Is Obama trouncing a distant third place Edwards? Is this now a two-way race between HRC and Obama?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

There is a meme developing: John Edwards' campaign is a hopeless cause. He should just quit and let HRC and Obama battle it out for the nomination. This has become a slowly stirring theme on DU. One source of it is some HRC supporters. This is in line with the general "HRC is inevitable" theme. The other, more common source is some Obama supporters. They, peculiarly, argue that Edwards' third place in the polls (where Kerry was at this time in 2003) renders him irrelevant. This is despite the fact that Edwards is closer to Obama in the polls than Obama is to HRC. If Edwards is doomed, by extending their logic Obama also has no chance of ever overtaking HRC. This is also despite the fact that in the early states they are more or less on par. Both lead in one early state (Edwards leads in Iowa and Obama leads in SC), Edwards leads third place Obama by 7.5% in Iowa, Obama leads Edwards by 2.9% in New Hampshire, Obama is ahead by 4% in Nevada, Obama has a 4.8% edge in Florida, Edwards trails by 5.2% in California, and 3.9% in New York. Only in South Carolina does Obama trounce Edwards (by 20.1%). In Iowa, NH, Nevada, Florida, California, and New York the average gap is 2.2% in favor of Obama. Include South Carolina and the average deficit is 4.8%. Why can't Edwards realize this is an insurmountable gap and quit his campaign? :sarcasm:

The reality is there is a close battle for second position going on in the early states (and if Edwards wins Iowa, Obama's slim advantages in NH and NV would be negated, although a SC victory could offset Iowa and make things even for CA and NY). They both lead a similar number of states (Edwards leads in three: Iowa, Oklahoma*, and North Carolina. Obama leads in two: South Carolina and Illinois).

*Tied with HRC at 29%.

[Moochy]

1. Joe Lieberman : Presidential Dem. Frontrunner in 2003?

Here's some food for thought along a similar line... and some perspective on polling data?

MSNBC article from March: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17471274/

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman — stalwart supporter of the invasion of Iraq — as the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee?

Unthinkable? In retrospect, yes, but according to the Gallup Poll of 438 Democrats in April 2003 — at a point about where we now are in the 2008 presidential campaign cycle — Lieberman was the Democratic frontrunner.

He got 23 percent of Democrats in the Gallup survey, defeating Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who placed second, and an array of other Democrats.

In that poll, Howard Dean, who rocketed to frontrunner status by the autumn of 2003, got the support of only six percent.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Good post. Here are the polls right before Iowa

On 1/8/04--right before Iowa--the national polls looked like this:

1) Dean 20%
2) Clark 13%
3) Holy Joe 8%
4) Gephardt 7%
4) Kerry 7%
6) Mosley Bruan 4%
6) Edwards 4%
8) Kucinich 3%
9) Sharpton 2%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Dean looked "inevitable" and had raised the most money while Clark looked like the only person who could become the anti-Dean and challenge him for the nomination (sound familiar? ;) ). Kerry and Edwards were in a close pack with Holy Joe, Gephardt, Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton. We all know how things turned out what voters had their say...

[saltpoint]

2. Things looked pretty doable for Dick Gephardt in the 04 caucuses in

Iowa, but before midnight that cold January evening Gephardt was buried alive with 11% of the vote.

It feels incredibly fluid to me at this point, and pretty early besides.

And nevermind the Republicans. That contest is just a hell of a mess.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Good point. People also need to remember why Gephardt and Dean lost Iowa

For months they were 1-2 in Iowa polls. Yet when voters had their say they finished a distant 3rd and 4th. What happened? They wrote-off Kerry and Edwards, who were distant in the polls, and volleyed attacks back and forth at each other. This inevitably weakened them and allowed others to emerge from the cloud of smoke left by the Dean-Gephardt war unscathed and victorious. The very scenario may play out again this year nationally as the Clinton and Obama camps engage in one-on-one warfare...

[waiting for hope]

11. The media is drooling over the

coming Obama/Clinton battle and they are going to swarm all over it like a fly to shit. Edwards is doing it right, he is campaigning to his strengths and is nipping the coming swift boating in the bud.

Have you check out the Act Blue page?

http://www.actblue.com/page/du-presidential

I just made another donation and thought the numbers were rather interesting.....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. I agree. The media is getting its knives ready for JE after the 2Q numbers come out

We know they have wanted a two-way race on the Democratic side from the very beginning (although they apparently have no qualms with a four-way race on the Republican side...). They are preparing their knives and chomping at the bit at the chance to pronounce Edward's candidacy dead after he raises a substantial amount, but far less than HRC and Obama.

I agree. Edwards is in an ideal position right now. Stay in third, focus on getting your message of real change out to voters, and let Obama and HRC bloody themselves for 6 months as they think they are in a two-way race.

Thanks for the link. It is interesting how he dwarfs the other candidates' totals on ActBlue.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. "How do I politely tell you to stop beating your wife"?

:eyes:

You are going to deny that some Obama supporters have made this argument? One did it just a few minutes ago.

You are not the sole representative of Obama supporters. As you know, he has a lot of supporters. ;)

==What I don't see is anyone hardly helping us, the Obama supporters, out. What we get is one Edwards supporter and all the Hillarybots slime day in and day out.==

Why didn't you mention the slime Obama supporters consistently lob at HRC (we have two such threads that are on the front-page right now) and occasionally at Edwards? I have said I am prepared to accept uniform rules against "smears" and "slime." I hope you, BO supporters and others join me. The rules need to be clearly defined and applied to everyone, though. We cannot be divided into the royalty, and the rabble with the royalty being allowed to launch daily artillery fire against others while the rabble have to act as colonial subjects and remain silent and not ask questions.

[dmosh42]

7. Another point is that Edwards isn't owned....

As far as I know, Edwards hasn't received millions from the lobbyists, and is not running with a bunch of IOUs. Looking at the 'Opencongress.org' site, tells us who has received the most money from the different industries, and Hillary and Obama are head and shoulders ahead of all others except Joe Lieberman. That factor alone, has made me endorse Edwards with a pledge to his campaign.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Unfotunately that is quite possible

[ShortnFiery]

9. Another day, another 10+ Anti-Obama threads started by draft_mario_cuomo

John Edwards and his campaign staff must be oh so proud of your efforts? :eyes: :thumbsdown:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Can you list the anti-Obama threads I posted yesterday?

Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing the list. Surely if you are going to violate DU rules and smear and call out a poster it must be based on truth, not a fabrication because you cannot bring yourself to hear anything that contradicts your fantasy-land view of the world.

How was this thread anti-Obama? It looked at the polls and debunked a myth promoted by some. If anything, it was pro-Edwards. I look forward to seeing you explain how a look at the polls, if they do not reveal poll numbers that you would want to see, is anti-Obama. You must think every poll outside of Illinois and some SC polls are anti-Obama. :rofl: