The famous, What If Edwards Had Dropped Out?, question is answered by Pollster

[Adelante]

I keep seeing DUers repeat the argument that Hillary would have beaten Obama in the primaries if Edwards wasn't in the picture. I hope this isn't considered a primary rehash. I think it's a question that needed a definitive answer and I was glad to see Pollster took it on. So let's not upset the mods by getting into tired old fights, but keep discussion to the polling.

This is what happened nationally in the six months after Edwards dropped out:

Let's be a little more specific. The regression line smooths things out (as it is designed to do), but note the change in the dots, the individual survey results. The biggest lurch in support over the course of the two year campaign occurs for Obama just after Edwards dropped out (when pollsters stopped including his name on vote preference questions). Just before the Edwards announcement, most polls showed Obama's support in the mid-30s. Just after, his support surged the mid-40s. Over the same period, Hillary Clinton's aggregate support held mostly steady.

This is how things stood before the Iowa Caucus:

Before Iowa? - Just after Penn's speculation about Iowa appeared, Tom Beaumont of the Des Moines Register produced results from the second choice question on the final Register survey conducted by pollster Ann Selzer:

The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll, taken in the closing days of the caucus campaign, showed that in fact Obama was the second choice of more Edwards supporters than Clinton was. The numbers? Among Edwards' supporters, 41 percent said Obama was their second choice, compared to 25 percent who said Clinton was their second choice.

Since Penn's speculation was more about how the long Iowa campaign would have transpired had Edwards dropped out at the very outset (rather than in its final days), I asked Selzer about their earlier poll conducted in May 2007. The survey showed a very close race: Edwards ahead with 29% followed by Obama at 23% and Clinton at 21%. But had Edwards not been a candidate, his supporters would have split decisively for Obama. With the second choices recalculated into the total, Obama would have led Clinton by nine percentage points on that first Iowa poll.

And New Hampshire:

Before New Hampshire? - Probably the least plausible hypothetical involves Edwards dropping just after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary. But if he had, what might have become of the 17% of the New Hampshire vote he received? Of the four polls that provided raw, respondent level data to the Roper Archives, only the Fox News poll included a second choice question. Those who said they were supporting John Edwards on the final survey (n=94, conducted January 4-6, 2008) reported their second choices as follows: Obama 38%, Clinton 14%, Richardson 13%, Kucinich 4% with the rest choosing another candidate or unable to provide a second choice. Yes, that final round of New Hampshire polling notoriously understated Clinton's support, but this result is not exactly strong evidence that Edwards was "draining" more support from Clinton than Obama.

There is a more data at the link.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_publication_of_a_new.php

[anonymous171]

1. Then I'm glad he waited so long to drop.

The long primary was extremely beneficial to the campaign. All of Obama's dirty laundry was aired out and negated months before the general election. There was no October surprise.

[Adelante]

4. Obama was already on a steep ascent before Edwards dropped out

With Edwards out, that continued without interruption. It makes it very clear, I think.

I also think the long primary was extremely beneficial in retrospect. Both Obama and Clinton became better and better at what they were doing. Remember when Obama's debating skills were only fair? That sure changed. And Hillary's speaking ability and connection to voters was drastically better by the end. I almost wanted to commit suicide by the time it was finally done, but both candidates really did grow.

[zipplewrath]

2. Yup

I think there is some wishful thinking going on that Edwards voters would have broken to Hillary. Hillary was basically DLC and everyone else was looking for "something else". They couldn't really agree on what that was, but they tended to break away from her, not towards her, when their candidate dropped out. When it became a 2 person race, you had some deciding that they'd rather have a known quantity and went her direction, but early on I don't think you could count on alot of that from Edwards voters. More likely, if he drops out in the fall, his support ends up with some other "third" candidate.

[damntexdem]

3. And had there been a one-eyed unicorn in the primaries, Kucinich might have prevailed.

Come off it! Candidates fight in the primaries with the candidates who are there. Bellyaching about what might have been had someone not been there is just stupid.

[Adelante]

5. Who's bellyaching?

What's your problem? This is a political discussion board, for crissake.

[yourguide]

6. You seem vaguely familiar. n/t

[Cha]

9. Don't be so damn

rude.

