lived in the state for three years

and talked to basically everybody who would listen to him - and to whom people still turned their backs on.

[ecstatic]

11. His message is good, but people do not trust him

He looks like a typical rich guy. His lifestyle and rhetoric don't match up.

[Egnever]

5. the problem is

the poercieved frontrunner that finishe3d third still polls highly everywhere else in the nation or at least competatively where Edwards never has. His shot was Iowa and it didnt pan out. He is now nearly out of funds and running into states where he has spent virtually no time and has virtually no organization.

Its still possible for him to pull out a miracle but hillary's chances even though third in Iowa are still far better, you do see this dont you?

[skipos]

10. I like Edwards, but the problem is

He has been running a distant 3rd in all other states. Even if he got a 10% boost from coming in 2nd in IA, it isn't enough to win any other vital state. His best bet is beating Clinton in NH, and it doesn't look very likely.

[fasttense]

2. He didn't?

We just take your word for it or do you have links?

What about his increase in funding after Iowa?

He who must not be named by the corporate media is doing better than the media wants to admit.

[Sparkly]

3. He was supposedly "tied for third" in NH in 2004

when he was close to General Clark. (Some in the MSM even reported he took 3rd without even mentioning Clark.)

This time, he and Clinton were a fraction of a percentage point from each other but it's no tie -- he's a solid 2nd place.

Just sayin'.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Further proof that those who dislike him remember it different than those who do.

Let's just start by saying that he had three truly heartbreaking close calls last time around, and they hurt him overall. I remember New Hampshire being touted as a downfall for him after such a surprisingly good showing in Iowa; the media that I remember was conclusive in pointing out that he could only garner a fourth place finish.

Lest we forget, Clark beat him in New Hampshire by less than four tenths of a percent, a mere 838 votes.

In Delaware, Lieberman beat him out to take second by 26 votes. A second place at that point would have been a big boost for him, but it wasn't to be. It's hard for some of us to swallow the concept that history itself could have been radically changed by slightly more than two dozen people in one state, but it's crossed many of our minds. I still think that Edwards could have won a general election, and I feel that the ticket DID win the electoral college, with Ohio stolen and uncontested.

The one primary that Clark won was an almost identical margin to New Hampshire: less than four tenths of a percent, or 1,216 votes. Edwards took second here, beating Kerry.

Lest we forget, Edwards also took second in Missouri with 25% of the vote, so he should be able to count on some support there again.

Then there's South Carolina, the one primary he won while still a declared candidate. (He also won North Carolina, by the way, and that was even after he'd dropped out.) He won South Carolina with 45% of the vote, Kerry only got 30%, making it a solid victory.

In short, although Edwards has inherent problems in New Hampshire because it's such an anomalously conservative state for New England, if Hillary is perceived to falter there, too, South Carolina may well come around for its native son. You'll note that Edwards has just increased his presence in Nevada, and with its big union presence, he may also benefit here if Clinton is considered to be on the decline.

What I remember from 2004 was that Edwards was big news in Iowa and Dean was even bigger news. The news from New Hampshire was that Kerry was solid, Dean really faltering, Clark somewhat disappointing the pundits and Edwards wobbling and sinking back to where he belonged.

Bias filters the views of different people, and this definitely sounds like a case of it. Although you are hardly among the group of fixated anti-Edwards agitators (many of them a cadre of Clark partisans) you have both been quite pronounced in your disenchantment with him. I, of course, for all my prizing of impartiality and accuracy, am a dastardly partisan and have been for about six years now, so this informs my memory, too.

It's all very interesting at the moment, isn't it?

[cali]

17. Edwards doesn't have problems in NH because

it's anomalously conservative for NE- it's not. Not anymore. Both of NH's reps in the House are liberals. The Governor is a dem. It's one of only 4 states that extends civil unions. Edwards has problems in NH for several reasons. One, I'm ashamed to admit, is because he's from the South. I know that fact didn't hurt Carter or Clinton, but I think New Englanders in general, do have a bit of hostility toward Southerners. And partly I think it's just that they've already decided about him and rejected him.

I don't see any possible way that JE wins in SC. 50% of SC primary voters are African American. Clinton is faltering, and she is losing African American support there, but it's going to Barack. I suppose it's possible that Nevada could change, but there's nothing to indicate it.

[patrice]

6. So-called "Independents" and cross-overs, IMO, are usually un-informed power-hounds,

who will serve any master, in fact, they ***must*** demonstrate that fact to their current master. In doing so, their effect enters the area of diminishing returns, between BO and HC, and the candidate with the most fully informed issue based support becomes more successfull. They need only to stay alive as this process works itself out.

