Would Obama Have Enough Time After Edwards Drops Out to Knock Out Clinton?

[DrFunkenstein]

Judging realistically by the way the calendar and polls are moving, it is going to be Hillary vs. Non-Hillary on a very fast schedule. Feel free to differ, but I don't think Edwards is going to be that Non-Hillary. That said, both Obama and Clinton will have the funds to extend the race competitively beyond the opening round (Edwards is do-or-die in the first states).

I think that Clinton gains from a three-way race, because basically she gets her turnout and the others split the rest. However, eventually it will become a two-way race. In past primary seasons, there would be time to recover. Even Howard Dean could have managed a comeback with less errors and tighter campaign spending. I'm not so sure how it plays out with the accelerated schedule, though. On one hand, it could even further enhance the snowball effect, but then again voters in the other early states could decide to take a stand and decide to vote based on their own decisions.

I imagine that there is less of a hurry to find a front runner fast, the way there was in 2004 against Bush. Depending on how the fickle media covers the race, they could reinforce the group-think they are so fond of practicing themselves, or they may figure ratings would be higher with a protracted race.

There are an almost infinite number of scenarios being played out, and you can bet that the major campaigns are playing chess with them right now. If I had more time to kill, I could probably work out more completed how the game can be played out. Sadly, I don't. So I get a glimpse of what the writing on the wall says, but can't quite make out all the words.

I was hoping my fellow Democrats could help me work this out. Basically, would Obama be able to sustain an early victory by Clinton?

I certainly think an early Obama victory would knock Clinton much further down comparatively, but then again, the Clinton's have the discipline to hang in there for all they've got. I may not think much of them as policymakers, but I have to give them credit for campaign management (as I would for, say, Karl Rove).

Obviously, I am no great fan of Clinton as anything more than my Senator, but I also welcome her supporters to give an idea of how they think the campaign will play out. I expect her to win at least one of the early states and I am wondering if she could deliver a knockout blow before Obama scoops up the supporters from the various other campaigns after their candidate bows out.

I'm sure you all have your own versions playing out in your heads (and I haven't even mentioned Gore). Let me know what you think.

Ps - Obviously, everything will completely change by the time the Thanksgiving primary rolls around in New Hampshire (or California?). But that doesn't stop us from reading the tea leaves and adjusting accordingly.

[Colobo]

1. Substance and Change vs. A Flawless Campaign: Who will win?

[Netbeavis]

10. history dictates the flawless campaign

for examples see the "un-electable George W. Bush"

[saracat]

2. I do disagree.Edwards is NOT going to drop out and he is just as likely as Obama to be the

anti-Hillary!Remember what the polls looked like in 2004.This is not all over by any stretch of the imagination.I think Hillary has been unpleasantly surprised that both Edwards and Obams have fought back.So much for a flawless campaign!

[AtomicKitten]

3. I read a poll over the weekend in the SF Chronicle --

that showed Hillary at 34%, Obama at 20%, Undecided at 12%, and Edwards at 10%.

That indicates an opening for Obama if the Edwards/Undecided vote gets on board. Otherwise, I'm afraid Hillary will carry the nomination across the finish line without breaking a sweat.

Unfortunately, organizing the non-Hillary vote in the primary will be like herding cats.

[Ethelk2044]

32. and it will be done.

She will not win.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Quit believing in polls right now. Do not worry, Hillary is not giong to get the nomination

Let the best man win. and believe me, Obama and Edwards are so much better than Hillary.
these 2 have what it is we need in government and Hillary is just a continuation of the same old same old.

[Bitwit1234]

5. Gee it is so nice to see all the experts on DU

All the people who KNOW what Hillary will do as opposed to what their candidate will do. And I wonder, yes, I really wonder how do they know their candidate, is a know all end all. I don't know I'm not physic so I can't tell. I think ANY of the democrat candidates will be better than the republicans runners.

[durrrty libby]

6. ...

:rofl:

[oasis]

7. Who needs polls when we have so many clairvoyant DUers to rely on?

;-)

[saracat]

8. Right again illinoisprogressive! We need change and Hillary , while competent, will not

admit the system is broken so how can she change anything? Both Obama and Edwards recognize that we have a problem in government.Hillary can't even admit her vote was wrong!

[Colobo]

9. Obama or Edwards. America can't afford not having one of them as president in Jan 09.

[GreenArrow]

27. can't even admit her vote was wrong!

All utterly meaningless rhetoric until one is ready to admit that the thinking and philosophy that went into the vote was wrong. Other than Kucinich and Gravel, none of them want to or are even capable of going there.

[Tellurian]

23. Americans want a Health Care Plan..and experience to Lead. Hillary has both..

your boring meme's fall flat on American ears.. None of Hillary's opponents have been able to slow her down not one iota. She is moving too fast laying out her strategy for the future which resonates positively and hopeful with the constituency . The Iraq War is as concerning to her as the well received Health Care Plan she has now presented. She WILL breeze across the finish line with ease.

[flpoljunkie]

30. Hillary Clinton's "experience" on health care is a record of failure, plain and simple.

[Tellurian]

36. And your record of assaults on the Clintons are duly noted!

we call it exploding heads!! or boomeranging KARMIC activity.. (scientific explanation)

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[flpoljunkie]

37. Keep up the good work, tellurian! Don't stop now!

[AdHocSolver]

38. By her own words, Clinton tells us that she is NOT serious about health care reform.

Clinton promises to initiate health care reform by the end of her SECOND term. What insight into the future informs her that, even if she were to get elected in 2008 (highly doubtful for many reasons), that she would get reelected in 2012? What prognostication informs her that whoever is elected President in 2012 would have a Democratic majority in Congress to be able to push through health care reform?

Any President elected in 2008 would have to initiate health care reform in the first 100 days, while they had the political capital to do it, and a Democratic majority in Congress (likely after the 2008 election) to get the necessary legislation passed. Either Clinton is naive about politics or she is scamming us.

At any rate, if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, resign yourself to another four years of a Republican presidency. She is so divisive that she couldn't possibly get enough moderate Republicans and independents to vote for her. That means a close election, as in 2000 and 2004, and the Republicans have another chance to steal the election. Only a significant majority of votes for the Democratic candidate could prevent another election theft.

A Clinton nomination would lend truth to the phrase that "Democrats are the party determined to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory."

[Capn Sunshine]

40. Good LORD

Koolaid, anyone?

[Lucinda]

31. the best man? n/t

[Netbeavis]

11. Would Edwards Have Enough Time After Obama Drops Out to Knock Out Clinton?

now that's a tough question.

[William769]

12. Actually you have it wrong,

Edwards will be knocking out Obama, As to Edwards beating Clinton, we will just have to wait and see.

[wyldwolf]

13. DrFunkenstein, I believe Obama bails before Edwards does...

...or there will be a time he should.

Edwards wins Iowa. Clinton will be second.
Clinton wins NH. Edwards, on the momentum of Iowa, will be second.
Clinton wins SC, Edwards will be second.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Monkey wrench in your scenario.

Edwards loses Iowa and, therefore, his campaign is effectively over after the first contest.

Obama, after a strong showing in Iowa, become the alternative to "your girl".

[cobalt1999]

17. That's how I see it playing out

However, this far out is like predicting which quarter the wind will be blowing from next 4th of July.

[wyldwolf]

19. how is that a monkey wrench?

Obama is running third.

[jefferson_dem]

21. You predict Edwards will win Iowa.

I predict he won't. Do you not concede that it's a "must win" for him?

As an Obama supporter, I want a solid win in Iowa but next best scenario is for Edwards to NOT win.

We'll see.

[Apollo11]

22. That's nasty!

I guess when the day comes some Obama loyalists in Iowa might consider throwing their support to Hillary, in a desperate attempt to prevent John Edwards reaping the rewards of an early victory.

Hopefully the Iowa caucus-goers will manage to rise above those kind of underhand tactics.

Iowa is not only a "must win" for Edwards. I predict it's also a "will win" for Edwards! B-)

Disclaimer: unless Al Gore changes his mind and enters the race before Thanksgiving.

