« The Not So Progressive Majority Rising | Main | Fundamentalism And How it Loses »
October 14, 2006
Edwards Expectations Management
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
We here at Unofficial Edwards Central are a bit worried that the Edwards hype will peak a little too soon, and therefore have taken it upon ourselves to tamp expectations on the Edwards bubble just a little bit.
- Look over there, it's Evan Bayh! Bayh is an incredibly popular former governor of an even redder state that Warner's. Polls show he'd win Indiana if he ran, which would surely strike fear into the heart of the GOP. He could certainly fashion himself as a bipartisan dealmaker, which might have some appeal to donors and voters, Duncan Black's protestations to the contrary.
- Hey, Russ Feingold is still thinking about running for President! Feingold is the politicians Dean's followers wished Dean were. He' so anti-war he voted against the war in Bosnia and the Kosovo air strikes. He opposed the Clinton health care plan because it did too much for the insurance business. He's the heir to Paul Wellstone's wondrous Wellstonianosity. If you want real, principled liberalism, to the point where he'll vote to confirm John Ashcroft, you have to go with Russ Feingold.
- Hillary Clinton is still very popular and will have lots of money & establishment support! Edwards commitment not to take PAC money or money from Washington lobbyists, plus his support for public financing of elections, will make it that much easier for HRC to snatch up gobs and gobs of cash. Meanwhile she has the highest name recognition of any Democrat, and still earns big favorables among African-Americans, a key constituency in Democratic primaries. Her presence as a New York Senator will make it easier for her to get earned media coverage than anyone else who's running.
- If John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, it may not matter much anyway! You can run the "Just Another Politician" campaign against him, but it's going to be very tough. McCain still has lots of friends in the media who remember him from his Straight-Talking Express days when he told everyone under the sun—Jerry Falwell, the ethanol lobby, confederate flag wavers, everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman—to shove it. Perpetual mockery of his flip-flops on the Daily Show won't be enough.
So there you have it. When you add everything up, John Edwards will face many sizeable obstacles to his candidacy, should he decide to run for President. Let's not get too carried away with his prospects fifteen months before the first primary, just because one guy dropped out of the race.
October 14, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
This is quite good. It's sort of pre-debates Bush campaign.
Posted by: jhupp | Oct 14, 2006 12:45:40 PM
Let's not get too carried away with his prospects fifteen months before the first primary, just because one guy dropped out of the race.
Good advice, but who will take it?
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 14, 2006 12:58:24 PM
"We here at Unofficial Edwards Central are a bit worried that the Edwards hype will peak a little too soon, and therefore have taken it upon ourselves to tamp expectations on the Edwards bubble just a little bit."
Heh.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 14, 2006 1:09:34 PM
What about the greatest potential challenge to Edwards? Gore.
I know Petey and others think he's not running, but I think he's just waiting for the inevitable headlines like, "Many Democrats unsatified with current crop of candidates" and "Will he or won't he?" Lots of free media to be had, and he can get in very late, given his name ID and fundraising capabilities. It's a chronic sickness, the desire to be president, not something you get over.
Alright, that was my effort to lower expecations.
Posted by: davidmizner | Oct 14, 2006 1:19:21 PM
I don't think it's going to be Edwards. I think I'd prefer him to HRC, but I don't think he will get the nomination. So my expectations of Edwards come deflated.
Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Oct 14, 2006 3:20:17 PM
I'm so disappointed by this diary. You have completely overlooked the behemoth lurking in the wings, General Wesley Clark. As the former four-star general, he is used to ordering people around, which is something that has been sorely lacking under the Bush administration. And while only a relatively small number of people actually support him, a surprisingly large share of them are active online, which gives him a netroots base of support.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 14, 2006 3:20:38 PM
Personally, I'm not worried about Edwards' expectations getting too high. If she runs and if Gore doesn't, Hillary will be seen by the mainstream media as the front-runner until the Iowa caucuses. This is in part because Republican pundits will constantly be obsessing over her. Even if the sharpest observers predict an Edwards victory in Iowa, the big media will see it as a surprise.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 14, 2006 3:30:51 PM
why would you prefer edwards over gore?
maybe edwards would be a good vice-presidential running mate for al gore, but in my humble opinion, he doesnt have the power, stature or experience near that of al gore. he is youthful, one can feel his youthfulness and inexperience intuitively... and he appears too politically driven...where gore has already passesd that, and has evolved into qualities of deepest leadership, beyond prestige, power. he has already been challenged in the valley and has so much strength and character.
more and more, i see whisperings of gore's name being mentioned, even here.
