John Edwards selects Obama.

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>John Edwards to endorse Obama in White House race

GRAND RAPIDS, Michigan (Reuters) - Former Democratic U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama's White House bid on Wednesday, a campaign spokeswoman said, giving a big boost to the Illinois senator in his effort to rally the party around his candidacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the Democratic race in January and was heavily courted by both Obama and rival Hillary Clinton in the past few months. He will make the endorsement at a Grand Rapids rally</div>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080514/ts_nm/...ma_edwards_dc_2

Obama is now +14 in Supers, and has over a seven percent lead against Hillary head to head. He leads McCain by over 4 points in general election match-ups.

 

[44Thrilla]

Awesome. I am hoping the Democratic ticket is Obama/Edwards.

 

[huevonkiller]

It was a brilliant move to withhold this information until today, instead of Monday for the Obama campaign.

 

[Real]

This is very good for Obama because he's losing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia where democrats there are largely low-income white, blue-collar, members of unions etc. And that's essentially John Edwards' voter base.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is very good for Obama because he's losing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia where democrats there are largely low-income white, blue-collar, members of unions etc. And that's essentially John Edwards' voter base.</div>

He's winning in Pennsylvania by a larger margin than McCain is winning Ohio. Michigan is pretty much a tie with momentum in Obama's favor.

WV is 5 electoral votes.

 

[Mamba]

Lock it up, throw away the key. Hillary, drop out...help your party.

An Obama/Edwards ticket would be hard to topple.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is very good for Obama because he's losing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia where democrats there are largely low-income white, blue-collar, members of unions etc. And that's essentially John Edwards' voter base.</div>

He's winning in Pennslvania by a larger margin then McCain is winning Ohio. Michigan is pretty much a tie with momentum in Obama's favor.

WV is 5 electoral votes.
</div>

I think that considering that both McCain and Obama can draw independents and members of other parties, both of them are going to need their respective parties unified behind them to win. In the same way that McCain will need the skeptical right-wing of his party to win, Obama needs these voters to vote for him, and as evidenced by his losses in those three states, he most certainly has had troubles attracting these kinds of voters. Edwards helps him in that regard.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 05:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is very good for Obama because he's losing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia where democrats there are largely low-income white, blue-collar, members of unions etc. And that's essentially John Edwards' voter base.</div>

He's winning in Pennslvania by a larger margin then McCain is winning Ohio. Michigan is pretty much a tie with momentum in Obama's favor.

WV is 5 electoral votes.
</div>

I think that considering that both McCain and Obama can draw independents and members of other parties, both of them are going to need their respective parties unified behind them to win. In the same way that McCain will need the skeptical right-wing of his party to win, Obama needs these voters to vote for him, and as evidenced by his losses in those three states, he most certainly has had troubles attracting these kinds of voters. Edwards helps him in that regard.
</div>

Oh sure, it definitely doesn't hurt to get respect from Edwards.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 05:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lock it up, throw away the key. Hillary, drop out...help your party.

An Obama/Edwards ticket would be hard to topple.</div>

Actually I think the Republicans would have fun combating any ticket with John Edwards on it.

 

[Mamba]

Excuse my ignorance, I am new to politics.

I thought Edwards was highly respected amongst Dems, right? Wasn't he the biggest politician left out there waiting to endorse a candidate? If I recall correctly, Gore wasn't planning on giving an endorsment to anyone.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Excuse my ignorance, I am new to politics.

I thought Edwards was highly respected amongst Dems, right? Wasn't he the biggest politician left out there waiting to endorse a candidate? If I recall correctly, Gore wasn't planning on giving an endorsment to anyone.</div>

Yeah and he should help with white-male/working-class vote too. I wouldn't worry too much about the VP unless it was Clinton though, Edwards isn't nearly as divisive.

*I'm watching the official endorsement right now*.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Excuse my ignorance, I am new to politics.

I thought Edwards was highly respected amongst Dems, right? Wasn't he the biggest politician left out there waiting to endorse a candidate? If I recall correctly, Gore wasn't planning on giving an endorsment to anyone.</div>

Among Dems, yes.

But if youre Obama, and you're running a national election against the toughest candidate you could run against, someone who can draw independents and conservative democrats, you're going to want to run with someone that appeals to people, and I don't think Edwards is a polarizing figure that doesn't appeal to those who don't share all of his views.

Republicans are going to do to Obama what they did to Kerry in 04. Portray him as soft on terrorism and the the war, an advocate of a bigger governemnt, and as a tax-raiser. It's better to not have a running mate who is as big of a target as John Edwards is.

Put it this way, there's a reason why John Kerry chose to endorse Obama and not Edwards.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ May 14 2008, 05:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Excuse my ignorance, I am new to politics.

I thought Edwards was highly respected amongst Dems, right? Wasn't he the biggest politician left out there waiting to endorse a candidate? If I recall correctly, Gore wasn't planning on giving an endorsment to anyone.</div>

Among Dems, yes.

But if youre Obama, and you're running a national election against the toughest candidate you could run against, someone who can draw independents and conservative democrats, you're going to want to run with someone that appeals to people, and I don't think Edwards is a polarizing figure that doesn't appeal to those who don't share all of his views.