[jefferson_dem]

25. Please don't ascribe any such "nasty" tactical encouragements to my comments.

I am only assessing the field and how things might play out...and how I hope they will.

Personally, I will be voting for my favorite candidate. As to how others use their vote is, obviously, entirely up to them.

[Adelante]

26. Exactly right, jeff_dem

For Obama: "a solid win in Iowa but next best scenario is for Edwards to NOT win"

Edwards is not Obama's best bud. He is an opponent.

[BeyondGeography]

18. The funny part is "Edwards second in SC," which is impossible

Keep clapping for Tinkerbelle, Obama ain't going away.

[Colobo]

28. Hopefully you will be wrong, and Obama will prevail.

You don't realize how much America needs him.

[Adelante]

14. Hillary has run an incumbent's campaign, so to speak, in the primaries

Obama and Edwards have been running against Hillary as if she's an incumbent, which has strengthened her and weakened themselves. Both Obama and Edwards had an opportunity instead over the past four months to knock each other out and neither took it. One of them needed to be the one left standing and facing Hillary in the fall. Now they're going to have to have that battle, but it's late and may only confuse the matter, which will also benefit Hillary. Obama has let Edwards get stronger as Hillary hoped would happen. These two don't combine into an anti-Hillary vote, as much as the netroots wants to view it that way, not in the real world. But one of them has to survive the other to face Hillary now that facing Hillary is what matters. I've been very close to supporting Obama over all candidates, but he may have let this get away from him. I want to see him fight.

[Tellurian]

24. Thanks, WesDem..

You gave both opposing teams a reality slap neither groups would do for the benefit of their candidate. I believe their original strategy was the two of them "gang up" on Hillary which neither one has had the presence of mind to admit is a dismal failure. Consequently, they have remained static, just pitching pot shots from their car windows. The biggest insult of all, being totally ignored by the onslaught of Hillary's whirlwind campaign.

[DrFunkenstein]

39. I Agree About The Two Not Combining Voltron-Like Into A Single Opponent

Although some here believe that Obama will be the one to drop out - for the record, I'd be thrilled with an Edwards presidency - I have to imagine that Obama can hang in there much longer because of his campaign coffers, unless he takes a unrecoverable hit in the early states.

Clearly some of the Edwards votes - or vice versa, I suppose - would peel off, but that would certainly be offset by a number of voters heading towards Clinton if she looks like a strong frontrunner.

There's the rub. How many go to whom?

All academic I suppose, since we all know that Chris Dodd is going to run away with the nomination.

[sniffa]

15. wiLL edwards have enough time to knock out obama

once hiLLary drops out?

[Apollo11]

20. Why not wait until the Convention?

If no candidate has a majority of delegates, then it will be up to the candidates with the smallest number of delegates to drop out of the race.

Remember how Santos (Jimmy Smits) got the nomination in THE WEST WING? B-)

If Al Gore wants the job then he should let us know before Thanksgiving.

I honestly believe that if Edwards wins Iowa then he can go all the way.

I would be happy to see Obama on the ticket in 2008, 2012, 2016 and/or 2020.

But if Hillary wins the nomination then we should all get behind her.

[surfermaw]

29. You have it backward, it is going to be B.O..that will drop out

Never Edwards, when B.O drops out Edwards will take Hillary running and will win in 2008, he is the o n ly one that can win, and if Gore doesn't get in Biden will make John a find V.P.

[Ethelk2044]

34. He will not drop out He will win in 2008

[Ethelk2044]

33. Out of all of these polls how many of us know someone who has been polled

I for one do not know anyone that has been polled. In PA,MD, Tx, CA or MN. Those are the states where I know several people.

[Dawgs]

35. Obama will win with or without Edwards. No worries here.

[BenDavid]

41. 114 days till January 14th and HRC

will win Iowa's 45 delegates and on the 15th in Michigan win their 128 delegates and then on Saturday the 19th pick up Nevada's 25 for a showing of 198 total delegates.....and on February 12th, 2008 will be declared the democratic nominee for president of the united states... oh and I did not show HRC winning North Carolina or South Carolina in which she could....and to answer your question...No, Obama will not have the time if edwards falls out.....
Ben David