Edwards Lack of Organization for Mega-Tuesday, Public Financing for General Election Give Pause

[DrFunkenstein]

Like many people, I was torn between Obama and Edwards. I must admit that I have come to prefer Obama ultimately, but some issues have made my decision easier. I am with Edwards for most of his policy positions, but there are organizational problems that make me fear that the two candidates could cancel each other out and leave Clinton with an unfair advantage.

First of all, Edwards has really hitched his star to Iowa. He has barebones organizations or none at all in many of the key states that follow the initial round of contests.

In order to put together reasonable strength in complex states like California and New York on mega-Tuesday, he would have to win convincingly in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina to bring in the flood of cash he needs for these later states.

Even then, he would still have a fight on his hands since both Clinton and Obama have the resources to compete well into these rounds already.

With a three-way race, it seems that the most likely beneficiary would be Clinton, who alone represents the more hawkish, moderate wing of the party, whereas Edwards and Obama are contesting the Democratic wing of the party.

Then you have to consider that Edwards has also hitched his star to public financing. While this would make it difficult for him during the primaries, it would be - unfortunately - a non-starter in a fiercely contested general election against the corporate Republican machine.

Here is something from MyDD that gave me pause awhile back, and I haven't been able to shake it since:

Of the top four candidates for the Democratic nomination former Sen. John Edwards is the only candidate who does not have any paid staff or campaign offices in the nation's largest state.

...

Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who's worked on presidential campaigns for Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt and Ted Kennedy, said if Edwards stumbles in Iowa "he won't have a California campaign."

However, Carrick said even while concentrating on the earlier states Edwards must establish a campaign in California if he is to take advantage of early momentum.

"If you don't have any preparation in California ... it makes it all the harder to be competitive here if you do get here," he said.

Carrick recalled that in 1988 Gephardt, the former Missouri senator, won Iowa and finished second in the New Hampshire primary, but lacking money he didn't have the organization in other states to be competitive and fell out of the race.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/18/194436/217

[Cha]

1. Too bad..I like Edwards.

You'd think that since Edwards has been in Iowa before that he would know a few ropes even though he doesn't have the big bucks?

[noamnety]

2. God forbid we should actually base our votes on the issues. (nt)

[DrFunkenstein]

4. I'm With You 100%. I Wish I Could Vote Kucinich.

I'm not one of those people telling you what you should think. I only present the thoughts that are going through my head and see what other people say. If we agree, groovy. If we disagree, we debate nicely.

If political calculation were not an issue, I'd be supporting Kucinich.

[Benhurst]

3. We always get the best candidate money can buy.

[frazzled]

5. Iowa will not be dispositive

Edwards may well win Iowa--he's been campaigning there almost every day for five years, after all. But its highly unlikely that such a win will translate into a nomination. It will keep him in until Tsunami Tuesday, but the campaigns with the money and organization (and power backers) will be the ones to predominate ultimately. Which probably means Clinton.

This is the same scenario for Huckabee. Even if he takes Iowa, he is toast on February 5.

[Ninga]

6. I feel that are plenty of union and other organizations that have Edwards back,

and they will be providing feet on the ground in those states.

He is a big time fighter....he knows better than any of us, what he is up against.

:hi: