Edwards optimists - what is your best case scenario for Super Tuesday?

I'm convinced if we had a "fair and balanced" M$M, John Edwards would be the presumptive front-runner.

Sadly, the almighty dollar carries more weight then votes and John continues to fight for legitimacy on the airwaves. He sees lots of enthusiasm from folks in the field, at meet ups, or here on DU - but that huge machine which drives our body politic still does not give John much in the way of mathematical hope.

Last night's wonderful debate performance may help, but with John running at 15% in SC (prior to last night's debate), will it give him enough of a boost to place 2nd in SC?

With Obama as my default vote, I'd like to think John still has a realistic chance to take the nomination - but my pragmatic side knows delegate math and it does not look good. Barring something dramatic like a brokered convention, what do you think John must do on February 5th to stay in the race?

Seems to me, he must win a few states outright, and come in better than third in a handful of others.

For those Edwards optimists: What best case (and realistic) scenario do you see on Super Tuesday that could give John the kick he needs to be competitive?

:shrug:

The MSM is more concerned with creating the American Idol of Politics between Hillary and Obama and is completely ignoring Edwards. I think he did a great job last night, but I think he is basically playing for VP now. I've met him personally and been able to speak with him one on one several times for extended periods of time in conjunction with some political work I do. I think he'd be a great president, but alas, the media has more say than the voters when it comes to the nomination because they marginalize certain candidates.

By the same token, Obama is a media creation, IMHO. I think he's completely unqualified, not progressive, panders to the right, and as of last night, is a first class liar. I also don't think he can beat Hillary.

So my best case scenario seems to be President Clinton and VP Edwards. I think she will definitely tap him for VP, and I think he is being careful not to attack her too harshly because of that. And then if she doesn't totally run the country into the ground we will see President Edwards in 2016.

he's already run as VP --- "used" merchandise --- and associated with Kerry ---

and I don't know that Edwards is interested, either?

If Edwards doesn't make this, maybe he'll run for Governor of his state?



Agree with you on Obama --- "a media creation" and "panders to the right" --- "not progressive"
and I haven't yet caught up with last night's "lie."

Nor do I see this country's fanatics as being ready for an African-American male as President---!!!

It would have to be someone really special to imagine having that struggle/distraction be worthwhile.
Obama has no depth of understanding nor knowledge.

"The American Idol of Politics between Hillary and Obama"--that's EXACTLY it! Well put. :applause:

if there is no room for Edwards or Kucinich as Democatic candidates worth supporting ---

and only room for Hillary/DLC or Obama, who is a big question in my mind . . .

then I have to move on to a write in or to the Greens --

:crazy:

then who has thrown their vote away?

Meanwhile, people here very quickly forget two other issues --
which are more important in a way than the candidates . . .

one: will we even have a fair election with the computers still in play?
two: Global Warming is a huge threat to our survival --- our immediate survival --
which continues to get very little attention.

This is all part of the REALITY which is being ignored, even here . . .
as people continue to try to escape to a comfort zone.

Ignoring the fact that Gore won in 2000 and Kerry probably won in 2004 ---
Being fed a scapegoat/Nader appeases them re 2000 --- and they pretty much ignore 2004!!!

What we are really doing is not only giving ourselves leave to forget these issues,
but permitting the corporate-media to ignore them.

GW and the environment -- overpopulation --- the need to nationalize our oil --- get electric cars on our roads --- those are the issues for these times.

Meanwhile, the Dems are still letting Bush occupy Iraq and drain the Treasury to make those who would enslave us richer.


Try this: If you voted for Democrats in 2006, did you get what you voted for?
Or, if you were answering that question just in your own head . . .
do you at all feel betrayed?

If you do, then allow me to:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Remember when corporate-media was telling America that Bush I wasn't really that conservative!!
How about the total lack of response from the public re election 2000 which brought us Bush.
See anyone in the streets when we might have changed things?
Did the country really believe that Nader "did it" --- ???
Do you really believe that---?

