Switch your vote to Edwards to avoid Clinton

[ProudDad]

Great Idea posed on Thom Hartmann's show...

I could do that...

He's the most likely to defeat any repub...

Kucinich's platform is the only one that's actually Progressive but among the "top tier", Edwards is the closest to a Progressive candidate...

[rinsd]

1. Why so we can get killed in the GE when Edwards has no money left to defend himself?

[jgraz]

4. Wow, are they shutting down contributions next week?

:crazy:

[liberaldemocrat7]

89. I took a poll here on DU and 75 percent of those who answered said they would switch to Edwards

75 percent said they would switch to Edwards in order to avoid Hillary Clinton getting the nomination. Edwards appears the least conservative of the field except for Mr. Kucinich who I like but would get harshly defeated by the GOP.

I spoke to some activists on the telephone and that in California people have decided to unite behind Edwards in order to avoid having Hillary get the nomination, so the movement to get Edwards the nomination appears active.

[Stop Cornyn]

5. Edwards has only accepted federal matching funds for the primary, not the general election.

[rinsd]

20. Yes but he can't spend beyond pub financing till after the convention

Given the expense of the race and his limitations to around $50M he will likely be very low on funds when the nomination has been settled.

That's 3 to 4 months when both nominations will already be known and the mighty Wurlitzer can crank it up to full bore.

[jgraz]

35. So which Rethug candidate are you afraid of?

Seriously, who do you think is going to beat Edwards? He's polling the best against all the nutbag frontrunners.

[Stop Cornyn]

36. The primary'll be over long before Valentines Day. Candidates who can't win the primary on $50000000

probably weren't our strongest candidate anyway.

If Hillary wins Iowa, the race is over.

If Edwards or Obama wins Iowa, it's a two candidate race between the candidate who won Iowa and Hillary.

I suspect the race will be effectively over in January, and you're dreaming if you think this race is not going to be over after Super-Duper Tuesday at the latest.

[rinsd]

44. The media buys for Super Tuesday alone will run in the tens of millions

"you're dreaming if you think this race is not going to be over after Super-Duper Tuesday at the latest."

Well I was referring to the GOP side as well where right now it does not seem so clear cut.

Which makes it even more imperative that the nominee have the funding available for the next 5 months until the convention in late August.

[PATRICK]

91. Math?

Sooo. How much does the ordinary Joe have to donate to avoid this gap and OWN the campaign? For ONCE we have a democracy baked sale. How many donors and what average level for $500,000,000 or break the matching funds bank. He will will get a sh*tload of money from me in this case- even though realistically I don't exactly have that money.

[ProudDad]

6. I'm sure that John Dean

and millions of us Progressives will handle that "problem"...

[rinsd]

21. Yes but being unable to coordinate counterattacks makes for a tactical disadvantage

[ProudDad]

34. Wow

I guess Edwards should hire Mark Rich after hillary loses the nomination??? :sarcasm:

[rinsd]

41. So you think its good campaign strategy to depend on outside help for one's campaign defense?

When you are expressly forbidden from coordinating with said outside effort?

527s will still be a part of the campaign but they should not be the main component for defense.

527s are effective at negative campaigning not damage control or counterattack.

[saracat]

56. Better than having a campaign that is not defensible.

[rinsd]

59. Wow, you really got me there.

Maybe you look forward to 5 month of our nominee getting hammered with little or no response.

I don't.

[saracat]

68. You know something rinsd, I was trying to convince myself that

Clinton was not so bad until her Kyl/Liberman vote and her working with Mark Penn and Rupert Murdoch.Those things plus a lot of questionable votes and her inability to honor her "pledge " to repeal the IWAR. Some of the sources of my info are people who actually worked with her in the Clinton WH, though I don't expect you to believe me. Based on what I "know' about her and having met her twice, I can't vote for this woman. I cannot. I do not believe she is good for this nation.I pray to God I am wrong, but I have not seen anything to indicate I am.

[jgraz]

8. And btw, which Rethug candidate do you envision "killing" in the general?

Personally, I think Tom Tancredo's ready for a surge. :rofl:

[saracat]

9. It isn't all just about money. And Edwards seems to manage his money better than the others.

He has been spending his money very wisely.He has quite a bit left.He will have more than enough to defend himself. And do not forget, the nominee has tons of free media.

[NYCGirl]

18. Two phrases that do not go together: "managing money" and "Joe Trippi." NT

[saracat]

54. Two phrases that do not go together, Mark Penn and Democratic values

Edwards manages his money. not Joe Trippi.

[NYCGirl]

67. Good thing, then. I dislike Mark Penn even more than I dislike Joe Trippi. NT

[rinsd]

25. He is going to be limited to $50M or so.

As of the 2nd Q, he had already spent $10M of the $23M he had raised.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

This was a bad decision on Edwards part.

