"The Edwards Problem" by Kos

From kos:

"Based on winning the primary, this decision makes sense. But if it succeeds, we will have a handicapped nominee for a long, painful six months. The RNC, the GOP candidate, the conservative 527s (like Freedom Watch) will all be beating the shit out of our nominee, and without the ability to control message and directly fire back, we'll be at a gross disadvantage.

So what would Edwards do, depend on free media? Really? The same ones that trashed Gore and Kerry, and have already done a good number on Edwards? Rely on the good sense of the voting public? Please. If you can't talk to them, they listen to the people who can.

Money isn't everything in politics. But there's a difference being outspent $4 million (like in Montana's 2006 Senate race), or $9 million (like in Virginia's 2006 Senate race), and being outspent by $125 million. Kerry spent $175 million through the summer in 2004. Political inflation will likely make that number even bigger this time around.

For the Edwards plan to work and not hurt us, we would need:

A ridiculously frugal Edwards effort, with nary a wasted dollar spent to win the nomination,
Fundraising troubles for the RNC, the GOP nominee, and the conservative 527s,
Gangbuster fundraising for the DNC and progressive 527s,
A media willing to treat Edwards with respect and fairness,
A public unusually resistant to typical GOP bullshit and scare tactics."

edited for quotations

If Edwards wins the nomination, we will be doing the same. I'm really not worried about that. Beween Edwards and a republican, there are not going to be very many undecideds. really. If it were HRc vs republican, the race would be closer, because the positions are more similar. Edwards vs repub; very few people will change their minds on either side.

but I believe he's right.

Not that a blind man couldn't see through the cynical spin on this one.

Before I thought it was worse because I thought it included the GE.

But thinking about this even more, if the nomination is wrapped up by March (and it likely will be) that leaves whoever the GOP nominee is to hammer at him all the way until convention time.

There is no fucking way he will be able to come away with nearly enough money to defend himself from the coming attack under the pub financing scenario. He will have to rely on the DNC & 527's which means no control of message and no cooperation with the campaign.

Joe Trippi should be fired.

I certainly wouldn't want him in charge of any campaign funds.

Can he change now before he actually has money - I think

...when the future of the planet might depend on it. Unbelievable.

That's quite a few assumptions for an election that will decide the course of the war in Iraq and who replaces Justice Stevens (which will either keep the Supreme Court "lean conservative", or push it to "batshit insane right-wing"), not to mention all the other issues and causes we care about, including, well, public financing.

Sen. Feingold has introduced the Presidential Funding Act of 2007, which would increase the primary spending limit for each participating candidate from ~$50 million to $150 million (with only $100 million of that expenditure permitted before April 1 of the election year), get rid of the state caps and do a bunch of other cool things. If you believe this system is worth preserving, it's a good start.

But to make all of that happen, we have to get elected in this current system, not hope that "running on principle" will somehow negate a $125 million Republican sleaze attack.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

This is a filthy swamp we're all sucked into election after election after election.

With big Dem majorities in the House and Senate and Democrat in the WH.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN00436:@@@P

S.436

Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1086 to reform the system of public financing for Presidential elections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. (introduced 1/30/2007) Cosponsors (1)

Related Bills: H.R.776

Latest Major Action: 1/30/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
COSPONSORS(1), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

Sen Obama, Barack - 2/14/2007

Maybe we will see an Obama/Feingold ticket, as some around here have suggested. Thanks!

Hillary and Obama are the most popular, and they have raised the most money. Second tier candidates like Edwards and Richardson have raised less, but more than the hopeless campaigns of Kucinich and Gravel.

Not the kind of popularity that's useful in a president who's supposed to represent "the people."

...then he'll take credit when she wins.

:)

whats the point of public financing anyway if no one uses it.

everyone uses it. If it's only used by the Democrats, then kos is right, they're handicapping themselves.

"No matter how much the Edwards campaign argues that this is a decision based on principle, it's not."

Tell that to his besotted DU fans who applauded him when he didn't, and then cheered when he did, take public money.
"He's great to take public financing!" So, he sucked when he didn't? :eyes:
Supporting public financing *only* half way, *only* after you've failed to collect enough the other way, is hypocritical.

How does Edwards' decision to take public financing affect your view of him?

Edwards supporter, and this hardens my support
8% 371 votes

Edwards supporter, and this changes nothing
28% 1194 votes

Edwards supporter, but this softens my support
9% 408 votes

Edwards supporter, but I can no longer support him
2% 102 votes

Undecided, and more likely to support Edwards
7% 328 votes

Undecided, and less likely to support Edwards
8% 378 votes

Undecided, and I can never support Edwards
1% 67 votes

Not an Edwards supporter, but this could flip me
0% 29 votes

Not an Edwards supporter, and this changes nothing
23% 976 votes

Some random answer for those of you who would lie anyways
5% 250 votes

Other
2% 124 votes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/2/162736/413

| 4227 votes | Results