[Number23]

7. K&R. Thanks, Adelante!

:hi:

[vaberella]

8. I was an Edwards supporter before he dropped.

When he dropped it was neck and neck bet/ O and HRC in regards to health care...in the end I supported O's plan. So I was one of the little bubbles.

[Egnever]

10. Actually I think the oposite is true

Had he stayed in two weeks longer we would have had Clinton as our nominee. I think hes a total asshat always have but had his dropping out handed us an Obama administration. I guess i should be greatfull to him for that.

[vaberella]

11. Hiya Egnever...how are you?! n/t

[Egnever]

13. Doing great!

Heya Vaberella!

:hi:

[vaberella]

14. Good to know. I hadn't seen you in a while.

In particular after that whole thing with that Dem lady being found to have been tapped. I saw you a few times posting on it and then you went *poof*. :D

[Egnever]

25. Life gets me sometimes :)

I still have not eaten a granite sandwich if thats what you were thinking happened.

[Adelante]

16. Can you explain what you base that on, Egnever?

What little Edwards had going was centered in Iowa, where he had invested time and money, literally, for years. Even at that, he basically tied with Clinton for second, while Obama came in 8 or 9 points ahead. By Nevada, where Edwards flatlined, he had pretty much lost that base and could barely recoup even in his home state, and even if he had dropped before that, all of his won delegates wouldn't have given Clinton a win.

If I understand what you're saying, if he had stayed in past Super Tuesday, he would have regained enough lost support, most of which was already moving to Obama as second choice, to take away from Obama and give to Hillary, when he dropped out around February 15. The only state where Edwards's absence might have made a difference before that was New Hampshire, which tied between Clinton and Obama in delegates, but there's no reason to think his were moving to Clinton, in any case. If Edwards had dropped out after Iowa, chances are Obama would have gone into Nevada much stronger (man, your state had high drama).

Look at Edwards's trend line just before he dropped out. His supporters were already moving out. Super Tuesday, given Clinton's wins in California and Massachusetts, came in fairly close. But the next set of primaries before February 15 was a wipeout. It wasn't until after that, in March, Clinton picked herself up and gave Obama a hard time. By then, wherever Edwards's voters were going, they were already gone. It's the white working class male vote that was ever an issue between Clinton and Edwards, and Clinton had been taking them away from Edwards already, so even if he were still in, she would still have been cleaning up on that demographic.

I'm not seeing how another two weeks of Edwards in the race would have handed the nom to Clinton, but maybe you can convince me I'm wrong. Thanks.

[Egnever]

24. I am not sure I could convince you

I remember being worried at the time that Edwards was spliting the ABH vote with Obama. While obama did have some blow outs I dont know that many of them or enough of them were large enough to overcome the votes that Edwards was pulling away from him. Like the poll listed above shows though Obama was gaining it wasnt till John droped out that he really surged ahead and meanwhile Hillary was nearly a constant level of support. That says to me that the majority of Johns voters went to Obama.

Lets say john pulls 10%-15% of the vote from every primary going forward from where he dropped out. If we take say 8% of the votes away from obama in every race going forward from there it would have changed the outcomes oif quite a few races. Take super tuesday just a week or so after he dropped out. Had he stayed in it likely would have fipped the outcome so that clinton was the winner instead of the loser in Arizona and Coneticut. not to mention the delegates were proportional so any picked up by edwards were almost certainly delegates lost by Obama. We would have been looking at a much different final delegate count in the end and we may have ended with a situation where florida and michigan actually would have made a difference in the final outcome.

Of course its all what if stuff and we will never know for sure but the race was closer than some of us on the Obama side want to admit and i t5hink its prety clear that obama gained most of the Edwards supporters. I really think had he stayed in it would have been enough to siphon off just enough from Obamas total delgate alocation to tip the scales to Hillary. Certainly some of the close Obama wins would have become clinton wins and bragging rights would have brought her more cash to campaign harder and we may have had different outcomes entirely all down the line.

in the end it was all about the delegate count and that count would have looked a whole lot different had Edwards stayed in the race IMHO.