[Thrill]

7. He's considered a Phony

I live in his state. And he's considered a Phony here. Not much excitement about him running for president here. Really none at all. And thats awkward

[ihavenobias]

24. You know *why* he's considered to be a phony?

Because people bought the BS talking points on him.

Watch this short video from Brave New Films and you'll see exactly what I mean:

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/10050-fox-news-and-john-edwards?play=1

[Chasing Dreams]

8. I'm an Edwards Supporter, and Agree with you

This is the best Democratic Presidential Candidate field ever. If you put Biden or Richardson back in 2004, they beat Kerry. John Edwards 2008 is far superior on the stump and in debates relative to 2004. Indeed, he is the best candidate the Dems have had in 40 years.

Hillary is also a great candidate, and has improved tremendously as a speaker since I first saw her live in 1992. In any other year she would be the first woman nominated by a major party as President. But she is now on life support.

We are watching an historic, transcendental candidate in Barack Obama. He appears to be literally channeling RFK, JFK, and MLK. The candidate of the century easily beats the first great, legitimate woman candidate, and the best speaker the Democrats have had in 40 years.

Obama will win NH going away with 40%+ of the vote, including huge numbers of independents.

I hope all Democrats unite behind him quickly, and we refrain from giving Rethugs and Freepers talking points.

[davidwparker]

9. if so, cali, then i'll expect to see the Clintons out of the race first as they

finished after Edwards.

Sure the Clintons have the money to stay the course, but I think Iowa did show, as well as polls here and on Kos, that there is Clinton fatigue. I know when I was watching Bill on C-SPAN Sunday I had to change the channel.

Hillary's best use of triangulation is senate majority leader. Edwards/Obama will have coat tails to make sure the Senate and House is full of Democrats. Hillary ... not so much. Another republicon in the WH for four more years.

[cali]

18. I think there's no doubt there's Clinton fatigue, and I'm not saying

anyone should get out. I don't see that there will be either and E/O ticket or an O/E ticket, however.

[juajen]

22. Funny, I don't ever see any Hillary supporters that suffer from "Clinton fatigue".

Just sayin'.

[usregimechange]

12. Rasmussen shows a Edwards bump, Zogby does not

[Adelante]

14. I think it's a tad to soon to tell if he gets a bump or not

Later today or tomorrow.

[MalloyLiberal]

15. Stop your partisan nonsense

Damn, some people just have so much hate in them.

[cali]

20. There's nothing hateful about the OP. Yes, partisanship colors

my analysis, but this is the way I see it. And seeing as you were so hateful, disgusting and out of control that you had to take a break, you might want to consider that your exhibiting particularly astonishing hypocrisy.

[Forkboy]

21. LMAO....satire, right?

:eyes:

[thatsrightimirish]

16. Agreed

Edwards was campaigning in Iowa for YEARS and still lost by 8 points. Game over.

[Stop Cornyn]

19. Based on one robo-poll?

[itsrobert]

23. Obama and Clinton now?

I thought Hillary was inevitable? lol. Don't give up your day job. Political predictions is just not your forte.

[cali]

25. don't give up

lying your little butt off. I have never predicted that she was inevitible. Never. And it looks like my predictions beat yours into smithereens, bucko. I predicted Obama would win in Iowa with 34% of the vote. What did you predict?

[itsrobert]

26. I predicted Edwards would beat Hillary

And I was 100 percent correct. Thank you for asking. ;)

[cali]

28. and you predicted he'd beat Obama and you

were 100% WRONG. And I hate to break it to you but Edwards beat Hillary by all of .25%. Obama beat Edwards by 8%. Even you should be able to see the difference.

[H2O Man]

27. I'm not sure

about that. He did not get much recognition from the mainstream media. But he certainly did well, in placing second. I think that many democrats were surprised the that media focused almost exclusively on Senator Obama and Sentaor Clinton.

I'm not saying that those two did not deserve the attention they got. But John Edwards surely deserved to get attention for his showing. More, I felt that he gave a very powerful speech that night.

The comments on the internet suggest that he will get a boost from his supporters. I assume that he will be getting a fair amount of contributions this week.

Also, I think that he is a strong communicator. I think it is possible that after this evening's debate, he may be in good shape. It could be a mistake to underestimate him.

[cali]

29. I could certainly be wrong but I think we're seeing

something extraordinary- and durable here. Call it a current in history that changes the political weather patterns and alignment. Maybe I'm just projecting or being fanciful. We'll see.

[H2O Man]

30. "a current in history"

I like that.