It's time for Edwards to get out of the way.

B

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
I know, I know .. I like him too .. but now he's just in the way.

All hope of his nomination goes out the window with South Carolina and it ain't looking good for him there. It's a state that he MUST win .. and he won't.

He once called Nevada a state that he "had a good bet to win", but ended up with a miserable 5% showing.

I like Edwards but it's time for him to consider another vehicle through which he can continue his battle against corporatism.
 
blackascoal said:
I know, I know .. I like him too .. but now he's just in the way.

All hope of his nomination goes out the window with South Carolina and it ain't looking good for him there. It's a state that he MUST win .. and he won't.

He once called Nevada a state that he "had a good bet to win", but ended up with a miserable 5% showing.

I like Edwards but it's time for him to consider another vehicle through which he can continue his battle against corporatism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that loser Nader needs to get out too.

Anyway, Black, if Edwards stay in he'll be kingmaker.
 
blackascoal said:
He could be the kingmaker by getting out.

By the way .. I agree with you about Nader.
Click to expand...

He could also be kingmaker by getting 15% of the delegates. Currently, on the delegate scorecard, he has the balance of power. He can decide between Obama and Clinton. That gives him a lot of power. If he dropped out right now, he'd have no power.

I'd rather have Obama, but there's no incentive for Edwards to quit at all so long as he keeps finishing above 15% in primaries.
 
Watermark said:
He could also be kingmaker by getting 15% of the delegates. Currently, on the delegate scorecard, he has the balance of power. He can decide between Obama and Clinton. That gives him a lot of power. If he dropped out right now, he'd have no power.

I'd rather have Obama, but there's no incentive for Edwards to quit at all so long as he keeps finishing above 15% in primaries.
Click to expand...

I agree with you .. as long as he gets 15%.
 
Watermark said:
Yep, it is dangerous. Since the Dems introduced proportional representation, there's not been a race in which one candidate hasn't gotten a majority of delegates. A 15% threshold is sky-high.
Click to expand...

Again, I agree with you, but it's why I don't see Edwards holding onto 15% throughout the race.

I agree with proportional representation, but not the 15% threshold.
 
blackascoal said:
I know, I know .. I like him too .. but now he's just in the way.

All hope of his nomination goes out the window with South Carolina and it ain't looking good for him there. It's a state that he MUST win .. and he won't.

He once called Nevada a state that he "had a good bet to win", but ended up with a miserable 5% showing.

I like Edwards but it's time for him to consider another vehicle through which he can continue his battle against corporatism.
Click to expand...

This is speculation on my part, but....

Obama needs Edwards to say in, IMO. That is, if one is an Obama fan. And wants to see Obama win.

Why?

One, who is running this democratic primary with the most progressive rhetoric? Edwards is the most progressive. Clinton is next. Obama is running with the least progressive rhetoric. Obama's got the least progressive rhetoric of the top three contenders. As such, don't assume that Edwards voters - who are most progressive of democratic primary activists - automatically goes to Obama, if Edwards drops out. I'm not going to assume that. Obama has been doing great with independents and swing voters. But from here on out, he's running in closed primaries. In other words, the road to the white house for him runs straight through the heart of progressive democratic activists. No more independents and cross over voters are going to be voting in the closed primaries. And, I'm not convinced that running as a centrist, DLC democrat who flirts with DLC approved rightwing, corporate code words, is going to win Obama the bulk of the Edwards voters. But, I could be wrong. It's just a guess.

Second, Edwards also scores handily with old-school southern voters, and rural voters. And, I'm not so sure that they're going to natural gravitate towards obama. They might. I'd just have to see it to believe it.

I don't have a horse in the race, since I support neither Obama or Clinton. And I'm not saying Obama is more DLC than Clinton. I'm just saying his rhetoric in this campaign is, broadly speaking, less progressive than the other two top Dem candidates. In contrast, his voting record is in fact, nearly identical to clinton's. But, it's rhetoric that people pay attention to in the primaries, I think.
 
Edwards has zero realistic hope of getting the nomination after his pathetic performance in nevada.
His hurting Obama, if he got out the way Obama still has time to make a race out of it and win
 
Cypress said:
This is speculation on my part, but....

Obama needs Edwards to say in, IMO. That is, if one is an Obama fan. And wants to see Obama win.

Why?

One, who is running this democratic primary with the most progressive rhetoric? Edwards is the most progressive. Clinton is next. Obama is running with the least progressive rhetoric. Obama's got the least progressive rhetoric of the top three contenders. As such, don't assume that Edwards voters - who are most progressive of democratic primary activists - automatically goes to Obama, if Edwards drops out. I'm not going to assume that. Obama has been doing great with independents and swing voters. But from here on out, he's running in closed primaries. In other words, the road to the white house for him runs straight through the heart of progressive democratic activists. No more independents and cross over voters are going to be voting in the closed primaries. And, I'm not convinced that running as a centrist, DLC democrat who flirts with DLC approved rightwing, corporate code words, is going to win Obama the bulk of the Edwards voters. But, I could be wrong. It's just a guess.