Let me, then ROL --

Did you think that Bill would give you NAFTA and the other trade agreements?
Overturn 60 years of Welfare System guarantees?
What happened to the health care mandate Bill had when he came into office?
Did you think that Hillary would vote to put Roberts on the Supremes?
Did you think that Reid and Pelosi would get us out of Iraq and this "illegal" war?
Did you think they may stop the bankrupting of the Treasury?
Actually do something about Global Warming?

YOU have only one place to go, evidently ---

Other people think they have other options ---

NJ is a blue state, so I do have options ---

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Sorry, not sure what else to say to such a monumentally ignorant concept...

from Hillary or Obama that it would be unlikely that you'll get them ---

For me and for much of the public, I think it would be . . .

Ending IRAQ -- the whole thing --- occupation and everything ---
putting Blackwater and Halliburton out of business.

Nationalizing our oil --- and getting electric cars on the road within 3-5 years ---

National single-payer health care ---
not a privatized system
simply extending Medicare to everyone would do it ---

And if they have time ...
Restoring our Constitution !!!

And, btw, have Pelosi and Reid been "devastating" according to what the public voted for?

If you vote for corporate-owned legislators, you are not going to get anything but a trip
backwards in time ---

In fact, all I have to do is use my own common sense.

See ya. :hi:

:hi:

he'll have enough delegates to play kingmaker at the convention.
That's about all I'm hoping for now. :-/

and if Edwards is moved out, we will have what the corproate-media wants ---
a "race" --- and they will have gender/racial issues to keep them quite busy---!!!

PLUS, it's a year to attack Hillary --- and so weaken Obama that it could clear the way for someone like Newt---!!! And, btw, I think Gingrich is simply waiting in the wings for his reward.

Edwards is the candidate we should be supporting ---

TWO candidates one year before the election---???

Only corporate-media and the right wing ---

favorite in on Super Tuesday. Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee might have been seen as JE territory, but they're probably not any more. Maybe Delaware if JB decides to endorse him. Maybe Utah. Otherwise, ugh!

Somewhere!

If you remember the original Rocky movie with Stallone - Rocky was getting the crap beat out of him till just before he was about to get overwhelmed - he came back with ONE BIG counter punch and knocked down Apollo. All it took was a split second for the crowd to immediately feel hope.

That's what John needs - on big punch, one big surprise, one big endorsement (Al Gore?) --- without something like that, John will be down for the count.

And as an aside, the Rocky flick is one of the few movies I actually liked with Stallone - most of the rest (Rambo et. al) is nothing more than gratuitous violent video game garbage.

One that was put forth this last week seems more plausible the more I think about it.

Super Tuesday may do more to eliminate one of the top 2 than eliminate John Edwards.

If for example, Obama were to lose several significant states and fall behind Clinton to the point that he believes his time to be President might be later rather than now, he could drop out. That would leave Clinton v. Edwards, and a clear distinction between the candidates.

Inevitable Candidates are not much favored for long periods of time leading up to the Party Convention. (It is the old spinning plates analogy. The only thing harder than getting all those plates spinning at the same time is KEEPING THEM SPINNING ...) With Hillary's frontrunner status secured, she would then have her record and campaign examined much more closely --which could lead to 'buyer's remorse' among the electorate.

And you have to wonder where those Obama delegates would migrate? Edwards would have a good shot at picking them up.

That is just one possibility.

I think a large part of our problem is that the debates are so phony that people have given up watching them --- is that true??? And, therefore, they probably have very little idea of the dangers of Clinton/Obama --- or the positives about Edwards.

and elects the best person to dig us out of this hole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxOYF9ZAe0

and cruise to victory in November! Wait, what year is it again?

HRC or Obama ---

and by election time have sufficiently weakened them to have any GOP candidate look better!

MLK III and the CWA in SC...

If you support him, keep supporting him. Even if he doesn't win, he will get delegates, and his message will keep getting out there. :)