[Adelante]

28. Thanks - I have to go out and can't focus on your argument for now

I'll get back to you later :hi:

[Adelante]

50. I think the shift in demographic support in favor of Clinton

that took place in New Hampshire had more impact than anything Edwards might have done. One thing Clinton knew coming out of Iowa was that she wasn't drawing younger women. In fact, she was quoted as saying so on the plane to New Hampshire. She worked very hard in New Hampshire to turn that around and that was the point she started to see the shape of a feminist campaign, and to present herself as a change agent rather than the incumbent she had been running as for a year. The rest of her base in New Hampshire, white working class, was one Edwards always expected to pull for himself. She hurt Edwards bad on that score and he didn't hurt her much at all.

Since workers in both states were mostly white, race really doesn't factor.

But this is what happened with women:

Iowa female vote (57% of voters)

Obama 35
Clinton 30
Edwards 23

New Hampshire female vote (57% of voters)

Clinton 46
Obama 34
Edwards 15

Obama did drop one point, but Edwards dropped 8, and Clinton gained 16.

And voters by income:

Iowa under $50,000 (42% of voters)

Obama 34
Clinton 32
Edwards 19

New Hampshire under $50,000 (32% of voters)

Clinton 47
Obama 32
Edwards 16

Edwards and Obama drop a couple of points, but Clinton gains 15.

Edwards goes nowhere after this, because his base is pretty much gone (except for his true believers).

So Clinton was hurting Edwards a lot more than Edwards was hurting Clinton in what would be her strongest demographics for the remainder of the primary race. Since Obama remained more or less the same, it doesn't look like he suffered from Edwards, though he did from Clinton in the women's vote.

Now Edwards's 17% in New Hampshire, in some part, consisted of ABH, and Obama's consisted of some part of ABH, but I have no idea how large that segment ever was or how much each of them had of it. At the time, I thought the whole concept was overblown. I didn't think the general public, as opposed to the true believers, looked at things that way.

The only evidence we have for positive Edwards support is in South Carolina. I always thought his 8% was higher than it would have been, because he gave his strongest debate performance the night before and at the last minute, I imagine, also picked up some voters who just didn't want to vote for a black man or a woman. In any case, he has nowhere the size of support he had in Iowa or even New Hampshire and I doubt he would have pulled 8%, never mind 10%-15%, in the upcoming contests before February 15. I don't see any reason to think so, anyway.

The Edwards campaign strategy after Iowa was to hang out hoping Obama or Clinton would implode and he would be the one left standing to step into a two-person race. Soon, it became about some imaginary brokered convention in which both Obama and Clinton imploded and Edwards was the successful compromise. While his remaining devoted supporters held on to this, the country moved forward and away from Edwards.

So I guess I remain unconvinced that his impact on future primaries would have been anything but negligible, but thanks very much for explaining your point of view.


(Figures above from http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/votes/)

[Colobo]

12. The important thing is that the right person won the Democratic primaries... and the presidency!

[cascadiance]

15. I voted for Edwards in California primary even after he dropped. Would have picked Obama...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. The implicit [and frankly racist] assumption is that the black guy couldn't win on his own merit.

He had to be "helped" by incompetent white people who would have beaten him anyway. I see people on DU continue to make this false assertion over and over again because their candidate lost. It is very subtle racism, and it is disgusting! :puke::puke:

I supported Edwards before moving on to Obama in the primaries. It's time to put the primaries behind us and accept the fact that Obama is the president and he accomplished that based it on his OWN merit!! (and tens of millions of votes!)

Thanks for sharing this information.

[Adelante]

19. I was a committed Obama suporter 6 or 8 months before Iowa

I have to say, I never once doubted he would do it, confirmed once he had taken Iowa, as you say, on his own merits. I'm not sure where that certainty came from, but once I was his, I was his, and never doubted he would win it, despite some very nerve-wracking moments after Texas.

[Captain Hilts]

30. It's not about race at all. Clinton wouldn't have been prez w/o Perot the 1st go round.Votes split.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. We're discussing Election 2008. Yes, Bill Clinton would have won despite Perot. n/t

[Egnever]

34. I dont think you can back that claim up.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. Can you?

[Captain Hilts]

42. I was in political polling for 8 years. He would have had a difficult time winning. nt

[zulchzulu]

18. What if Obama grew an arm out of his mouth in the first primary debate?

This is abject speculation where the answer is completely ridiculous to try to predict.

If Edwards was out of the race, surely it would have been different. Who is to say that Kucinich might have gotten more votes? Richardson might have gotten more votes? Obama might have gotten more votes?

