McClatchy: "Clinton, McCain likely gain most from dropout candidates"

[bidenista]

Clinton, McCain likely gain most from dropout candidates
Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — When two major candidates quit the presidential campaign on Wednesday, they freed up large blocs of voters who could tip the balance in still-close races in both major political parties.

For the Democrats, the decision by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to abandon his campaign could swing votes to both New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, though probably more to her.

Edwards' supporters are similar in demographic profile and outlook to Clinton's. A smaller number were drawn to Edwards for his outspoken call to change Washington, which could lead them into the Obama camp....

Clinton likely has an edge among Edwards voters.

"The demographics of Edwards' supporters and the attributes they find most appealing in candidates should push them disproportionately into the Clinton camp," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who isn't affiliated with any of this year's presidential campaigns. "They tend to be white, lower-income, less well-educated and union members. That fits the white, downscale voters that fit the Clinton profile. They also think the most important thing is empathy, someone who cares about people like them."

Backing that up, a recent Associated Press-Yahoo poll found that about four out of 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice would be Clinton. About one out of four said their second choice would be Obama.

More: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/v-print/story/25884.html

[AX10]

1. Also, consider that Clinton and Edwards ....

are taking most of the working class Democratic party base.
This should help Clinton.
There are alot of undecideds at this time also.
Hillary should be well tonight at the debate.

"Clinton likely has an edge among Edwards voters.

"The demographics of Edwards' supporters and the attributes they find most appealing in candidates should push them disproportionately into the Clinton camp," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who isn't affiliated with any of this year's presidential campaigns.

"They tend to be white, lower-income, less well-educated and union members. That fits the white, downscale voters that fit the Clinton profile. They also think the most important thing is empathy, someone who cares about people like them."

[Adelante]

2. That's what I've been thinking, too nt

[Beacool]

3. I agree!!!

Most of Edwards base of supporters is similar to Hillary's: working class people and lower income voters. Their main difference was between women (hers) and white males (his).

The upper classes, the young and the African-Americans comprise Obama's main base of support.

Ironic, ain't it? The candidate of change has become the establishment darling.

:eyes:

[robbedvoter]

4. Not sure, but at least a reputable source saying it

[PATRICK]

5. Judging form radio

call-ins rather than the special case segment that post regularly on DU I would tend to believe him and also tend to believe that the Obama wave has crested and broken on these rocks, some, though you assume they are educated by Edwards into more sophistication, mouthing the memes of experience etc. Also Obama has hurt himself at times with a certain segment of labor voters. lacking arguments of an Edwards perhaps many women are almost relieved to flock back to their cause and the Clinton Revival security.

Edwards could have kept that crest moving or keep it from failing, but I would like to hear some hard math(I doubt we will) from the various campaigns and as to whether he put that into consideration. In any event he certainly would not win by keeping Obama alive or tamping away the supposed ABH vote and helping Hillary get a win by assist. It would not help the party either where the voters seem to be making a decision regardless of all wisdom arguments or plans. It would not help his agenda to prolong such damage. It certainly says something about the formability of Hillary and her campaign(both because neither by itself would suffice) that two fairly brilliant tacks failed to sway the numbers. I have too many memories of the Kerry formability to take much comfort at all into November, but if the voters can forget all that let's try again. It most certainly says something, noticed wearily by all, about ALL the feckless factions of the party establishment perhaps mirroring the fecklessness in the various bases that clearly explains how we can have a fraudulent little sideshow of a worthless dictator tearing the world apart by the seams. Seeing a string of belated endorsements of Obama, nearly token and symbolic compared to what reality screams into their professional souls, makes one wonder if any of us gets the truth about the cost of this in November and in the hard times beyond.

[bidenista]

6. do you think the rezko scandal is a factor? nt

[PATRICK]

7. Not so much

people might pick the latest point out of thin air. It is the more lasting base decisions that matter. Edwards had a base labor constituency concerned about REAL action and problems. Hillary has the dues and the credentials and the nostalgia- which is too trivial a word for backward hope in something good and real that really is heaven in comparison. And no, memories are not too good about NAFTA, privatization and corporate hogs. These are not people who want to feel good by believing their Dem rivals are bad. So they just deem Obama as the rookie who is maybe not all that concretely attractive to labor unions. Little things in these cases just serve as a catalyst to push people where they want to go already.

People are divided on change and the past and pretty dumbed up on the real future coming down on us like a freight train. I think Obama is sweeping up the black vote and enough others to make him undeniable at the convention. They must give him something big. He might pull it off, but that is mainly dependent on real movement among the voters who are pretty fixed once you clear away the smoke of recent events. if Obama takes one of the big non-southern states he definitely is on his way. The advantages of Hillary did not melt away after Iowa. That was the critical moment as weird and unfair that is no matter who your candidate is. She still needs to win and the odds have settled back again to her raw favor. The single most powerful question about her electability and campaign performance has little or nothing to do with her charisma. The more undeniable issue was the price we'd have to pay for her candidacy, yet that argument can be laid against the new kid to mute the issue. No one wants to think about losing in the fall. So mainly the voters don't. Hillary's advantages therefore intact.

[Sulawesi]

8. Maybe, but maybe not...

The problem with this reasoning is one of cause and effect. One argument is that some of Obama's weakness among these voters is because John Edwards siphoned off the members of that demographic that are not enthusiastic about Clinton, that is, Edwards and Obama split those anti-Clinton votes. The same demographic trends would result except that Edwards dropping out would strengthen Obama and close the gap with Clinton in these areas...we will know soon, but to say you know what will happen, without good polling of Edwards' support, is dodgy.