Here, in detail, is why John Edwards cannot win the nomination of the Democratic Party

[cali]

It's a kos diary.

John Edwards Can't Beat Hillary Clinton, and Here's Why
by Geekesque
Tue Dec 18, 2007 at 01:12:29 PM PST
One of the traditional laments during primary season is that the media devotes disproportionate coverage to the two current front runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Dennis Kucinich is probably closer on the issues than the other candidates.

Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are the three most experienced, and the three most often ignored.

The person with, on the surface, the strongest objection to the two-horse narrative is former VP-nominee John Edwards.

But, he too, is destined to be an also-ran. The only question is when it becomes official.

The math below the fold.

Geekesque's diary :: ::
I. Money.

Cash, Rules, Everything, Around, Me
C.R.E.A.M.
Get the money
Dollar, dollar bill y'all

--Method Man
Denouncing and decrying the influence of money on the course of elections in this country is reliable applause line. And it does need to be fixed. But, it has not been fixed to anyone's satisfaction. And the reality that faces every candidate today is that campaigns are expensive. Obscenely expensive. The question for this diary, though, is: how expensive must a campaign be for a candidate to win the nomination, from this point forward? Or, more to the point, does the spending cap on Edwards's campaign prevent him from spending enough to be viable?

Let's start rolling the numbers out.

Edwards:
Money spent as of 10/03/07: $18.75 Million. (approximate)

Quarter Three spending: $7.3 Million (approximate)

That $7.3 Million figure is without any television advertising. Given the ramping up ahead of the Iowa caucus, including advertising and increased travel costs due to the closing of the corporate jet loophole,, Edwards is likely to spend at least $11.25 Million-$13.25 Million in Q4. Which takes him up to $30-32 Million, spent as of January 4. He will also spend another $4-6 Million alone in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. That means $34-$38 Million spent before Tsunami Tuesday, just on the early states.

Edwards has a spending cap, all loopholes included, of $53 Million dollars. Even with all loopholes, that would leave $15-19 Million dollars to spend not only for Tsunami Tuesday but also to fund his campaign through August.

To put that in perspective, Edward's current salary expenses are about $2 Million per month. So, if he doesn't have massive layoffs in his campaign ex post February 5, he would need to keep in reserve:

February: $2 Million
March: $ 4 Million
April: $6 Million
May: $8 Million
June: $10 Million
July: $12 Million.

And that is just salaries. It doesn't include advertising, rent, travel expenses, insurance, accountants, polling firms, phone charges, Internet access, and office supplies.

So, even in his best case scenario Edwards would have two choices:

A) Go for broke on Tsunami Tuesday and spend everything in order to overcome the Clinton machine (as well as the Obama organization, which is built with February 5 in mind) and shut down his campaign on February 6; or

B) Pinch his pennies, forgo any field operations and advertising in the February 5 states, and keep his powder dry in case he should become the nominee.

Neither of these is particularly attractive. In fact, they're awful. This is why Markos has written Edwards off, and why Mike Lux of Open Left has also written him off, calling the matching funds gambit "one of the stupidest decisions I've ever seen in modern Presidential politics."

II. February 5 State Polls and Field Organizations

To put things in further perspective, let's examine what's ahead of Edwards on Tsunami Tuesday, with most recent (October-December) polling numbers where available. Note that Edwards has zero offices open in any of these states.

February 5 States:

Alabama: Clinton 46, Obama 25, Edwards 6
Alaska: None
Arizona: Clinton 44, Obama 14, Edwards 11
Arkansas: None since March
California: Clinton 49, Obama 30, Edwards 14
Connecticut: Clinton 45, Obama 19, Edwards 7
Delaware: Clinton 41, Biden 19, Obama 17, Edwards 7
Democrats Abroad: None
Georgia: Clinton 34, Obama 27, Edwards 12
Idaho: None since July
Illinois: Obama 50, Clinton 25, Edwards 7
Kansas: None
Massachusetts: None since April
Minnesota: None since September
Missouri: Clinton 36, Obama 21, Edwards 20
New Jersey: Clinton 51, Obama 17, Edwards 7
New York: Clinton 55, Obama 17, Edwards 7
North Dakota: None
Oklahoma: None since April
Tennessee: None
Utah: None since February (heh, Vilsack was in second place)

*Bonus state--North Carolina: Clinton 31, Edwards 26, Obama 24

How is John Edwards going to field organizations and media campaigns in these 22 states on a shoestring budget, down by 25-45 points in the polls, and realistically get a majority of the delegates?

