Reply #58: Edwards supporters don't like to contemplate him dropping out, but ...

[cloudythescribbler]

First of all, his chances are between 'makkes' and 'bupkes' as they say in Yiddish. (translation not needed, but bupkes, literally, means "beans"). Since Edwards can't win, there remains the issue, as in Kucinich's candidacy, what specific issues or platform he is running on that needs a LOUD (LOUDER than Kucinich) advocate at the Convention and beyond. Hopefully, Kucinich (who got my MA vote in 04, as Kerry was already the presumptive nominee), will have learned his lesson and keep the core of his organization together to start a MASS progressive organization starting Nov 08 (NO MATTER WHO WINS, WE'LL NEED THAT).

But Edwards' platform isn't spectacularly different from Obama's and HRC's, and he isn't identified with any particular issue beyond the 'two Americas'/generic populist rhetoric that he has tried to campaign on. So the most likely reason for staying in would be, possibly by showing continuing electoral "strength", to run as VP on the ticket, this time maybe to actually occupy the office of VP (God and the FBI willing). The same is true about Bill Richardson, who in one debate almost explicitly made a bid (favorably received by HRC) for the VP spot on her ticket.

The question remains, who would benefit from Edwards dropping out? Would Obama consolidate the anti- or at least non-Hillary vote? Or is there something to the claim some make that HRC would get most of Edwards' votes? It seems to me that if the election boils down to Obama v HRC, with Kucinich as a left protest candidate, it would be BEST for Obama, ESPECIALLY IF EDWARDS BACKS OUT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, instead of waiting to see if S Carolina resurrects him as a 'possible' winner (not likely).

I think that, just as many SEEM to have overestimated Obama's vote in NH, there has been even MORE overestimation of Edwards'.