Joe Trippi: What I should have Told John Edwards

Today, more than ever, this is true. What a real tragedy.Flame away.

http://www.campaignsandelections.com/articles/?ArticleID=9A91C199-1422-17E0-F88C7DABA23AAE8B


I was sitting in a New York City restaurant with Jonathan Prince, John Edwards' deputy campaign manager, and at that moment the future of our candidate's quest for president was being decided.

But not by us. All that Jonathan and I knew was that we each had two air tickets: one for Atlanta, in case we were going there the next morning to prep the senator for a televised debate; and the other for New Orleans, in case Edwards was flying there instead to announce he was dropping out of the race. Jonathan told me that he felt there was maybe an 80 percent chance that Edwards would end his campaign. Nah, I said, it was more like 50/50.

It was not until much later that night that the text message came: Use the New Orleans ticket. And that's when we found out it was all over.

I don't know, and will probably never know, just how Senator Edwards arrived at his decision. He isn't one to pull a bunch of people into a room and take a vote. He asks you individually what you think, and you basically get one shot to make your argument. I got my chance. And for the first time in thirty years of political work, I didn't go with my gut.

I didn't tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

To explain why I didn't say all that, let's go back to late January. We were in the m

More and more these other two leave me underwhelmed.

He only suspended his campaign and even picked up a delegate last week in Iowa. The proverbial chickens have not all been hatched in this campaign.

Huckabee dropped out and he was on PA ballot; Edwards didn't and wasn't. Could this election season be any more convoluted? Well, do the right thing out there and God speed!

John could still re-enter the race and make Joe's forecast become a reality. I would support him immediately.

This is a situation I've never heard discussed before, but it certainly raises a lot of interesting questions. Edwards certainly could have pulled a lot of delegates from the two, enough for a sizable different and for a bartering deal. But to put the burden on just him seems a little unfair. He would ultimately be the decided then for the nominee. His 60+ delegates he could have netted could have been a powerful bargaining tool for a VP position, or another role in the nominee's administration.

However, look at what's happening to Senator Clinton. She is being bombarded with commands and please to back down, and she isn't exactly loosing. Edwards would completely be forgotten about, or would have had unlimited calls asking him to drop out. His position would have faded quickly.

If you are going to stay in until the convention just on "candidate power", if you don't have the pledged delegates to back up your claim that you are as powerful as you claim, then many of us would contend that fighting through the convention is more of a disruptive thing. If you were trying to ensure that certain issues were dealt with and to make sure that the eventual nominee would support those issues and the platform reflected it, then someone like Edwards staying in to the convention makes sense.

One is trying to build the strength of the party to stand for something that its electorate wants. The other is trying to exploit every last drop of power one can get for themself, not for the benefit of the party and the people in it.

figured it wasn't worth it anymore...if their message didn't capture the voters.

I met Joe Trippi in NC way back in the days when we "Internet Folks" thought "WE COULD RULE THE WORLD..with TRUTH."

Trippi is a very nice guy...but it was obvious that "coming off the failed Dean Campaign (oh...that Dean could have trown out Bush II ...we would be in very differnt place in America) but...that said...Trippi struck me as a Carville with a Metaphysical Bent..........In other words Trippi has a "gut for the kill" but he gets very caught up in: "What will be will be." I think Trippi's "downerism" translates into his candidates.

Take that for what you will................

I would like to believe Edwards thought dropping out when he did would be best for the party.

He realized he couldn't win. Sure, maybe he could have kept going and forced a brokered convention, but he didn't want to divide the party. He may have even thought that if he dropped out, Super Tuesday would have finalized our nominee. His followers would be free to make their second choice on their own - without his influence and it would somehow work out for the party, and the country.

Sadly, that has not come to pass. But imagine, if Edwards had stayed in, and we still didn't have a nominee (which we wouldn't) he would have been called the spoiler and the divisive one.

Most had nice things to say...except that grumpy Cafferty :D

the race until the convention, collected donations, then dropped out. That's not honest, dependable, or fair. Screw him.

until the convention and she DOES, everybody says screw her. You can't win in this game, it seems.

when she says that. :shrug:

(I know I'm picking on you -- I just think it's kind of funny.)

I still like Edwards, by the way. :)

:)

Trippi was as big a disaster for Edwards as he was for Dean. running through a phenomenal amount of money in Iowa and NH and leading a terrible campaign in Iowa. Think of it Trippi had the national frontrunner with the most superdelegates. He did an awful job converting that to caucus goers. For all the people that question "why Shrum?", I don't get why more don't say "Why Trippi?"

I read that article and was mystified where he thought those 300 would come from. Trippi gives no sign where they would come from - Edwards was not polling that well when he dropped out. Edwards didn't have the money to really compete heavily in the 21 states on SuperTuesday and he was trending down after SC, not up. He was nearing 10% - in the range where no delegates are rewarded. I seriously don't see where he would get 300 delegates. (To put it in context - Dean got 114 delegates in 2004, Clark got 60. Edwards himself - at the end Kerry's only real opponent got 477. Edwards was doing no better than Dean in 2004 - He was better in Iowa, worse in NH and he was polling as well as Edwards at the end. Link for 2004 delegate http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html.

Even with 300 pledged Democrats and the other two in the 1700 range each - why would they ever go with the guy who had less than 1/5 of the others. On this scenario, like the current one, the superdelegates would likely go with the one with the most pledged delegates. The impact might have been that his presence would have made HRC higher in comparision to Obama or made Obama more ahead or there could have been no impact. But, Trippi is smoking something if he thinks the superdelegates would reject both and go with the guy with 300. (Also, it would be odd to argue that the anti-establishment candidate would have the establishment lift him over 2 "establishment - per JRE" candidates.)

This is Trippi avoiding the fact that he likely was as bad for JRE as for Dean. If this is the real quality of his analysis - no one should hire him.

Trippi was a crummy campaign manager, although I think Suan Estrich, Dukakis' manager, was much worse. But, no one could have saved Edwards' campaign. Not even Edwards himself. He was a bad candidate and he shouldn't have run a campaign that was already stale when they hit Iowa this year.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Edwards' "two Americas" theme was lame, and worse he didn't have any answers in a capitalistic society about how to address such concerns.

So sad. I love Edwards. :cry:

the day Edwards dropped out. He was trying to discuss the 25th Amendment, and got cut off.

MSNBC did not seem to give a fuck about THAT particular amendment.

But at least he wins primaries and nominations.

Trippi has wasted two very good candidates with terrible campaigns that he was the head honcho of.

I still have the email from Trippi hounding the fundraiser on January 28th.

John will always be #1 in my heart, but Trippi is a campaign destroyer. I hope he never manages another campaign.

Imagine how crazy this would be in here with a 3 way battle....Poor John's supporters would be both racist and sexist (they aren't but that would be the accusation).

Hillary get away with the nastiness and dirty smears she's gotten away with, nor have the media focus for six fucking weeks on a preacher.

I don't think John or his presence would have allowed that.