[MGKrebs]

40. So let's just look at a very likely scenario:

The Dem and Repub nominees are settled by March. The conventions aren't until September, so the candidates are still on primary money for at least 6 months before the get general money. The Repub is raising and spending all he can, probably $10 million a month easily. Edwards has already, as of June '07, spent $10 million, and there can be no doubt that he will have to spend another $20 million to win the nomination, and that is being very frugal. That will leave him $20 to go from March to September, against about $60 million.

[rinsd]

46. You got it!

And wow the conventions are even later than I thought.

[knight_of_the_star]

81. So what's Hil going to do assuming he locks the nom?

Is she going to stand back and let him get pounded like she did for John Kerry?

[jgraz]

2. Could you expand on that? For example, why Edwards and not Obama?

Or Kucinich for that matter?

[ProudDad]

3. Sorry, I just amended my OP

He's the most "Progressive" of the "top tier"...

[Dawgs]

85. Then why not Obama? He has more money and he's very close to Edwards.

[pioneer111]

90. Obama will run out of money before Edwards

He is burning through it rapidly and still going nowhere in the early primary states. :shrug:

[ripple]

97. I disagree with you

Granted, what Edwards is saying now is more progressive than the other top-tiers, but I believe this was a deliberate campaign strategy to position himself to the left of Hillary and Obama. It's a smart strategy and I certainly don't fault him for it, but it's a strategy all the same. Just look at his record during the short time he was in the Senate.

I believe that Obama, on the other hand, has a proven track record of progressive politics and while he's pushed his rhetoric closer to the center to appeal to more voters, if his past actions are any indication, he will be far more progressive than some of his current rhetoric indicates. In his years as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor, and Illinois State senator, he has definitely shown his progressive credentials. I understand why he doesn't want to come across as seeming *too* liberal at this point, as he's trying to appeal to a broader base. Still, I wish more progressives would look at his record and realize that he's the real deal.

[William769]

7. Why not just vote for your pet ?

Will get the same results.

[ProudDad]

10. As Thom mentioned

hillary's support is a rabid 1/3 or less of Democrats. 2/3 want someone else...

So, let's pick someone else who's actually Progressive...

Great Idea...

ABH

[jgraz]

12. You mean we could pick someone who actually espouses Democratic values?

That's crazy talk!

[Hieronymus]

88. Great .. Thom has said that Edwards is our best chance from the start. That

1/3 figure is very interesting. Of course he'll vote for the nominee .. I'm not so sure that all Hillary backers will do that.

[jgraz]

11. Bookmarking for the next time someone wonders about the hostility toward Hillary supporters

:eyes:

[ProudDad]

19. What hostility?

I think she's entirely charming and slick. I admire her chutzpa.

My post and position is ENTIRELY driven by hillary's money backers and her positions on the issues. She would basically shovel more of OUR money into the pockets of her corporate capitalist masters.

I hate her positions on most issues and her basic pro-corporate character...I don't hate her...

I don't hate her supporters either.

Some of you them to be a rabid, idealogical group of zealots incapable of seeing her faults through their hero worship but, hell, it's an allegedly free country.

[jgraz]

27. I meant the entirely "helpful" and "articulate" post about voting for your pet

I don't know what the poster hopes to achieve with drivel like that, other than perhaps working out some deep-seated personal issues in full view of the entire board.

IMHO, it's posts like that that are driving the anger you see directed toward the pro-Hillary crowd. (Which is a crowd that I am emphatically not part of).

[ProudDad]

28. Ah, I get it!

:rofl:


Post changed to reflect your actual orientation on this issue... :hi:

[saracat]

13. .Thanks for the idea.If Hillary is the nom, I will write in my cat.He is honest and consistent.

[jgraz]

33. Plus he shits in a litterbox, not on the heads of the Democratic base

:rofl:

[Cameron27]

66. Damn, if John Edwards gets the nom,

I'd rather write in my coffee cup, but I will vote for him.

[wyldwolf]

14. It's going to be fun watching Hartman suck up to Hillary during the GE

meaningless snark from Prouddad to follow

[saracat]

17. I think you may be surprised.

[ProudDad]

37. Gad

I got stalked by wolfie again...

[jgraz]

42. And thanks for that

At least you got her to stop following me around ;)

[jgraz]

39. It's funny how some people have trouble conceiving of a person with integrity

I wonder why that is?

[knight_of_the_star]

82. I think I'm going to like seeing whifflewolf cry

You've had it coming for a loooong time buddy.

[saracat]

15. Harman is correct. Edwards can win.

[Lucinda]

16. Supporting Edwards anyway, but Hillary is my second choice

And I think she would do just fine in the general.

[incapsulated]

22. You could also vote for a republican

To help "avoid" Clinton.