Second, Edwards also scores handily with old-school southern voters, and rural voters. And, I'm not so sure that they're going to natural gravitate towards obama. They might. I'd just have to see it to believe it.

I don't have a horse in the race, since I support neither Obama or Clinton. And I'm not saying Obama is more DLC than Clinton. I'm just saying his rhetoric in this campaign is, broadly speaking, less progressive than the other two top Dem candidates. In contrast, his voting record is in fact, nearly identical to clinton's. But, it's rhetoric that people pay attention to in the primaries, I think.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on Edwards don't have anything to do with what's in the best interests of Obama. If Obama wins, he'll have to do it with or without Edwards.
 
blackascoal said:
My thoughts on Edwards don't have anything to do with what's in the best interests of Obama. If Obama wins, he'll have to do it with or without Edwards.
Click to expand...

But you said Edwards was "in the way".

Who's way is Edwards is?


BAC: I know, I know .. I like him too .. but now he's just in the way.


I hope Edwards stays in. I think he has had a profound influence on forcing Obama and Clinton to more progressive positions. And I hope he can stay in, to continue to influence the debate. Or, even force a brokered convention. But, I recognize that possibility is getting remote.
 
Cypress said:
This is speculation on my part, but....

Obama needs Edwards to say in, IMO. That is, if one is an Obama fan. And wants to see Obama win.

Why?

One, who is running this democratic primary with the most progressive rhetoric? Edwards is the most progressive. Clinton is next. Obama is running with the least progressive rhetoric. Obama's got the least progressive rhetoric of the top three contenders. As such, don't assume that Edwards voters - who are most progressive of democratic primary activists - automatically goes to Obama, if Edwards drops out. I'm not going to assume that. Obama has been doing great with independents and swing voters. But from here on out, he's running in closed primaries. In other words, the road to the white house for him runs straight through the heart of progressive democratic activists.
Click to expand...


KOS said:
Who is running with the most progressive rhetoric? Edwards, first. Then Clinton. And then Obama, who is still trying to be a palatable general election candidate rather than close the deal in the primary. So riddle me this -- in a Democratic primary, where will many Edwards supporters go? Don't assume it'll be Obama if they're looking for the strongest Democratic voice in the race.

Obama's path to the nomination at this point runs through Democratic voters. And ultimately, while my absentee ballot will be mailed out Monday with his name checked off, I'm pessimistic that he can win. He has shown no proclivity for speaking in unambiguous progressive tones, and it could cost him the election.
Click to expand...


WOW Cypress you are truly a scumbag.... You literally copy Markos's words and claim them as your own original thoughts....

What a disingenious fucker Cypress is....


CK
 
Speculation on your part?????

Man Cypress no wonder everybody hates your guts..... NO dumbass its thoughts by KOS not by Cypress...... Cypress only knows how to cut and paste...

Dumbass.

CK
 
Cypress said:
But you said Edwards was "in the way".

Who's way is Edwards is?


BAC: I know, I know .. I like him too .. but now he's just in the way.


I hope Edwards stays in. I think he has had a profound influence on forcing Obama and Clinton to more progressive positions. And I hope he can stay in, to continue to influence the debate. Or, even force a brokered convention. But, I recognize that possibility is getting remote.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't maintain the 15% threshold which would allow him to broker at the convebtion, then he's in the way of clarity.

I don't want Clinton or Obama "pushed" into progressive positions, I want to hear what they really think if one of them is to be the nominee.

Also, I think Edwards can be a force outside of the circus where he can speak more freely and honestly about his positions and opinions.

But let's be honest, if Edwards doesn't show well in South Carolina, his ability to push within the framework of a debate will be greatly diminshed anyway.
 
blackascoal said:
If he doesn't maintain the 15% threshold which would allow him to broker at the convebtion, then he's in the way of clarity.

I don't want Clinton or Obama "pushed" into progressive positions, I want to hear what they really think if one of them is to be the nominee.

Also, I think Edwards can be a force outside of the circus where he can speak more freely and honestly about his positions and opinions.

But let's be honest, if Edwards doesn't show well in South Carolina, his ability to push within the framework of a debate will be greatly diminshed anyway.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word on that 15% threshold stuff. Frankly, that horse race stuff bores me to tears, and I don't keep track of it. I think he can stay in it until at least super tuesday; I can't see him dropping out after south carolina.

So, I ain't giving up yet. Let's see what happens on super tuesday. :)
 
blackascoal said:
If he doesn't maintain the 15% threshold which would allow him to broker at the convebtion, then he's in the way of clarity.

I don't want Clinton or Obama "pushed" into progressive positions, I want to hear what they really think if one of them is to be the nominee.

Also, I think Edwards can be a force outside of the circus where he can speak more freely and honestly about his positions and opinions.

But let's be honest, if Edwards doesn't show well in South Carolina, his ability to push within the framework of a debate will be greatly diminshed anyway.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether or not something is done "honestly" as long as its done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top