Note especially that the real issue here is that Clinton's advantages in New York and New Jersey and California are such that Edwards may not even meet the 15% threshold to get delegates. Edwards could conceivably beat Obama one on one. He cannot beat Clinton one on one, let alone with Obama in the race.

Source.

III. Lack of appeal to African-Americans

Edwards faces a further problem: He is virtually locked out of the African-American vote due to the strength of Obama and Clinton with that demographic.

And this is not a case of AA voters being unfamiliar with John Edwards. In North Carolina and South Carolina, African-Americans know who John Edwards is. He's just not part of the conversation. The figures below are for African-American voters:

North Carolina:

Obama: 53
Clinton: 30
Edwards: 3

South Carolina:

Obama: 53.6
Clinton: 21.2
Edwards: 1.7
Can Edwards win the nomination with only white voters behind him?

These structural deficits are simply too overwhelming to overcome. The bottom line is that if it's Edwards vs. Clinton in the end, Clinton will run him over with resources, appeal to African-Americans, a political machine that has been built up over two decades, and overwhelming advantages in support going in. This is especially the case because of Clinton's geographical dominance of New York and New Jersey, the dominance of Clinton and Obama in California, and Obama's domination of Illinois.

IV. Addendum: Edwards's Early State Best Case Scenario is Severely Unlikely

Edwards is a distant, distant, distant third in the non-Iowa Early States. He's behind both Clinton and Obama by double digits in New Hampshire, more than twenty points in South Carolina, and by more than thirty points in Nevada.

Even with a not-so-surprising win in Iowa, it's very, very, very difficult to see him turning that into a win in New Hampshire, a state that does not match up well with his populist themes, and which shrugged its shoulders at his momentum coming out of Iowa in 2004 to the tune of 12%.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/18/161229/03/44/423046

[bobthedrummer]

1. All the more reason to vote for Dennis Kucinich imo

[bonito]

50. Yes! the progressive policy institute is as progressive as

the Patriot act is Patriotic!

[madeline_con]

2. Don't make me put you on ignore. n/t

[petersjo02]

4. What she said. n/t

[cali]

6. sorry, I really find that a very impotent threat.

I don't care in the least if you put me on ignore. Why would I?

[madeline_con]

9. Edwards bashers just DO NOT get jokes. Why is that? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

11. Some things are only funny from a certain, specific mindset.

[madeline_con]

21. There are worse things than not supporting Hillary Clinton. n/t

[cali]

14. Edwards supporters are so blinded by adulation that they've

become robotic in their support and can't discern criticism and actual analysis from bashing.

See? I can play that game too- and much better than you ever dreamed of.

[madeline_con]

18. Please. Robotic. What a load of crap.

I reserve the right not to think Hill is all that. My opinion is based on my own analysis.

But thanks for the info.

[cali]

27. my, my. So you didn't get that I was trying to make a point by ripping

a page out of YOUR book? I don't generalize like you do, and I don't call thoughtful criticism bashing. I don't believe what I wrote, I was just serving you back your own recipe.

[madeline_con]

56. You said I was robotic, and that's bullshit. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

22. There is nothing "funny" about Edwards' limitation......

considering that he might have a chance to go all the way.

This actually brings things back to a status of asking in reality, "who is truly electable?"

Edwards seem to have taken himself out of that game.

[madeline_con]

23. How so? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

24. How so, what?

Edwards is limited in funding.

Funding limits is important in elections if the opponent is not limited in funding.

The media tends to "like" the GOP during the GE; so the Dem nominee needs funds more than the GOP does.

I don't find that funny.

Why do you? :shrug:

[madeline_con]

57. When did I say that was funny? n/t

[democrat2thecore]

12. What?

I ignore people for being rude, crude, trolling, etc. I thought the piece was actually very thought provoking and shows a practical problem facing Edwards. It was more about logistics and the whole money thing in politics than anything else. There was surely nothing in the linked article to cause one to "ignore" the poster. Why would anyone here want DU to be an echo-chamber? Good discussion, especially about practical politics, should be encouraged. We could all "ignore" until we are only reading those who we already know agree with us on everything. That's not what good, healthy discussion is all about.