If your guy has nothing going for him other than he isn't Hillary, the sad news is, people in the party actually like Hillary, DU notwithstanding.

[ProudDad]

26. I never vote for republicans

never have, never will...

That's why I want someone other than hillary...

[incapsulated]

29. Then make a case for Edwards based on something other than

"He isn't Hillary". Like I said, she isn't leading in the polls because people in the party hate her or never heard of Edwards.

[ProudDad]

31. I already did

his is the most Progressive platform next to Kucinich...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. People Are Supporting Obama Because He Represents A Cause Larger Than Himself

Maybe the Edwards people should support Obama since he has the better chance of beating Hillary...

I think it's presumptuous to tell his followers to abandon him...

[ProudDad]

24. Try re-reading my OP

I didn't tell anyone to do anything.

I'm just relaying a good idea...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Sounds Like A Command To Me

"Switch your vote to Edwards to avoid Clinton"

[ProudDad]

32. All right

then DO IT or ELSE!!!!



























:sarcasm:

[kestrel91316]

38. No need to switch.....

he's already my first pick (if Gore doesn't jump in).

[zulchzulu]

43. So...

...a Kucinich fan would have no problem going for someone who was the co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 and a full-throated supporter of going into Iraq?

Oh....OK...

[ProudDad]

48. I would if he realized the error of his ways

and recanted...


OH YEAH, Edwards DID!!!



Your point?

[zulchzulu]

69. My point...

Oh nothin'. Jus' pointin' obvious crap and gettin' nuttin' back. Another DU day...

[GreenArrow]

70. he "recanted" only in deference to the polls

and in the service of his all seeking ego and ambition. His "apology" was tendered in a political setting for political purposes. He's expressed no remorse, paid no penance, and rather than bearing some degree of humility for being so wrong, he brandishes his apology like a badge of honor. He didn't just vote for IWR, he co-sponsored it, and pimped for it more energetically than his co-IWR aye voting Presidential wannabe colleagues did put together. You of course, can vote however you wish, but if Edwards, or Hillary or Dodd or Biden gets the nomination, I won't be voting for them.

[stimbox]

45. Kucinich as VP

and have Edwards adopt Kucinich's health care plan.
Count me in.

[ProudDad]

50. Another nice idea (n/t)

[Rhythm and Blue]

47. Since Obama is running 2nd, why wouldn't we switch to him? nt

[Laurab]

95. That makes far more sense to me.

Edwards has been campaigning since the last election, and I don't see him picking up any momentum. So Thom Hartmann likes him - that's nice, but it's not going to win him anything. If Obama is running 2nd, he's the guy people should switch their votes to, IMO. Despite what people say, I don't think Obama has "peaked" yet - when the people who don't really get involved until later in the game (and I think that's a lot of people), see Obama, I think he'll pick up more support. I think even by the next debate, which I believe more people will pay attention to. That's assuming he does well, of course.

I like Edwards, but it seems to me it would make more sense to go with the guy who's got better numbers, and that would be Obama - at least right now.

[MethuenProgressive]

49. Edwards? He'd get killed in the general.

Out of kindness, please don't vote for Johnny in the primary.

[saracat]

51. None of the GE polls substantiate that.The latest Rass and Survey USA polls have Edwards the ONLY

Dem candidate that defeats the GOP by between 9 and 11 points. Hillary makes this too much of a contest. We can't risk it.

[rinsd]

55. Gore & Kerry were beating Bush too.

And they got blindsided by the GOP hate machine.

Given the Edwards earlier experience with the GOP hate machine in which they torpedoed his fledging campaign with BS about mansions and haircuts, do you really think they will remain quiet when they see John Edwards is practically unarmed and dependent on liberal 527s after the primaries?

[saracat]

58. If they torpedoed his campaign why is he still here? Edwards has not taken public financing for the

General anyway.Just the Primary. So the argument is moot.

[rinsd]

62. No, the argument is not moot because I was not arguing the general

Should he get the nomination and accept public financing unilaterally without the GOP doing the same, well then he may be the worst candidate since Bill Jones in the CA gubernatorial.

The point is he cannot spend beyond a certain amount up until the convention in late August with the primary likely decide by early March that leaves 4 to 5 months of being virtually unarmed and relying on others for defense and counterattack.

"If they torpedoed his campaign why is he still here"

He should be doing much better. The early hits sent some potential Edwards voters to Obama. And he still faces questions about his wealth (see iowa exit poll). Why? Because the GOP was able to label him and negative advertising works.

Which is why you need a robust counterattack/oppo team.

[ShortnFiery]

83. Edwards CAN win the GE, no doubt! He will score us "the south."

Many hard working Southerners are waking up to the fact that the republican party doesn't care about the non-investor classes. However, they'd walk across splintered glass before casting a vote for Hillary.

Yes, John Edwards can win a GE. I have hope and faith that he CAN DO IT for Our Party. :-)

[ProudDad]

52. The only Dems who can't beat the pukes in '08

are hillary and possibly Gravel...

[saracat]

53. Yup.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. Can You Pass What You're Smoking To Me?

My head is killing me...

[Rhythm and Blue]

61. I wish I could live in that world too. nt

[ShortnFiery]

84. But we have to WIN a democratic Nominee - that is, not splinter.

Otherwise, if the vote is splintered, HRC slides through. Damn, why can't we enact run off voting to ensure at least 50% support of our democratic nominee? :shrug:

[Adelante]

60. I wouldn't vote for John Edwards if my life depended on it

Except in the GE if that were to happen.

[BootinUp]

63. Don't hold nuthin back. lol.

[redqueen]

64. I will be doing so, but more to get Edwards than avoid Clinton.

:hi:

[libodem]

65. OK

[RufusTFirefly]

71. I'm glad we've dispensed with that democracy b.s. and are focusing on what really matters: MONEY

[ClassWarrior]

73. That's not us. That's the system. And who do you trust more to make the radical changes...

...that system needs? Clinton? Or Edwards?

I :hi: for Edwards.

NGU.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. I agree n/t

[Nutmegger]

72. R&K ....

.... for Edwards.

:thumbsup::kick:

[TheModernTerrorist]

75. fuck the top tier

I'm voting for a candidate who stands for what I stand for. Why don't the "Top Tier" voters do the same.

...though I have considered that idea. Sorry for the harsh language :)

[MaggieSwanson]

86. Louder.

FUCK THE TOP TIER.

I'll vote for the candidate that speaks for me.


-M

[TheModernTerrorist]

92. I would've thought

that this time around, most people would've said "fuck the top tier", given the fact that there's so many other decent candidates. I'd be glad to see Edwards pull in front, but I'd rather have my candidate do the same. Now that Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize though, I hope he enters into the race, even if it is to shake things up. I get scared every election cycle as of late because those candidates that get the nomination are not the ones who seem to be enthusiastically supported. If Gore gets in, it will definitely change the entire election.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

76. That's kind of dumb... what does electability in the genral have to do with avoiding Clinton?

Presumably to avoid Clinton one must defeat her for the nomination. Edwards is not the best placed to do that, regardless of how he would run in the general. If denying Clinton the nomination is the goal, it would make more sense for Edwards voters to switch to Obama than visa versa.

[ProudDad]

79. Oik, I'll entertain that idea

Switch your vote to Obama from Edwards...but...

Let's decide on one of them...ABH...

[AtomicKitten]

77. or switch your vote from Edwards to Obama to defeat Clinton

[geek tragedy]

78. Why waste your vote on a second-tier candidate

like Edwards?

[ShortnFiery]

80. As Much as I'd Love to See Obama as President in 08', Thom Hartmann is correct!

I'm voting for Edwards in the Primary ... but I've donated more money to Obama. Here's to hoping that not only Edwards wins the Nomination but that he chooses Obama as his running mate.

Yes, Thom H, I agree: Edwards/Obama is a winning team! :thumbsup:

p.s. I'd also encourage my fellow Kucinich supporters to PLEASE CONSIDER doing the same? :loveya: :hi:

[PATRICK]

93. First try hating

ALL the candidates to flush your system of warring loyalties. Then on cold logic in in progressive long term interest see who can win biggest with most benefit for the people, party and the progressive populist cause. It really, unfortunately, is impossible to get people to stay on this train of discussion without lapsing back into the usual, but the shaky things, the unproved and the distasteful things need to be edited out of your final choice if you think the most pragmatic is the best course for a progressive agenda. PDA says Obama and them someone comes out and sort of claims that is a McGovern white collegiate intellectual left set of blinders. RFK Jr. says Hillary looking at the big picture in a more classic establishment sort of way. Progressives with a lust for the grassfire passion and the electoral map say Edwards.

Who is right and who is loyal to something other than a cold electoral reality? Is that something standing in the way to the strongest rush to crush the threat to America and build a future? There are NO numbers other than cash to prove anything decisive but we have to decide if the left deserves to provide leadership out of all its studied activism. Either that or shut up and back whatever the information deprived general public can puzzle out.

[Major Hogwash]

87. Yup, he's the only Democratic candidate who can win over the South.

I'm convinced of that now.

[LoZoccolo]

94. 10% + 1% = 11%, lol. n/t

[Ignis]

96. I'm a strong DK supporter, but I may just do that. (nt)

[GreenTea]

98. Absolutely!

[Yael]

99. He already has my support

:hi:

[dogman]

100. Sorry, Edwards is my last choice.

According to your logic I will have to support Clinton to avoid Edwards.