....i am always hoping that al gore will read my pleas here. sometimes, it is just a word, a plea, a phrase that creates a phase transition in a person's thinking.
.......everyday, i send out hope and energy for al gore to run for the presidency.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 3:38:19 PM
so nicholas, at least for this reader, dont worry about unduly increasing expecations prematurely.
edwards seems bright, driven and likeable enough...but not the person i want to steer this ship bobbing precaroiusly in troubled waters.
...thank you...i just wanted to share my deeply held feelings about this, yet, once again.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 3:41:40 PM
Regarding the above poster's comment about Edwards
"he is youthful, one can feel his youthfulness and inexperience intuitively..."
Let's see. Gore was 52 when he ran for the Presidency. Granted, he had 8 years of VP experience, which means he was 44 when tapped as VP. That would make him 60 if he runs again.
Edwards was 51 when he was a vice-presidential candidate and he will be 55 if he runs again for the WH 2008. And his portfolio has improved immensely, especially in speaking at overseas events and meeting all of the great leaders he may have not been able to meet with when he was a senator.
Posted by: Benny | Oct 14, 2006 3:47:29 PM
benny.....
once again, sharing my opinion, it is not about speaking at overseas events or meeting great leaders.
that is not at the essence of great leadership....
it something deeper than that.
....there are qualities of understanding, depth, humility,self-restraint and other qualities as well, that give breadth of character to an individual.
....many figures in public life have "improved portfolios", and that is exactly what they are...
"improved portfolios".
it is about the adventurer, not the adventure. the self-restraint, incredible acceptance and grace that al gore exhibited through the clinton administration and through everything that has happened to him since, and the way he has transformed his own bitter disappointments and the attacks, humiliations and turnings of fate into a positive transformation for the greater good, without recrimination, without glory, speak incredible volumes about who he is as a man.
and that is good enough for me.
gore is an example of a person, who under the most difficult, and glaringly public circumstances, put his hand on the plowshare and kept on going straight ahead.
he continues to be a role model for me.
it is all about character, not the economy, not charisma, not joviality, not christmas card photo opps...just about strength of character and wisdom and the mettle and depth of real experience.
.....sorry, but i see that nowhere else on the horizon.
many wanna be's, but just one al gore.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 4:00:07 PM
maybe at less critical junctures, the choice for the next president would not be so crucial...and a candidate who is "good enough" might be okay.
but surely not at this time.
..........thank you for letting me share my very heartfelt opinions here.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 4:04:13 PM
Shush, Benny, this is about lowering expectations. Reminding people about stuff like he's actually in his 50's and had a successful career before going into politics is not helping manage expectations.
Mind you, I think there is something to the idea that the CW over 2007 will be with HRC and her big PAc funded warchest, so finishing second behind HRC will be in line with many expectations, and beating HRC will exceed them.
It may be that the biggest impact that Gore will have on the pre-primary race is when he holds his big climate crisis meeting next year. If John Edwards has elaborated his Energy Independence policy by that time, that will be his first big opportunity to sell it.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 14, 2006 4:10:37 PM
I continue to be very skeptical about Hillary or Gore running, and I automatically turn down the rumors I hear about anyone running who the media has a tendency to obsessively focus on no matter how obvious it is they shouldn't run (this includes, say, Giuliani).
Edwards would have to do a serious fight to win, yes. But he's the only one who's clearly been planning and working on his Presidential campaign RIGHT NOW, and doing it right. Well Warner was, but he's gone, and Hillary - again, I'm with the "she'd rather run the Senate" group.
Posted by: Tony v | Oct 14, 2006 4:11:20 PM
my last post...sorry to have put so many.
......in my perfect world, there would be a resoundingly united voice among democrats to get gore to run....and then a resounding unity to get him elected, so that we could get this boat up in the water again.
.....but i am afraid, there will be more disagreement, scandals, recriminations, rumors, malignings and disunity over a whole host of "politicans, plain and simple"... that will waste political capital, all the while, more and more water is coming on the deck.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 4:18:22 PM
Jaqueline,
If JRE had decided to take up his position with the Poverty Center after Elizabeth got the all clear on cancer, and after Katrina brought the issue back to the consciousness of so many people ... if his trips abroad focused on places that are obvious for politicians looking to "boost their resume", and ignored India and Africa ... then I probably would rank Gore first and Edwards second.
After all, I supported Gore for 12 years, and only settled on Edwards in 2004 after seeing him on C-Span during a quick trip back to the US, knowing that Gore was almost certainly not running.
