Based on the fundraising and Iowa numbers, is this race Hillary vs. Obama? Is Edwards done?

I can't help but wonder...

Guess the picture in your icon or signature didn't give it away already...

and would even vote for a Edwards/Obama ticket.

Then why don't you let the people of Iowa and other primary states decide rather than making the decision of who to exclude for them?

to prevent Iowans from electing him.

Unfortunately, the only thing that we can be sure of is that those Iowa voters will give us another gem of a "winner," like they did in 2004.

in '03?

really upset the apple cart

Edwards's fundraising numbers and his numbers slumping in Iowa are not good for him.

In order to rebound though, look for him to become much more aggressive. He needs to gamble he won't turn people off but he also needs to make a lot of noise to be seen as a viable alternative to Clinton/Obama. It's a tightrope that will be interesting to watch.

and aggressively is that some of it often turns out to have been raised improperly. It isn't necessarily that the candidate who raises it is corrupt but that it is hard to make sure donations are properly collected in those quantities with the kind of machinery that primary campaigns have at their disposal.

I don't think the amount of money coming into the campaign of a candidate who takes corporate money by the truckloads is too meaningful at this point. Too much can go wrong in a campaign. Hillary is particularly vulnerable to things going wrong in my opinion. Don't ask me why. It is just something about the fact that she projects such a frantic desire to win and show the right-wing fanatics once and for all. I can't figure out what noble cause she is running for? I have a feeling that Obama and Edwards each are running because they for a noble cause. Obama wants to unify the country. Edwards (I'm an Edwards supporter) wants to help working/middle class people -- the social group he comes from. But I don't have the feeling that Hillary is running for a noble cause -- other than getting elected president. Hillary supporters, please help here.

Once Americans remember his two main alternatives are a woman and a black man (two things Americans generally do not like), theyll probably give him another look. Unfortunately for Edwards, he isn't running against just Muslims, but its still a good position to be in (in America, that is).

What is the point of going with publicly funded when the system is so broken and rigged against us? With the strict spending limits imposed, Edwards will be at the mercy of all sorts of attack ads from the RNC and shadowy 527 groups until the general election. Democrats are in a strong position right now, but we certainly don't need any unnecessary handicaps like this.

Then, no. Edwards is not out. He's going to win it all. :evilfrown:

It's not that I have anything against the idea of public financing, but the way the law is written right now. If we picked a candidate who had to abide by the spending limits after winning the nomination they'd be finished from the $50 million spending cap, that they wouldn't be able to get out of until officially accepting their party's nomination at the national convention. Their republican candidate no matter who they are would bury them in attack ads in that time in the battleground states.

at this stage of the game it was Dean to loose

Did you vote for Doctor Dean in November of 2004?

That is truly your answer

Looking back at 2004 no doubt gives hope to Edwards' devotees, but just because things happened one way then doesn't mean they'll happen that way again. Hillary is not Howard Dean. It's not impossible, but unlikely for Edwards to win out now.

2004 is the MOST RECENT exmaple of candidates leading in the polls not doing well in the only poll that counts.

I could look back at 2000, 1996, hell for that matter 1992

tell me where was a man called Bill Clinton at this stage of the game in '92?

Then there is '88 and so on

2004 is only most recent example

that dictates that the early leader will fall by the wayside? Of course you aren't. Where was George Bush Sr. in 1988? Al Gore in 2000? Of course, they had the advantage of running as incumbents, but what about Bush Jr. in 2000? Except for a brief challenge from McCain, he basically thrashed his primary opponents from start to finish. Again, lets take each year as it comes. There is no hard fast rule that says Clinton will lead early, then fade. Or, assuming that such a thing occurs, that Edwards is the one to take the lead.

fire up the voters, display leadership skills, and promote his programs......if he does, he wins.....but he has to deliver.

It is after all, what the process is all about. We can not accept less.


He needs the next debate, October 30th, to be a break out event for him

felt that 6 or the 8 Democratic candidates have/ will have the money to compete in Iowa. On different specific scales but in all, there are only X number of radio and tv ad markets and he thought 6 of the 8 will have the cash to compete formidably.

Gravel and Kucinich were not named, but he thought the others will be able to pay to get their message out and the rest is divided between 1) organizational groundwork leading up to cuacus night and 2) who sloughs thru the snow and cold to show up and vote.

and where candidates tend to spend it in a market like Iowa.

The guy said the bulk of it was media ads, and that although political candidates are given cut rates for the ads, no one takes the cut rate because then the station decides when the ad is run.

If they agree to pay top price, they get to set the time and programming for when the ads run.

I really don't know crap about financing but this was a pretty interesting talk.

based on US History, you get the cookie