But whether he SHOULD continue depends on whether he can see a reason to do so.  From the outside looking in, there are reasons for him to continue, and reasons for him to drop out.  It all depends on what he wants to continue getting from running and whether he thinks he can get it.

But if his reason for running is simply to win, it's a given he's not going to be the nominee, and he should, for himself and not for anyone else, drop out.

maybe trying to really shake things up, change the dynamics?

Maybe a big endorsement?

just some guesses

I think odds are there will be some places where Edwards support breaks Clinton, and others where Edwards support breaks Obama.  Even with her high name ID, Clinton's numbers are only moving around the margins -- just scratching the 40% range.  Her numbers haven't moved since December.  Yet Obama has seen something like an 8% growth in his support in just the past two months up to the low 30% range.

Look at Rassmussen . . .

http://rasmussenreports.com/pu...

If Edwards drops out Hillary might hit the 50% mark.  With her name ID though, that isn't a huge vote of confidence.  We're talking about a party contest -- not a general election race.

Btw, as far as the Edwards speech is concerned, I think he's just trying to find a way to drum up some publicity for his campaign.  I think he'll get some attention -- smart move on the part of his campaign.

If not, I would truly NOT be using my vote wisely if it were still cast for him.  Thus, I would vote for another candidate if my vote truly can't help Edwards in the convention.

That said, I have not settled (at all) on who I would vote for besides Edwards.  Obama and Clinton will have to show me why I should vote for them.

From where I sit, I see Obama as an intellegent, likeable, well-spoken guy who has not enumerated his views on the issues very distinctly (saying we need a "change" and making me feel positive don't count).  He also appears to have little experience in federal government and has a hard time fighting back against attacks.

I see Sen. Clinton as a very intellegent candidate oozing with experience as counsil in the White house for eight years, and as Senator.  She is a fighter and will not wither before the GOP attack machine.   However, she is reviled by a lot of people on the right, and her name is Clinton.  Like George W. Bush, she has gone far on her name and family connections.  (I am not a big fan of dynasties in government.  They smack to much of monarchical entitlement.  Besides, the blood of my ancestors was spilled to do away with such undemocratic practices.)  

 I fear, given what I have seen from Obama & Clinton, either candidate would lose in the general election.  Neither would do as well Edwards at winning and bringing about the types of changes he would have brought.  

Maybe he really is dropping out this time, but I'm not going to believe it until he says it into a microphone on camera.  Fool me once shame on, uh...shame on me...fool me twice...uh...how does the rest of this go again Mr. President?

Edwards' exit will likely aid Barack Obama in some northern states, where liberals can't wrap their minds around Hillary Clinton, and will help Clinton in the South, where race now becomes more of a factor in many voters' minds. Clinton, too, will likely benefit from Edwards' labor backing; Obama has shown a marked lack of ability to win union support, while Clinton has backing from as many major national unions as Edwards did.

A wash, in other words?

Source

Spin this how you like, but what this really means is that we WILL have a candidate before convention.  And in all liklihood, unless Edwards endorses Obama, that candidate will be Clinton.

My sense is that he wins Illinois and Georgia.  He has a shot at winning Connecticut and making a strong showing in Massachusetts.  Missouri and Tennessee may end up in the toss-up territory before next week's vote.

He also needs to clean up in some of the western states -- e.g. Kansas and Colorado.  An endorsement from Richardson would be a helpful boost in New Mexico, Arizona, and California -- although there's a chance that Richardson backs Clinton.  The Richardson to Clinton endorsement blunts the impact of Kennedy's support in the southwest -- although Richardson to Obama would reinforce the Kennedy endorsement, and may help deliver quite a few votes to him in the southwest.

Remember -- for the Dems there's a proportional allotment of delegates.

The thought is this....

If AZ CD 1 has 4 delegates (these are fake numbers) and Clinton gets 59% and Obama gets 41% they both get 2 delegates.  Kennedy's job is to make as many latino districts turn out this way, not to win them for Obama.

Needless to say, Obama's campaign still has an uphill battle.

[Not to say that all or even most Republicans are racists. Just that most racists are Republicans.]