Sadly, the Edwards legacy is in shambles and the Edwards family should just work it all out on their own.

[emulatorloo]

20. The preferences of most Edwards people I knew were 1) Edwards, 2) Obama 3) Hilary

Of the big three.

[mkultra]

22. for me 1) Obama 2) Edwards 3) Hillary

[mkultra]

21. edwards support was no mroe than 12% on this graph

thus it is difficult to attribute more than 12% of the growth seen by obama to the Edwards change. Since obama made a steep ascent of far more than 12% , you have to acknowledge that other factors where at play.

[Adelante]

26. Right

The summer and fall of 2007 Edwards was continuously losing ground, in fact. I think his imaging was just too confused for voters who remembered the 2004 version, because the platforms of all three were not significantly different. At least, this was part of it. I also think his IWR apology, while going over well with progressives, didn't much impress the general public and might have been something of a turnoff. On that score, Hillary could be seen as standing her ground, while Obama could be seen as right, both of which might have been more appealing to the non-True Believers than an about-face. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans would have been satisfied with either Obama or Clinton, but Edwards wasn't in the competition. I think he only stayed in the "top three" because the media kept him around to keep the two-person race in a holding pattern until the primaries actually began. Edwards generally wasn't in range of the top, but more of a second tier category.

[mkultra]

27. all correct. Truly a shame.

I think your right on the IWR appology. I also think that Edwards was an inspiring speaker which is a mantle that obama took from him at some point. While Hillary had consistent support among progressives, Obama did a better job of reaching to the middle which has a lot to do with the step gains.

[jsamuel]

36. I disagree with your ascribed causes of Edwards' loss. The single most important reason why Edwards

lost was because he was unable to secure the national SEIU endorsement in late September even though he had nearly 60% of the vote, he needed exactly 60% to win. The Obama campaign was successful in getting enough support to disallow Edwards from getting that endorsement. It caused a 5-10 point loss in the Iowa polls when he failed to get that endorsement and a 5-10 point rise for Obama. It also handed NV to Obama instead of Edwards. If you look at the time line more closely, you will see what I am talking about. Edwards' negative attacks on Clinton also hurt him when he crossed a few lines. His criticisms of her were often acutally good, but he went too far at one debate in particular in October 2007 and it caused him to fall and Obama to rise. The media was really pushing him to go negative at that debate (Wolf) and he took the bait.

Also, in regards to the OP, the reason why Obama skyrocketed was because of his Iowa win, not because Edwards dropped out. As you can see, Obama was rising to just below Clinton before Edwards even dropped out.

[Adelante]

46. Well, I agree with your ascribed cause

It was a very big hit. But I think my ascribed causes, which I never thought were the only ones, are also valid in a more longer-term erosion kind of way. Edwards and Clinton's IWR votes opened a space for Obama in Iowa that maybe would not have been there or at least would have made things a lot tighter all around. Your point about Obama's steep ascent and its timing is one I made, actually, earlier in the thread. Obama's Iowa win caused the surge, as was always expected, but my point is more that Edwards's dropping out did not cause it to waver. I do propose that an earlier withdrawal, after Iowa and before New Hampshire, by Edwards would have made a difference in New Hampshire. Hillary's dramatic surge just before the vote would have been tempered and she might have gone into Nevada with two losses behind her rather than the one, since Edwards voters had expressed in polls their second choice was Obama. Some of that would have been subject to change in the actual vote, but it was close enough that Obama would likely have won New Hampshire and gone to Nevada a whole lot stronger than he did and Clinton a whole lot weaker. With four early, sequential wins, the race would probably have been over after South Carolina, especially since Clinton didn't really have her act together before March.

[mkultra]

23. possible correlation to the gore line

When the gore line terminates, the Obama line begins to climb.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Yeah, I noticed that too.

Seems like Obama was a lot of people's second choice in the primaries. I myself was originally a Biden guy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

41. Exactly... Gore is running about even with Edwards on the graph

and he was never actually running at all! And for the record, I was holding out for Gore myself until about November 07, when it was clear he wasn't going to step in and stake his rightful claim to the office he was elected to in 2000. :evilfrown:

I remained a "free agent" until Iowa, then it became obvious that first, Obama was in this for real, and second, that the media was going to force an Obama vs Hillary contest, so it didn't really matter if I agreed more with Kucinich or Edwards on the issues.