Republicans are going to do to Obama what they did to Kerry in 04. Portray him as soft on terrorism and the the war, an advocate of a bigger governemnt, and as a tax-raiser. It's better to not have a running mate who is as big of a target as John Edwards is.

Put it this way, there's a reason why John Kerry chose to endorse Obama and not Edwards.
</div>

I still think you're putting way too much stock into the VP anyway.

Obama just needs to secure his Democratic base, and make sure Edwards is charming or non-threatening.

 

[Mamba]

But is the war on terror as strong of an issue now as it was 4 years ago? Is America not ready to get out of Iraq? What would you say is the biggest issue this coming election? Healthcare? the War? Economy?

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But is the war on terror as strong of an issue now as it was 4 years ago? Is America not ready to get out of Iraq? What would you say is the biggest issue this coming election? Healthcare? the War? Economy?</div>

The Economy has been a bigger factor than the War according to the coverage/exit-polls I've seen.

People are more sick of the War now than back in 04, that's a fair point.

 

[Denny Crane]

Edwards is a trial lawyer. He has about as much appeal as Ralph Nader, who's also a trial lawyer. That appeal is limited to corporation bashing (that's who they made their fortunes suing, after all) and anti-capitalist rants.

I suppose Edwards has the hair thing, too.

The odd thing is I have a hard time picturing what the USA would be like if they got their wish. Actually, I don't. Those corporations employ 20M to 25M people. Without 'em, it'd be like the Great Depression on steroids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Edwards is a trial lawyer. He has about as much appeal as Ralph Nader, who's also a trial lawyer. That appeal is limited to corporation bashing (that's who they made their fortunes suing, after all) and anti-capitalist rants.

I suppose Edwards has the hair thing, too.

The odd thing is I have a hard time picturing what the USA would be like if they got their wish. Actually, I don't. Those corporations employ 20M to 25M people. Without 'em, it'd be like the Great Depression on steroids.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-capitalism</div>

Ralph Nader did respectably for a third party candidate. Many people find Edwards to be a pleasant-person/decent as well. He's a white male and that will indeed help Obama.

This election also has a lot to do with the War and idealistic concepts Denny.

I believe there are serious problems with the way health care and such is handled in this country. I'd be willing to sacrifice some economic growth for a few causes.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000 and .38% of the popular vote in 2004.

If that's not fringe, you tell me what is

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote in 2000 and .38% of the popular vote in 2004.

If that's not fringe, you tell me what is

</div>

I was referring to 2000, and we're arguing semantics.

VP has overrated impact unless the person is extremely polarizing or something.

 

[Real]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Mamba @ May 14 2008, 06:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But is the war on terror as strong of an issue now as it was 4 years ago? Is America not ready to get out of Iraq? What would you say is the biggest issue this coming election? Healthcare? the War? Economy?</div>

There are definetly people concerned about the economy. I also think there are people that believe the economy will bounce back.

There are also people who believe the economy is bad because of spending on the war in Iraq. So I think Iraq is still the no.1 issue right now.

 

[Denny Crane]

2.74% is fringe, no matter how you look at it. A little over 2M votes out of over 100M cast.

Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992, and John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote as independent candidates. After everyone figured out that Perot is a raving lunatic, he came back and won 8% of the popular vote in 1996.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2.74% is fringe, no matter how you look at it. A little over 2M votes out of over 100M cast.

Ross Perot won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992, and John Anderson won 6.6% of the popular vote as independent candidates. After everyone figured out that Perot is a raving lunatic, he came back and won 8% of the popular vote in 1996.</div>

Why did he even get that much to begin with? I use "respectably" loosely as well.

Anyway, I don't know why we're fixed on this subject now, I know quite well how Ross Perot did in past elections, I don't need a history lesson.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why do trial lawyers advertise on TV that they can get you a lot of money by suing some company? There was also a lot of backlash among the left against the Democratic candidates who weren't left enough.

That's why he got those 2M votes.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do trial lawyers advertise on TV that they can get you a lot of money by suing some company? There was also a lot of backlash among the left against the Democratic candidates who weren't left enough.

That's why he got those 2M votes.</div>

How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?

 

[Denny Crane]

Depends on the year and the candidate. Non-fringe candidates who are as widely known as Nader have historically done significantly better, and even some lesser known ones (like Anderson) as well.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Depends on the year and the candidate. Non-fringe candidates who are as widely known as Nader have historically done significantly better, and even some lesser known ones (like Anderson) as well.</div>

And we're still talking about a small set of people, hence my loose using of the word "respectably".

 

[Denny Crane]

Huckabee is a pretty fringe guy (mostly unknown governor from a teenie state), and look at the votes he got. He'd surely get more than 2.7% of the popular vote if he ran as an independent.

I can think of numerous people who would bury the 2.7% figure, including Al Gore.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Huckabee is a pretty fringe guy (mostly unknown governor from a teenie state), and look at the votes he got. He'd surely get more than 2.7% of the popular vote if he ran as an independent.

I can think of numerous people who would bury the 2.7% figure, including Al Gore.</div>

I think you missed the point entirely. I can easily justify what I said, I don't see how you got this perfect example with Ralph Nader matched up either.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?</div>

LOTS

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 14 2008, 08:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ May 14 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How many people can get 2.7% of the popular vote as a third candidate?</div>

LOTS
</div>

LOOSE using of the word.