Why did Clark do so poorly in South Carolina?

[ShaneGR]

Seriously, I thought he was supposed to appeal to southern voters?

[dennis4868]

1. Because....

Edwards was born there and was way ahead in the polls. Clark decided not to spend much time and money there a few weeks ago and concentrate instead on other states like Oklahoma.

[ShaneGR]

5. Then why did Edwards tie Clark in Oklahoma?

Clark was in OK, Edwards wasn't.

[Leilani]

14. You know what they say in North Carolina?

"If You Can't Go To College Go To State!!!"

Rah! Rah! Go Duke Blue Devils!

[jenk]

2. What about the military vote?

weren't they supposed to come through for him?

[Tweed]

3. Why did did Edwards only get delegates from three states?

I thought Edwards was suppose to have appeal across the board?

[jenk]

6. Where was Clark in Iowa? How could he lose delegates in NH?

after having 25% of the vote there?

[Renew Deal]

4. He did appeal to southern voters

in Oklahoma. He is also in second behind Kerry in TN and VA. SC was Edwards home state. Also, there is reason to believe that if one of these guys can knock the other off, they will rule the south.

[D G]

7. Come on... it's Edwards' home state!

The real question is, why did Kerry do so well (30% to Edwards' 45%) if everyone in the South is allegedly turned off by "Northeastern libruls"?

(I am not insulting the south here; just repeating a theory I've heard on DU)

Edit: South Carolina is only ONE southern state. See you next week!

[Quixote1818]

8. Why did Edwards come in 4th in all the Western States?

[Quixote1818]

9. Clark actually won a state he wasn't born in. That says more to me.

[jpgpenn]

10. well we know why Edwards did so well there! question is...

Why did Edwards do so POORLY over all thru out yesterdays elections?

[jenk]

11. if Edwards did poorly, why did he pick up MORE DELEGATES?

and why did Clark consider dropping out even AFTER winning Oklahoma Mr. Smarty Pants?

[jmaier]

12. Why do the same few Edwards supporters

feel compelled to trash Wes Clark on thread after thread under thinly veiled "questions"?

2004 isn't the year for Dean or Edwards. Voters might not be articulating IWR, terrorism or national security as key issues but they are the subliminal underpinnings behind the whole 'electibility' thing.

That's why Kerry is #1 and that is why a relatively unknown 4-star general is even in the hunt in '04. No matter what other attractive attributes Wes Clark might have can you imagine him being any kind of contender in '92 or '02?

[BeyondGeography]

16. And that's why AWOL is an issue

The Dems wouldn't be pushing it without a military hero as the frontrunner. Dean, who went skiing after getting his medical deferment? Edwards, who says national security is a "background thing"? I don't think so.

Masculinity is the "subliminal underpinning" of this campaign. Bush expected to swagger his way past a feminized Dem nominee. Well, surprise, we're going for one war hero, and we have another one (Clark) in reserve, just in case he's needed.

[Julien Sorel]

13. The new Deans are surging forward.

Coming out of the woodwork like, yes, cockroaches! Except there are far fewer of them, thank God.

[charlie]

15. Wait until he posts

another one of his threads lamenting the rancorous partisanship on DU, you'll love that.