[bonito]

47. What you said!

We need a Presidential candidate, not a residential candidate, BushClintonBushClinton.

[democrat2thecore]

3. Hmmmm....thought provoking and some good points

It's just not right that it all comes down to $$$$$$$.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Pretty convincing argument. Doesn't mean JRE supporters should stop supporting him, though.

Every delegate is valuable when it comes to writing the party platform.

[cali]

7. Not saying they should.

People should support whoever they feel is the best candidate.

[Occam Bandage]

10. I didn't mean to imply that you were.

Many supporters of long-shot (or no-shot) candidates seem to believe that "your candidate probably won't win" means "you should give up and go home," and that's who I was addressing my post to.

[liberalnurse]

8. Excellent post!

I bookmarked this too! It will happen.

[asdjrocky]

13. Well Cali-

If Geekesque on Kos says it. Then you know I believe it.

Kidding aside, coz that's all this is, name a hard fought primary campaign that ever went down because of money. Also- imagine the money rolling in after a big Iowa win.

I don't buy it. Edwards has been doing it with far less for far longer, he can easily hold on to super tus with a big win or two.

Sometimes, no matter how much money you have, winning the prize is still a test of skill.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Denial doesn't win elections......

Try doing the math and get back with your own thread on how Edwards will make this work.

Everyone of the candidates would take matching funds if there were no limits that put them "at risk".

The sad part is that Edwards had enough of his own money to have funded a large part of his campaign, not taken matching funds (like he said he wouldn't in May), and paid himself back once he secured enough donations to do so.

In other words, Edwards chose this box that he is in, mostly because he wasn't willing to risk his own fortune, not for even 1 minute.

His shortsighted calculation and lack of faith in himself and his message will make us pay bigtime, if he is the nominee.

[asdjrocky]

25. Your agreement is of little concern.

I've watched him do more with less the whole time. Difficult as it may be for you to understand I feel the matching funds decision was a principled decision.

And please don't try to give me a homework assignment, and don't think I will ever feel I have to answer to your fiscal view of the way things should go.

Can you name a major race that ever failed in America because of lack of funds?

I can't find one, and I keep asking the question. Now why don't you do your homework assignment?

[dsc]

26. It happens all the time

Kennedy beat Humphrey in 1960 in no small part due to Humphrey's lack of funds. In NC in 2006, we lost a Congressional seat we likely would have won, by less than a 1000 votes, we were outspent something like 100 to 1.

[FrenchieCat]

28. There's a whole of things that we haven't seen in this election.....

we haven't seen a Black candidate topping the Iowa poll..... ever.

We haven't seen a Woman candidate topping the national polls.... ever.

We haven't seen the primaries start this early before.....ever.

We haven't seen one candidate who takes matching fund runs against one who doesn't--with 7 months to burn between the time the nominee is known and the end of the convention.....ever.

see page 53
http://books.google.com/books?id=nDRzOnZmMakC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=matching+funds+bill+clinton+bob+dole&source=web&ots=dxlJVIWGOC&sig=00xkhn3PqeCjLiCKcK3fheJ--8Q#PPA53,M15RzJjCQd64iPkOHbT1vucUjM

[asdjrocky]

29. And as you well point out-

"There's a whole of things that we haven't seen in this election....."

There is an exception to every rule.

[FrenchieCat]

30. OK........

so cross your fingers, K?

[asdjrocky]

33. Yeah, poor people everywhere this Christmas, are crossing their fingers.

I've voted in every election since 1980, this time for me, it's more than money.

You can believe what you want, but until you get out there, until you are on the ground, it's all classroom.

I have not tried to be rude or condescending to you.

[FrenchieCat]

41. The point is to get elected to help those in need.....

cause getting elected is the key....

That's the part we are talking about.

[asdjrocky]

42. No, what you are talking about is why he can't be elected.

Why would you think I need that explained to me?

[FrenchieCat]

43. He didn't have to take matching funds.......considering his 54 million dollar fortune....

that's what he chose to do.

Maybe he didn't want to put himself at risk to that extent to help those in need? :shrug:

[asdjrocky]

49. Yeah, you take all the money he has, every single cent-

And Obama and Clinton still have 120 mil on him.