With him out of the race, the Democratic fight becomes a true two-person affair with Obama and Clinton battling one another for delegates on Super Tuesday and, in all likelihood, beyond. As we wrote earlier this week, Edwards' Super Tuesday strategy of focusing on states in the South and with significant rural populations seemed to make Obama's path rather than Clinton's more difficult over the coming weeks.

Edwards' departure also likely means a further coalescing of the anti-Clinton vote behind Obama -- although it is clear from recent votes that process was already well under way.

But just reading some of the analysis on this thread, I find it ironic how people are assuming that white, southern males won't vote for Obama. I don't know if this is true. Sure, there are bigots out there, both in the South and the North, but I know plenty of Southern white guys who would have no problem voting for Barak Obama.

When Bill Clinton made observations that people vote based on racial identity criteria, he was accused of injecting race into the campaign, and really angered many people.

I have always felt that Edwards was helping Obama, but maybe the Kennedy endorsement will help Obama with the Labor folks.

Regardless, tea leaves being what they are . . . if he is not endorsing anyone today, whose news cycle is this stomping all over?

Obviously Clinton's Florida Story.

I always ask the question, "who benefits?"

BUT everyone was pretty confident that Hillary would have her symbolic victory in Florida, and that team Hillary would try to juice it for all that it was worth.

But then again regardless of the intent, for my purposes it kills two birds with one stone, aye!?

I think he wanted to let yesterday's vote take place unimpeded and then, since he would not be in the mix on Super Tuesday, get out of the way ASAP.

But, sure, you might be right. This is just speculation on my part.

competition_matters

The first is that, generally speaking, she is preferred by Democrats by a roughly 3-to-2-to-1 margin over Barack Obama and John Edwards, respectively. That is, she is the default choice of the party, the favored if not favorite candidate in a name ID matchup. The alternative interpretation is this: The more people get to know both her and Obama, the worse she does and the better Obama does.

Check the math: Yesterday, in Florida, Clinton "won" by 17 points a non-competitive contest--in the literal sense that they didn't compete, not in the sense that it was a blowout, though it was; that margin is eerily similar to her 16-point "victory" in the other non-competitive battle in Michigan. Now compare those results with her margins in the other four, truly competitive primaries and caucuses: Iowa, 8; New Hampshire, +3; Nevada, +6, and South Carolina, 27. If we computed a Real Clear Politics-style average of those four competitive races (and without weighting for the South Carolina vote, which was Obama's biggest win in the largest turnout state among the four), Clinton's average margin in the four competitive states is 6.5 points. So, when they run against each other, it's Obama by a half dozen; but when they don't she wins by about 16. That's a 22point swing. (N.B.: You can bet Mark Penn would be releasing memos of this sort if the situations were reversed.)

Ford was ahead in the polls by 15-20% until that ad reminded Tennessee of its inner-self.

I've live with the South's sunny facade all my life, but am all too well aware of its deep, dark side.  My generation helped to get rid, at least in public life, of many of the brazen acts of racism and sexism in the US.  

Your turn. Now, do something ...(Posting sad statements on RK alone don't count).

http://www.pollster.com/polls/...

The 10% point boost that he had in a couple polls was unsustainable.

Think about this for a moment -- Harold Ford, a Democrat lost in Tennessee by 4% points.  For any Democrat in Tennessee in recent years that's a pretty decent showing.

Just to put that in perspective -- in 1994 Fred Thompson won his Senate race 62 to 38 percent (24% points) against the lily-white Democratic opponent Jim Cooper.  Even native son Al Gore couldn't win the state in 2000.

Racism is alive and well in the U.S. -- as is sexism -- but when push comes to shove I don't these issues need to define the election's outcome.  To some extent, this is just a question of a enough people willing to stand and be counted.  At a certain point neighbors will follow -- or they won't -- and those are the breaks.

if more than a month ago, voters inclined 63-27 for Clinton

in absentee/early voters,  50-31

if in last month, 47-40
if last week   39-31

if last 3 days 46-38

of those who decided on election day, it was a 4 point margin, with Clinton having been in state and talking about having Florida's delegates count and Obama not being in

Plus there is the mailer by AFSCME on her behalf and the robocalls by Corinne Brown, both perfectly legal but also tilting the playing field

Clinton had lead in almost all polls by at least 20 points, but only won by 17  50-33.   By contrast, in SC Obama had lead by 8-14 and won by 28.  

