Edwards' chances...

[Gustaf]

To show the dyamics of momentum, Edwards has gone from 3% by Christmas Eve to 23% in a recent Oklahoma poll.

How will Edwards finish in New Hampshire? I think he stands a good chance to win the nomination if he can pull off an upset there. One recent poll gives:

Kerry: 35%

Dean: 15%

Clark: 15%

Edwards: 12%

Could Edwards challenge Dean and Clark for the top 3 spots in NH?

[opebo]

I'm hoping for third but I had to click second - my honest, pessimistic opinion.

[Dave from Michigan]

third or fourth place he's not going to win

[Gustaf]

I'm hoping for third but I had to click second - my honest, pessimistic opinion.

See? There you go again, making an honest, unbiased prediction! That's what I'm talking about...I voted 3rd, b/c I think he might knock out Dean or Clark, but not both. A 3rd place would be sufficient for him, then he and Edwards will battle it out throughout February.

[opebo]

I'm hoping for third but I had to click second - my honest, pessimistic opinion.

See? There you go again, making an honest, unbiased prediction! That's what I'm talking about...I voted 3rd, b/c I think he might knock out Dean or Clark, but not both. A 3rd place would be sufficient for him, then he and Edwards will battle it out throughout February.

I'm probably overestimating him as a risk in the general election - pessimism again.

[M]

I voted 2nd for Edwards, but I like the guy. This is because I'm an issue voter, and the issue is the apreading of democracy worldwide. So I am a Republican out of necessity, and would have been a dem until '68. On this issue, I like Bush, Lieberman, and increasingly Edwards. Clark, Kerry, and Dean would all be unwitting allies of dictators and the enemies of anyone anywhere who longs for freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Can Edwards pull this off? It depends more on Dean and Clark than on him. They are both failing fast, and a second for Edwards looks great for him and awful for Dean and especially Clark. Then Ed will smash Cllark on Feb. 3!

[MAS117]

i would say 4th...

Kerry
Dean
Clark
Edwards
Lieberman

[Demrepdan]

I voted fourth for Edwards.

I think Kerry will come in first...then Dean...then Clark...then Edwards and Lieberman.

Or MAYBE..it could be..Dean..then Kerry...then Clark...then Edwards and Lieberman. I think the 3rd, 4th and 5th places are pretty set...its the top two...which isn't certain.

[© tweed]

I said third...

Kerry
Dean
Edwards
Clark/Lieberman

[agcatter]

50 - 50 shot at second.  Dean and Clark appear to be on the way down.

[Gustaf]

50 - 50 shot at second.  Dean and Clark appear to be on the way down.

Oh yes, they most certainly are! Hopefully, we will see them both go soon.

[agcatter]

We will.  Kerry and Edwards left standing at convention time.  Kerry the favorite here.  He's opted out of campaign finance which means he will be able to spend more money in the spring primaries.

[© tweed]

We will.  Kerry and Edwards left standing at convention time.  Kerry the favorite here.  He's opted out of campaign finance which means he will be able to spend more money in the spring primaries.

You think someone will be nominated at the convention?  Hard to say if that is a good thing or a bad thing.  More people would tune into the convention that way, but the money would be split two ways.

[agcatter]

You know, I hadn't thought of the fact that a convention fight WOULD attract more coverage which would be very good for the Democrats.  The convention is early enough in the summer to give plenty of time to heal any bitter split.

However, I just can't see a brokered convention UNLESS a Dean or a Clark hasn't thrown in the towel by then.  At some point (looks to be soon) these guys are going to be perceived as alsorans and aren't going to be able to raise any more $$.  At that point it becomes a two man race and the simple math says one of these guys will get a majority of the delegates.

I say it's Kerry's race to lose as he has three clear advantages over Edwards. 1) money - Kerry opted out of the campaign finance system meaning he has no limits on what he can spend 2) he'll get more super delegates because he's the perceived frontrunner and has cultivated Washinton ties with Dem officeholders for 22 years as opposed to Edward's 5 years. 3) more delegates will be chosen from states outside the South where Kerry is stronger.  The Dems have a complicated allotment system where more delegates are alloted from states carried by Dems in the 2000 election.  Those are not southern states as Gore carried none of those in 2000.  Edwards could do very well in southern primaries, but his harvest of delegates will not be nearly as fruitful as what Kerry will net in NY, Mich, Ill, Cal, etc.

It looks pretty black and white to me at this point, but then I'm the guy who said Bush would definitely beat Gore in the popular vote and possibly lose the electoral count.  Sheesh.

[Gustaf]

You know, I hadn't thought of the fact that a convention fight WOULD attract more coverage which would be very good for the Democrats.  The convention is early enough in the summer to give plenty of time to heal any bitter split.

However, I just can't see a brokered convention UNLESS a Dean or a Clark hasn't thrown in the towel by then.  At some point (looks to be soon) these guys are going to be perceived as alsorans and aren't going to be able to raise any more $$.  At that point it becomes a two man race and the simple math says one of these guys will get a majority of the delegates.

I say it's Kerry's race to lose as he has three clear advantages over Edwards. 1) money - Kerry opted out of the campaign finance system meaning he has no limits on what he can spend 2) he'll get more super delegates because he's the perceived frontrunner and has cultivated Washinton ties with Dem officeholders for 22 years as opposed to Edward's 5 years. 3) more delegates will be chosen from states outside the South where Kerry is stronger.  The Dems have a complicated allotment system where more delegates are alloted from states carried by Dems in the 2000 election.  Those are not southern states as Gore carried none of those in 2000.  Edwards could do very well in southern primaries, but his harvest of delegates will not be nearly as fruitful as what Kerry will net in NY, Mich, Ill, Cal, etc.

It looks pretty black and white to me at this point, but then I'm the guy who said Bush would definitely beat Gore in the popular vote and possibly lose the electoral count.  Sheesh.

About the convention, what if Dean is still able to pick up a reasonable number of delegates, would he really just throw them away?

That's interesting, a lot of people seemed to think that Bush would win the PV but lose the EV. Why was this, I mean which states was it based on? I was only 13 at the time and not interested enough to follow it that closely...

 

[© tweed]

Gustaf--people thought that would happen because Gore led most states with high populations.  He was in Contention in CA, NY, OH, MI, ILL, FLA up until Election day.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Don't ask me... I thought that Dubya would win over 50% of the vote and a big majority in the EC...

Last time I trusted polls...

[© tweed]

Don't ask me... I thought that Dubya would win over 50% of the vote and a big majority in the EC...

Last time I trusted polls...

I thought he would beat Gore 50-46 in the popular vote.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf--people thought that would happen because Gore led most states with high populations.  He was in Contention in CA, NY, OH, MI, ILL, FLA up until Election day.

OK, thanks.

[© tweed]

Gustaf--people thought that would happen because Gore led most states with high populations.  He was in Contention in CA, NY, OH, MI, ILL, FLA up until Election day.

OK, thanks.

No problem, my newly fired Gustaf.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf--people thought that would happen because Gore led most states with high populations.  He was in Contention in CA, NY, OH, MI, ILL, FLA up until Election day.

OK, thanks.

No problem, my newly fired Gustaf.

I'm a senator, so I'm allright you know...I don't even need to look for a new job.