But you think what you think, and I'll think what I think. I'm a Progressive, and I don't go by the motto: "He or She who has the most money wins."

If you do, that's your problem. I'm off to a campaign meeting. So you're gonna have to find someone else to try to sell.

[FrenchieCat]

58. Actually, you are incorrect........

John Kerry did what I am suggesting Edwards could have done. John Kerry had faith in himself in reference to his chances and his message, and ended up paying himself back.

See the problem with your rethorics is that on the one hand you care about the poor people, but on the other hand, the principled message to play on an uneven playing field appears to be even more important. I would suggest that getting elected and then doing something both the poor and the funding issue would be wisest.

[Andy823]

65. There are also posts on Kos that show how

Edwdards does NOT have a money problem, but the Edwards bashers seem to ignore those! What I see is the Obama camp getting scared that maybe the "rock star" isn't really ready for prime time, and Edwards is going to take it in Iowa, and then go all the way. Obama has serious problems and no matter how much money he has, it won't change the fact he just isn't ready for this, and he really has no plans, just "hope"! He "hopes" he can get the votes, he "hopes" he can come up with a plan, he "hopes" he can beat Edwards, and he hopes he can get all of Clintons advisors to tell him how to run things! That last one really doesn't show me he wants change if he is willing to run things just like the Clintons would! :evilgrin:

Geekesque, and the other Obamaites, have stopped going after Clinton, and now are going after Edwards. They are scared, pure and simple, and they have good reason to be. The rock star party will be over if Obama doesn't win Iowa, and they know it! Be prepared for all kinds of crap coming down the line in the next couple of weeks, but don't expect it to work. Edwards has the right message, and it's working, and it will keep on working. This country wants "change" not more of the same. Edwards will give them that change, and they know it!

[EV_Ares]

70. You are right, none. This is just the everyday constant bashing of

Edwards by a couple of people who constantly post this stuff. Same old thing over & over. No media, anyone else here or other blogs or other political pundits concerned about this nonsense, nobody else, just them trying to create a fantasy of sorts. If Edwards is the nominee, there will be no money problems. In actuality, what will be funny is when they are shown wrong which will come. All speculation, too weak & idiotic to waste any more time on it.

The best part of this is this is all they can come up with which shows the power of Edwards and what he stands for & look how weak it is what they post. Maybe they can drudge up a Drudge type enquirer story or something to put a little humor in it but other than that they have nothing.

[ellisonz]

15. C.R.E.A.M.

[Elidor]

16. That's a pretty sobering analysis

I'd much rather see Edwards get it than Clinton or Obama, but it doesn't look good.

And nevertheless, I'm voting for either Kucinich or Dodd.

[OHdem10]

17. J Edwards Supporters will stick with him.

Do not try to get people to change their votes.

Many will simply wait until the election. Some will go with
Independent if one appears.

[cali]

20. I'm not trying t get anyone to change their votes. I don't even

have a candidate. I'm presenting what I think is good analysis with lots of hard data.

[onehandle]

31. Obsessed much. nt

[cali]

34. not at all. defensive much? n/t

[Beaverhausen]

32. Didn't Gore accept public financing in 2000?

[FrenchieCat]

35. Bush didn't accept primary matching fund......

and spent over 75 million winning the GOP nom in 2000.

Gore did....
With ten weeks to go before the Democratic Convention, Gore has raised all the money he's allowed to for his campaign and has spent all but $10 million of it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june00/fundraising_5-25.html


THE 2000 CAMPAIGN; Campaign Briefing
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E5DC1031F932A15755C0A9669C8B63
Mr. Gore expects to qualify for $15 million in federal matching funds, bringing his total preconvention fund to the $40.5 million spending cap placed on candidates who accept federal money. Mr. Bush, who is not accepting federal money, expects to spend nearly twice as much before the Republican National Convention, which starts on July 31. After the conventions, candidates must stop fund-raising and will be given $67.6 million in federal funds to spend on the general election. (NYT)

Bush not really winning, but it shouldn't have even been close! Gore was sitting Veep! :(

[Beaverhausen]

36. So the answer to my question is yes

and as we know, Gore won the popular vote. So, the problem is?