Now, I admire the fact that Gore seems to care more about the issue that he is campaigning for than about his own political ambitions, but for that very reason I expect that Gore is only likely to enter the race if it seems necessary to keep the Democratic Party from wimping out on the climate crisis.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 14, 2006 4:23:44 PM
not knowing al gore personally, i would not surmise his motives for entering the race....but it would make greater sense to me, that he is hesitating to get a clear and measured assessment of things before he commits.
now wait, that is yet another thing that i admire about him! does anyone make clear, studied and measured assessments in a quiet manner in the limelight anymore?
and forgive my skepticism,
but visiting india and africa...that is a wonderful photo opp for a good democrat. who wouldnt put that first on the list this year?
isnt madonna opening some kaballah orphanages there this week? and isnt allison janney doing voice-overs for the "president bush, do something about darfur" commercial. and george clooney in what looks like a sulka tie befitting a rich ambassador, and his dad at the united nations....
i understand these are all good intentions for sure, but it does have a lacing of cynicism for me.
there is something about good works without all of the glory and photo opps that seems to bespeak a greater humility. perhaps others feel that way too. i dont know.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 4:40:44 PM
To the poster above, I really like your style of expression about Gore. What I find interesting is that your thoughts about Gore parallel mine about Edwards, but what I was pointing out was the "youth" factor about Edwards that often I read. Edwards was blessed with a youthful appearance, takes good care of himself by running 6 miles every day, and still keeps going to do where he can for so many, whether it's about speaking about welfare reform at the University of Iowa earlier today, or stumping for candidates across fly-over land as he will be doing tomorrow.
I do not find Edwards disingenuous about going to Africa or later to China this year. I think he studies law and economics (both at home and abroad) all of the time while reaching out where he can to make assessments as asked (in Israel, India, Brussels, Russia, Uganda, etc) and there, he is an expert as his law experience is good background for that expertise.
Having said that, by no means do I believe he is the clear front runner. It's too early. Maybe Al Gore thinks so too. I like Gore and have appreciated his speeches this year, especially at Constitution Hall on MLK day. I consider him a great patriot.
Posted by: Benny | Oct 14, 2006 5:45:01 PM
To add another thought about patriotism, I posted on my blog (Benny's World)," True Patriots: Al, Martin, and John" on January 16th. Here's the link if anyone cares to read it. One has to scroll down a little to see it as my blog archives are collected by Blogger by the week. It's not a lot of about my thoughts, but more about the 3 men who expressed them better.
Posted by: Benny | Oct 14, 2006 5:59:19 PM
benny...thank you for sharing your thoughts.
i will read your link and look forward to learning more about your thoughts also.
thank you.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 6:17:08 PM
benny...just to respond to a particular thought...
it is not a physical youthfulness i am speaking about, in terms of "youthfulness."
it is more about a gravitas. and i think that gore has earned that.
thanks. just wanted to explain my thought.
Posted by: jacqueline | Oct 14, 2006 6:52:13 PM
Thanks, J for your comment. I feel equally about Gore and Edwards. May we continue to discuss as we do as time progresses. May I ask where you are and which 2006 candidates you are supporting or thinking about supporting? Benny
Posted by: Benny | Oct 14, 2006 7:01:04 PM
WRT Clark and Gore, I suppose I should have mentioned them to to raise expectations further.
I think Clark has several problems. First, he will still have a hard time convincing Democrats who don't pay a lot of attention to politics that he's a Democrat. Second, he will have trouble raising money. In '04, Clark managed to gobble up a lot of the "you play to win the game" money, because no one thought any of the non-Dean candidates were credible. This time, Edwards will be credible. Also, looking at the Leadership PACs, Clark has raised almost no money; he is last in fundraising by a considerable amount, allthough clearly Biden and Bayh can redirect money from their Senate war chests. Third, the tendency will be for the mainstream press to turn the race into Hillary versus not-Hillary (or maybe Hillary versus not-Hillary with Russ Feingold in the background). I think this will help Edwards, as he will be the subject of numerous articles in late '07 that ask "Can Edwards beat Hillary" and "Is Edwards more Electable"?
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 14, 2006 9:24:15 PM
OK, Nicholas (did you realize that you last name is Torduaeb backwards?), you got me dead to rights. Raising Clark just makes Edwards look good by comparison (though Clark may merit consideration for Sec'y of Defense), and so you were entirely justified in leaving his name out in this context.
Gore is a far more credible expectations game piece, even if I still expect him to act primarily as an influence from the sidelines.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 14, 2006 9:38:41 PM