In retrospect, I'm glad Edwards was forced out early, because of his personal problems, which were obviously going to be used against him eventually, and better that it wasn't as the nominee. Sure would have liked to have seen Dennis stay in it longer. If not as the nominee, then at least in the debates late into the game, adding a much needed Liberal perspective to the discussion.

[Captain Hilts]

29. Edwards had no significant impact in the primaries. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Alright - I'll say it: Who the fuck cares?!

I'm not directing that at you, per se, but just generally - why are we even thinking about this?

WE HAVE AN AMAZING PRESIDENT IN OBAMA!

The "what ifs" don't really matter much now, do they? Obama is doing everything any reasonable progressive could truly ask for at this point (note the key word "reasonable"). Who the fuck cares whether or not Edwards tilted the race? Maybe Biden would've become President instead and Obama might've been VP (which was actually the scenario I was hoping for in the primaries), but really, sometimes you just have to be okay with "...and they lived happily ever after."

[Egnever]

35. I do

I find the what ifs fascinating.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. I have to agree, at this point this can only turn into a primary re-hash

Having this discussion in a few years might be fun. But right now it can't possibly be productive.

[Adelante]

49. I think correcting the record is a good thing

I find it interesting, too, as a political discussion, or I wouldn't have posted it, but since Penn and Wolfson are going around making a claim and Pollster is refuting that claim, the information on balance is good to have.

WE HAVE AN AMAZING PRESIDENT IN OBAMA! :yourock:

[WI_DEM]

37. I didn't know that DUers were still debating this?

[Adelante]

47. Yes, Duers are

Because, since Mark Penn recently, and earlier Harold Wolfson, made this claim in the media, I've seen dozens of posts reinforcing their claim. When I saw it was refuted by Pollster yesterday, I thought it was worth posting. I always think correcting the record is worthwhile.

[ObamaKerryDem]

38. I always got the impression that Edwards split the "non-Hillary" vote with Obama..

...therefore benefitting Hillary? So maybe if he had stayed in longer, she would've won? :shrug:
This seems to indicate the opposite, though.

Who knows? Either way, I'm glad he didn't get the nomination (and I say this as someone who actually considered backing him in the primaries at one point, before going for Obama), all things considered!

[Adelante]

51. Was there ever polling done of this non-Hillary vote?

Aka Anyone But Hillary? I was trying to remember if this segment was ever analyzed and couldn't. I never bought into it back then as anything much significant, but it would be interesting to know the real size and scope.

[ObamaKerryDem]

52. Well, I do remember there being several polls taken of Edwards supporters..

..of who they'd lean towards without him in the race and while Hillary got a respectable amount of them, the majority always seemed to go for Obama. Edwards in the race seemed to give the edge to Hillary much of the time--I think the New Hampshire primary could at least be argued to have shown that. Who knows, if Edwards hadn't still been in the race at that time and the majority of his supporters had gone to Obama, it could've well put him over the top in that one. And I remember being at Obama's rally in Phoenix--on the day Edwards bowed out, ironically enough--and a lot of supporters seemed visibly happy while hearing/discussing that news. A lot of them seemed to think he split the vote.

Would be interesting to see more research on this, though.

[Adelante]

53. I agree

New Hampshire was the one state I believe it could have made a difference. I'm just not sure that Edwards first, Obama second, as choice sequence, translates to Anyone But Hillary. I know that was the impression back then. I also think there is a difference between firm supporters and the general voting public. I never thought ABH went beyond true believers, but I could be wrong, and I always wondered if it could be proven.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. National polls were irrelevant.

Obama held onto his momentum during Super Tuesday before Edwards dropped out. He won the mid-Febuary contests handedly, and secured his nomination mathematically in doing so.

Delegates, not opinion polls.

How soon we forget.

[FrenchieCat]

43. Kick!

[Raine]

45. I always knew if Edwards dropped out I would vote for Obama

Obama was always a very very close second for me. Hillary was never a consideration, I would've voted for her in the GE if she had the nomination but never in the primary.

[stevenleser]

48. Edwards supporter first, Obama close second...

I think most of Edwards' supporters went to Obama.