[FrenchieCat]

38. The problem is that it shouldn't have even been close.....

Gore as sitting Veep in an 8 year successful administration, with peace and a great economy should have won by leaps and bounds.

The funding limits that Gore had allowed the GOP to really go after him......if you remember: Love Canal, Invented the Internet, etc., etc.....

[cali]

40. The problem is that this is not 2000. Things have changed

It was a big deal in 2004 when Dean decided not to take matching funds. Now taking matching funds is the exception, and one that puts a candidate at a distinct disadvantage. We need massive reform.

[FrenchieCat]

51. And Gore did badly relative to what he should have done......

with only 10 weeks to the convention with 10 million in the kitty. Even ended up losing his own state!

We are talking about Edwards going for nearly 7 months...cause the primaries are earlier than ever before (and so by Feb 5th or there around, we will have a nominee), and the Dem convention doesn't end until August 28th...which is when General Election cash would be available.

That three times the time to do damage....to someone who doesn't have the same advantages that Gore had in being sitting Veep in an 8 year administration.

Not the best math to have on our side from where I sit.

[K Gardner]

37. You're right. We should just all quit this sham now and let the person with the most $$$ have

the nomination. IS THIS FOR REAL?????

[cali]

39. as the diarist makes clear, much as we all may dislike it, money is

a big factor. Why do you think Edwards is stretched so thin in so many states? Ignoring a real factor doesn't make it unimportant and it doesn't make it go away.

[jefferson_dem]

44. Ergo...the second best result for Hillary in IA is JE winning.

n/t

[jsamuel]

45. This was posted by a DEVOUT Obama supporter who has no knoledge of the internal finances of the

Edwards campaign besides quarterly reporting.

[cali]

46. The article has plenty of data and quarterly reporting is

the funding the campaign has, period.

[jsamuel]

55. no not period

;)

[cali]

59. what other funding does a campaign have? If it's not reported it's

not legal. period.

[surfermaw]

48. Have you ever heard of Harry Truman

[cali]

52. Yes. And why do you believe that he's germane to the

points made in the posted diary?

[FrenchieCat]

53. Have you heard of the conglamoration of media post-truman?

[caligirl]

54. Jimmy Carter.

[cali]

60. 1976 is not 2008. To say that a lot has changed, is an understatement. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

62. Carter ran at a time when they all accepted matching funds, but

the amount of money in politics was totally different then:

His money-starved opponents could not compete with Carter in paid TV.
None of the candidates has collected matching funds since the Federal Election Commission temporarily went out of business. But Carter, since his Wisconsin primary victory, has found it easier to raise money than either Jackson or Udall, both of whom have been dogged by "loser" images. Additionally, Carter has an efficient fund-raising operation, led by Alabama Lawyer Morris Dees, the former McGovern finance director whose direct-mail operations reached hundreds of thousands of contributors to previous Democratic campaigns. Since the federal fund cutoff on March 23, Carter contributions have topped $600,000, far more than the amounts raised by Jackson and Udall.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,914159-5,00.html

[caligirl]

67. Its a chicken or the egg thing. Which comes first -rising poll numbers or campaign contributions

Rising poll numbers would bring in more money= more money=more ads.

How would increasing contributions increase the poll numbers= $ spent on ads.

If Edwards wins Iowa it changes the strategy of the big $$ donors, Hil continues to loose the aura of invincibility.

Then ask:
Are special interests donating because of the issues the candidate stands for, or for access to a possible winner?Where is the $$$$ coming from and some of it will it move to the winner of Iowa? How much will move? If Edwards stomps everyone in Iowa he can do well, as long as he does well in NH too. Momentum has to keep going for any candidate to retain their donors.


and I like this argument for Edwards from the next poster whose link I'll post:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3860601

[jsamuel]

61. Response posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3860601

[izzybeans]

63. "I'm going to make a prediction I can't possibly know to be true, and here is why"

I cheer for my team. Goooo Team!!!!

[Czolgosz]

64. Now you're not even writing your own hate posts? Hateful AND lazy is NO way to go through life!

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[caligirl]

68. I still got to read what Cali said before it was deleted. and I didn't think it was bad enough to

deserve deletion.

[Luminous Animal]

69. And this is a reason not to vote for him... Why? (n/t)

[OneBlueSky]

71. and won't they be surprised when he does . . . n/t

.