Clark: contender, Kerry spoiler or Edwards spoiler?

[PurityOfEssence]

Or hell, why not all of the above?

This is meant as a serious--though gentle--conversation. It's all so complex that it's hard to see how it'll sort out. As many of you know, I'm a longtime Edwards partisan, so his last couple of showings have been frustrating.

Having said that, I do like the guy, and he's improved a lot in my eyes. His supporters have also been much more decent than I'd perceived after an early onslaught of strident partisanship, and I have no beef in general with the camp.

While snivelling to myself about how these two little squeakers in NH and OK have served to slow my guy's acceleration a tad, it occurred to me that it has positive effects for Edwards too, and it could show him to be a contender. So what do you think? Here are the scenarios of which I muse:

Edwards spoiler: he soaks off the vote in the south (Virginia's a military personnel state, don't forget) and by splitting the vote there and in TN next Tuesday, he allows Kerry to just break away.

Kerry spoiler: he soaks off the war hero vote, and by putting the bite on this part of Kerry's base, he could divide the vote and let Edwards steadily gain delegates and pull away.

Contender: as the one remaining viable candidate who can tout opposition to IWR, and with the fickle moments of press that turn things around in unexpected ways, he scores big soon, and along with stumbles from the others, gets a second or third look.

What are your thoughts?

Me? I'm just frustrated that he keeps muckin' up my boy, but I think he's a good guy, and what the hell.

Helluva horserace, isn't it?

[jmaier]

1. It is so terribly confusing

I'm a Clark supporter so in my view, he's a contender! :-)

If I followed the CW, I'd say that he is an Edwards spoiler but the exit poll results from OK show something odd: he out-performed Edwards in Kerry demographics sectors (liberal) and got soundly whupped by Edwards in 'Little Dixie' among more conservative, SE Oklahoma voters. What's this mean? Who knows, but it seems to me that Clark probably kept Edwards from another Missouri like 50%+ Kerry performance in Oklahoma.

If OK is indicative, then Clark in the race might be better for Edwards than worse at the polls even if it muddles up the media's desired 2-man race mantra.

[OKNancy]

3. Another lesson from Miss Nancy

Thought I'd fill you in about "little Dixie". The name nowdays does conjure up conservative like the south, and that is sort of the case, but it got the name because it was SOLID Democratic in every election. So solid that it still holds over today that even though people vote Rep in the General they register Democratic.

Little Dixie is also very populist in nature. Anyone remember Carl Albert, Robert S. Kerr?

--
Western Oklahoma is more like the states it borders..ie the northwest is like Kansas in outlook and economy...ie Texas, New Mexico...

[mo_lurker]

2. Edwards spoiler

He will keep Edwards from having more big wins in the South like in South Carolina, and they will look more like 3-way splits like in Oklahoma.

However, I suppose that could be reversed and Edwards could be considered a Clark spoiler. :shrug:

[MAlibdem]

6. I agree, Edwards spoiler

They split the same vote. And since Edwards is ahead (delegate count), Clark is an Edwards spoiler.

[JohnLocke]

8. Here, here!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. My answer is probably a bit too elementary for your taste:Edwards spoiler

simply due to name identification, not any of the things listed in your post.

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. I wish that somehow

all of the political strategy could be flushed down the toilet, and people would just vote for whichever guy or gal they think would be the best president. I know, rose-colored glasses aren't flattering on me, but it gets frustrating when the entire focus is on the candidacy, rather than the presidency.

(not a slam on your post - just on the media coverage and the general atmosphere)

And, as long as you asked, I'll put both Edwards and Kerry in the category of "Clark Spoiler" and Clark in the category of "Bush Spoiler."

[PurityOfEssence]

7. I'm definitely with you in this respect:

Bandwagon riders are silly. The idea of joining up with the leader just because he's the leader is ridiculous. The whole point of a primary is to voice who you think can win, not who you think others think can win. Sure, electability is very important, but I doubt that all of the front-runner's support is from those who actually feel he's got the best chance; lots of it is a sad desire to be a part of the winning team.

As for the strategy, though, it's all very important, and it's also fascinating.

[krkaufman]

9. I would offer: Kicker of Bush's ass

Given the chance, Clark would run away with the GE this Fall, while the other candidates will have to fight tooth and nail.

(I spoke with a couple Republican coworkers up here in Milwaukee today, and both voiced interest and respect for Clark. It was nice to finally come to an agreement with these previously harsh Dem critics. One hit very quickly on Clark's superior capability to instantaneously mend international relations.)

[Skwmom]

10. I don't see how a person who has been a personal

injury attorney for the majority of his life is qualified to lead our country.

[mlawson]

13. Again: do you support anyone???

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. You think we're scum, you should see the people that try to be our clients

[jenk]

15. And I won't trust an opportunistic Repug with a temper posing as a Dem.

not to mention that whole incident where he tried to bomb the russians, great leadership......

[D G]

17. That accusation against Clark is entirely false.

"Bomb the Russians" - come on, you've been watching too much Dr. Strangelove.

[BootinUp]

18. Well that pretty much sets the record straight

on you, not on Clark. Thanks for playing.

[mlawson]

11. Contender. I doubt he wants to injure the eventual nominee

if it is not himself. He wants bush out, too, after all. Clark is an extremely honorable person, and spoilers are not.

[jenk]

12. Edwards spoiler, otherwise Clark serves no other purpose

I won't call him a contender until he proves to me he can speak on something other than war. Recently he's taken some pretty pathetic shots at both kerry and Edwards

[AbbeyRoad]

19. He's a contender

Speaking of "pathetic shots", jenk.

And I won't trust an opportunistic Repug with a temper posing as a Dem.

Clark can and does speak on topics other than "the war" when given the opportunity.

I heard Edwards say this morning that this was now a 2 man race, implying it was only between him and Kerry. Obviously, OK and 3 other states proved otherwise last night. Talk about pathetic.

[D G]

16. I appreciate that you brought up more than one scenario

I think that back when Clark entered the race, he was a temporary "Kerry spoiler" - and I can see why some people are predicting that he will become an "Edwards spoiler" given yesterday's results. But I don't think the latter scenario is set in stone, because it's based largely on the premise that the appeal of Edwards and Clark is limited to the south.

Frankly I think it could still go to any of the three - my order of preference is in my sig ;)