Oh, and the CLinton campaign has been saying that what counts is delegates, and there were no delegates at stake yesterday.   Consider that as well.

The Democrats' strength in the Sunshine state is in the  Broward and West Palm Beach condos, whose residents are senior citizens and retirees from New York.  Where they live, in South Florida, it truly is New York's "sixth borough."

Remember all those New Yorkers that were supposed to come out for Rudy Giuliani?

I've argued for at least a month that they couldn't and wouldn't.  Florida has a closed primary so they couldn't cross over to vote for him even if they wanted to.  Nor could indpendents enter either the Democratic or Republican primaries.

And most of the New Yorkers are registered as Democrats.  They also are from the FDR New Deal-World War II generation.  In addition, they brought to Florida the machine style politics from the boroughs of New York.

In short, they are establishment Democrats. And the Clintons are very popular with them.

Then, in Northern Florida, Corrine Brown is hugely popular among the black population of Jacksonville, so her endorsement also helps Hillary.

In short, for various demographic reasons, Florida just wasn't an Obama stronghold.

I think that if Obama had gone down there and campaigned head to head with Clinton he could have been quite competitive.

The demographics of Broward and West Palm are changing. There are still many retirees there, obviously, but the Hispanic presence in those counties is growing rapidly, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total, as many of those retirees are dying or moving back up North so they can have one last chance to mess up their children's mental health before doing so. :)

But so far, the Hispanics have been Hillary voters, in Nevada at least.  The Cubans are fairly conservative and many of the ones moving up to Broward from Miami, may be Republican.  On the other hand, there's been an influx of non-Cuban Hispanics and their vote is up for grabs.  But a lot of them are not registered to vote or are not yet citizens.

When I lived in New York City, many years ago, I used to walk passed apartments in the area near Spanish Harlem, and on a summer day, when you could see in open windows, almost all those apartments had portraits of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.  So, Caroline and Teddy's endorsements for Obama may be a great boost to Obama both in New York and among Hispanics elsewhere.

As for True Blue, with all due respect, I'm not sure Obama campaigning in those condos would have made that big a difference. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but the nature of machine politics, for that generation, was that people trusted and went with their precinct captain's (or condo commando's) choice.  They still give out palm cards there with their list of endorsements.

On the upside, those are the people who will support Obama or whoever the Democrat is come the general election.  

As for southerners not voting for Obama, in a close race in any southern state, the Wilder effect could appear.  But you could also have the opposite occuring where people vote for him due to his "historic" nature...

I for could not give two craps about what color a candidate is or what gender they are.

I am not sure which candidate this helps.  I would guess that in the South Clinton will pick them up while in the North Obama will pick them up.  However, as aznew noted, we cannot assume that white males will not vote for Obama because he is black.

I could have sworn I saw a poll asking voters who they would vote for if candidates dropped out and the race was left Clinton vs. Obama.  I have been looking all over for it but haven't found it.  Anyone else seen this?

This straw poll last month had Obama at 41%. With Edwards out, Obama rocketed up to 76%. That's with a sample size of 10,000.

Based on that poll, I would say that the Democratic grassroots base (which is what DK readers essentially consist of) is going to largely coalesce behind Obama now. There are a lot more Democratic primary voters aside from the dedicated grassroots base, so mileage will not be anywhere nearly identical to the results in the poll. But I do think that DK poll tells us which way the wind is going to blow over the next few days with Edwards out.  

I see this as nothing but good news for Obama, both of Edwards dropping out, and especially if he endorses Obama.
 

I'm seeing where a lot of you think his support will head in the direction of Obama, but I'm not 100% sure just yet. I know this is a very pro-Obama board, but Edwards was the Union candidate, and aside from him, Hillary was next in-line for most Union endorsements. I'm wondering about the many who supported John solely for Labor issues jumping to Hillary.  

Where is this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news.  At a time when our politics is too focused on who's up and who's down, he made a nation focus again on who matters - the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington.  John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this - that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose.  So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

"John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate.

"John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it's about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for.

"I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply."