Edwards Supporters >>>>QUESTION>>>>>

I'm a big Edwards fan, and I have planned on voting for him since about last summer. However, I'm a New York resident and I don't think he's got any chance to win this state. Now if there's one thing I want to see after an Edwards victory, it's a Hillary loss. I'm not a fan of Obama, but I like him better than Hillary.

So...

If you were in my position, would you vote for Obama just because he's the only one with a shot to beat Hillary in New York, or would you stick with Edwards to help out his numbers, even though he honestly doesn't stand a chance.

Any insight or opinions is welcome.

GO EDWARDS!

with Edwards as the star of the show.

just ask Canada. The desire for a brokered deal by Paul Fucking Martin is what gave Canada John Turner instead of Jean Chretien after Trudeau bowed out. Turner sucked dog balls and botched things up so badly that it led to 8 years of mother fucking Mulroney.

I think New York will go for Hillary. I'm voting for Edwards. His plans are more substantive, and I want substance.

so Obama could do very well, as much as 40% of the delegates I think I heard someone say. But it means the sphere of competition is narrowed.

I want his dialogue since I believe he raises issues that the others ignore or treat lightly

:banghead:

In other words, if you're an Edwards supporter, VOTE for the man!

At the very least it is possible for him to go to the national convention with enough votes to get some concesessions from whoever wants (or needs his delegates). I don't see much difference between Clinton and Obama and I don't think it hurts to let them both know that there are plenty of people in the party who aren't happy with either one of them.

delegates.

sheeeeesssh.

Having said that, it's your vote.

He will ultimately determine who gets our nomination, bank on it.

Obama and Clinton will both abandon the populism message they have had to acknowledge. We will be stuck voting for a corporate anointed candidate, once again. Vote with your heart, vote for the one who really speaks for you.

Not just from Edwards, but Kucinich, Richardson (my original fave), Dodd, Biden, and probably others who ended up not entering the race (Gore, even Kerry maybe?). My main reason for supporting Obama has been that he is not Hillary, but I also do appreciate his message which, to some degree, I think was crafted to counter Hillary and perceptions of her.

Lots of others are forsaking theirs. This could be the election that finally changes America for the better, but only if Edwards wins. ;)

him as invisible all the more reason to make him visible by supporting him.

I'm one of the biggest non-Hillary-fans, but I've never heard her talk about snuggling up to the Rethugs the way Obama does.

I don't know how he is polling in NY, but nationally he is in a virtual tie with Obama! http://politicalinsider.com/2008/01/is_edwards_surging.html

Obama, with his rookie status, is NOT what this country needs at this time.

Any one of our Dem. candidates is a huge improvement
over the Repubs.

Edit- I'm sticking with Edwards as long as he's in the race.

How many elections have you successfully predicted after two states? What was your predictions, after two states, in the last 7 elections.
You folks who post that Edwards is done are very naive. I am surprised that a political junkie site like this one, would have so many naive supporters.
Do you know the current delagate numbers? 25,24 and 18. Did you predict that?
Will Bill throw in a scandal? Can Obama be swiftboated? Ugly politics I know but ugly politics hurt good candidates all the time.
Work hard for your choice.

Right now, if your candidate makes to to your state, vote for them. My primary isn't until April 22, so I doubt there will be more than 1 or 2 left. Keep in mind, you may be giving a voice to those that are being denied.

Below are the places that vote after PA (apr 22).

May 3, 2008 Guam primary
May 6, 2008 Indiana primary
May 6, 2008 North Carolina
May 13, 2008 West Virginia primary
May 20, 2008 Kentucky primary
May 20, 2008 Oregon primary
June 1, 2008 Puerto Rico primary
June 3, 2008 Montana primary
June 3, 2008 South Dakota

Sweet mother of god, two of them aren't even fucking states!!

*edited to add - The only states with more delegates than PA are NY, IL, CA, and TX.

Go, Johnny, GO!!!

Either of the other two would be tossing my vote in the trash. He said let's go to the convention, so I'm staying with him.

should teach us that. Neither Clinton or Obama are really electable.And John is the only candidate that cares about the people instead of himself.Powerful forces are moving to silence John.Do not join them.

In actuality, all I needed was a little hand holding and someone to whisper in my ear that everything will be alright. After a few days of soul searching after the dismal NH performance, I think I've come to the conclusion that I simply cannot pull the lever for anyone else. And because New York still uses our old, trusty lever machines, I can be assured my vote will be counted!

While I have supported Edwards, Texas is a long way off from voting, so I am hanging and reading and like I have said in other posts, ANY of the fab four would be a fine president for me. Sure, I may have said some things about some of them and their corporate ties (that is particulary distasteful for me) and Edwards appeals to my anti-corporatist bent, however, that being said, they are all FAR and Above any other choice. It is why I party in this tent...

I will vote when it is my time to vote and not before. Until then, it is all just political discourse...

Peace.

can be found

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.phpaz=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4006706&mesg_id=4006706
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4018998
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4005939

and possibly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4000952

Thanks for posting that! I'm totally unfamiliar with the convention process no longer!

I like Obama, I do not like Clinton. I have switched my vote to Obama.

For one thing, you can't know that. For another, so what?

There are things more important than winning, as hard as that is for some to believe in our win-at-any-cost and winning-is-everything culture.

Giving more people the opportunity to hear Edwards' message and a chance to vote for him, and getting Edwards delegates into the convention to influence the direction of ther party are important goals.

Is it the messsage of Edwards you are actually in opposition to? If not, why not let it ne heard for as long as possible? If so, why not be honest about that rather than talking about his chances of winning?

Yes, making sure that Clinton is not our nominee. Edwards message won't mean anything if triangulation is given a big stamp of approval. The message of "Dem voters want the status quo and the DLC" will be the only one that anyone notices.

Are you saying that Edwards continuing to campaign is hurting Obama, then?

That doesn't bother some people, but it bothers me. There is already evidence of defections from Edwards anyway, but I think the best way to get some of the things Edwards wants is for him to endorse Obama. It certainly won't come from Clinton getting the nomination. Personally, I think a Clinton nomination makes a republican win pretty likely. For Edwards to stay in and keep his message out there for the already converted to hear (cause we all know the media will talk about him even less now) all for Hillary to get the nomination and probably hand the Republicans a victory... I just don't think that is what is best for America. You are free to disagree. I am sure many do.

Then you were not being very honest with us, were you? You want Edwards supporters to help you defeat Clinton, and rather than saying that you mock us for supporting a losing cause. I guess. Still hard to get your point.

Provide your evidence and make your best case that Edwards is hurting Obama or helping Clinton.

The "already converted?" A very, very small percentage of the population have heard Edwards message.

I am open to listening to an argument presented in an open and forthright manner that supporting Obama would advance the message of Edwards. Do you believe that it would? Or do you have some other interest than that interest of mine? I do not see any substantial difference between the message of Clinton and the message of Obama.

I am not trying to argue with you or disagree with you here so much as I am trying to figure out just what it is you are trying to say.

Are you saying that Clinton is such a threat that defeating her supercedes all other concerns?

"The "already converted?" A very, very small percentage of the population have heard Edwards message."
And that will not change one iota with him staying in the race. No one is going to pay him any attention except the people who already support him. It is a great message, but
from here on out, he is preaching to the choir. I didn't mean "converted" to sound deragatory.

"I am open to listening to an argument presented in an open and forthright manner that supporting Obama would advance the message of Edwards. Do you believe that it would?"
The the message is change from the staus quo, then yes, Obama would advance that more than Clinton.

"Or do you have some other interest than that interest of mine?"
If your interest is in Edwards staying in the race at all costs, and you don't really care if Clinton is nominated, then we probably have different interests.

"I do not see any substantial difference between the message of Clinton and the message of Obama."
Then we should probably stop talking about this. As an Edwards supporter, I could still admit that his voting record was more to the right than Obama's, and very similar to Clinton's. But I believe Edwards wants to do what he speaks about doing. I don't care what Hillary says, we all know that she is going to govern as a triangulator, poll testing everything, never rocking the boat too much. Obama's stance before the war, a test that almost all of our candidates flunked, shows me that he can go the unpopular route for progressive causes. I, like most voters, think Edwards and Obama are about change. Clinton is about status quo.

"Are you saying that Clinton is such a threat that defeating her supercedes all other concern"
"Threat" is not a word I would use. I think her nomination would be a nightmare. Democratic politicans across the country would get the message: Democratic voters want the status quo. Would I vote for her in the general election? Absolutely.

All I ask is that you respect us and understand that we don't accept your premises - reasonable people can differ - and you should not present your opinions as facts.

You don't think there is value in Edwards staying in the race. Many of us do.

You think that Obama is closer to Edwards than to Clinton. Many of us do not.

You think that by supporting Edwards we are helping Clinton. Many of us do not agree with that.

You again mischaracterized my opinion, calling it wanting "Edwards staying in the race at all costs." That isn't what I said. I said that I want Edwards message to keep being heard. I also deny that there is a "cost" to this or that it harms anyone.

Grab any phone book from anywhere in the country other than where we have had campaigns, dial any number, and see if you can find more than 5 people out of 100 who can tell you anything about Edwards campaign message. Your "preaching to the choir" idea is not supportable, but is just another impression or opinion or prejudice that you are tossing out as though it were a fact.

Now, you did not honestly present your point of view originally, and to some extent you are still not being straightforward. You said Edwards could get out of the race because he had no chance, in an effort to discourage Edwards voters. I objected to that. Now that I know your actual opinion, I respect it, but I disagree with it. Now you are saying he is "preaching to the choir" although you do not and I believe cannot support that statement.

I think we can boil all of this down to one simple and honest statement - you like Obabam and want people to vote for him and not for other candidates.

I like Edwards and Obama alot but I also like Dodd, Biden, Richardson and Kucinich. I do not like Clinton. The only person that has a chance of beating Clinton for the nomination is Obama, so I support Obama.

Thanks.

You like any candidate but Clinton, and you think Obama has the best chance against her.

I would switch. I supported Edwards, but at this point it is clear he doesn't have a chance at getting the nomination, not just because of his dreary losses in Iowa and NH, but, looking ahead, there doesn't seem to be any state that is going to cast a majority for him. It's come down to a 2-person race.

You vote for the candidate you support to get delegates into the convention so that the message of your candidate can be heard by more people and have an influence over the direction of the party. That is the way to have a voice.

But much more important than a person's one single vote is how they are influencing hundreds of others around them by blabbering about their one single vote endlessly, as though their personal choice had some sort of universal significance. The discouraging and demoralizing chatter about how it is useless to vote for a certain candidate influences other people, and in a negative and covert way.

"He doesn't have a chance so don't vote for him" is a self-fulfilling prophesy and a dishonest way to campaign and influence people. Yes, if you can convince enough other people that "he doesn't stand a chance" and that being with the winner is the only criteria upon which to base one's vote, then it becomes more likely that you are correct and that he will not stand a chance.

No one ever "stands a chance" when they start out. They never will "stand a chance" if we use that as the basis for deciding whom to support, and then try to influence everyone around us to think the same way.

There are people here who support other candidates. But I would never tell them that their candidate "doesn't stand a chance" and right up until Iowa I was encouraging Biden supporters, for example, and as soon as he withdrew I went to the Biden forum and expressed my condolences and congratulated them on their passion and enthusiasm. I would not tell supporters of another candidate that their candidate is "done" or any of the rest of that negative and discouraging crap.

Kucinich and Edwards supporters - keep supporting your candidate and don't be bullied into joining the winning team or become discouraged and give up.

I was an Edwards supporter until less than a week ago. The OP asked a question and that is my opinion. I'm not out to discourage another candidate's supporters as you seem to imply.

If Edwards' support were strong enough, my decision to switch wouldn't make a damn difference. There seem to be, by the responses, enough people who still have hope that John can pull something off, or that allowing him to continue and spread his message is more important than having an affect on the candidate who in actuality will be chosen---Obama or Clinton. I imagine they are ambivalent about the 2 if they choose to vote for Edwards; however I'm not. I realize it's a close race and I want to affect the outcome.

You most definitely are talking as an outsider.

I described for you how you can affect the outcome - if you were an insider.

An insider is one who supports Edwards because of a deep passion for and commitment to the principles and ideals he represents.

than to one particular candidate. I'm willing to be flexible to ensure the candidate I believe can best defeat the Republicans is elected.

When I go into a restuarant, I prefer eating the meal to eating the menu.

I allegiance to the party takes precedence over allegiance to the people and to the traditional ideals and principles of the party, Republicans win.

Seeing practicality and winning as being seperate from and in some vague way contradictory to the principles and ideals of the party is the problem, and can never be part of the solution.

We are told that we can win, or we can stick to our principles. The result - we get neither.

Hillary and Obama both take impossible positions (Obama even moreso) on dealing with the right-wing. The Pelosi congress is a disaster. More bipartisanship will be equally disastrous. Voting against Hillary will mean nothing if she runs again in 2012.

I would stay really tight on the coming HR 1955 vote. If Obama and/or Hillary votes to criminalize use of 'force' against the government (defined as non-violent force by the fact that it is termed as 'force OR violence', then both will have--wittingly or not--voted for fascism. And if Obama doesn't show for the vote it will be just another cowardly side-step. I have seen no leadership from Obama in the Congress at all. Nothing to indicate that he is who he says he is (one can say the same thing about Edwards but I think it was a lot more difficult to defy Bush in 2002 than it is in 2008, and I believe that Edwards has changed and at least his platform is consistent and something we can hold him accountable for.)

I will vote Edwards in the primary. And if the nominee votes for HR 1955 I will vote a write-in during this election cycle for the first time in almost 20 years of regular voting.

Your vote will matter just as much.

Thom Hartmann stated this morning that Edwards now has 18 delegates, Hillary 24 and Obama 25. Let's hope Edwards wins. Second best, Edwards has enough delegates to decide who does win or to become the compromise candidate. Obama is great, but he is not ready for the candidacy. His worst opponent in a campaign was Alan Keyes. He has no experience in campaigns. He has not been tested. He is not ready for a presidential campaign. We must win. We need a fighter who knows how the battle is fought. Vote Edwards.

I'm in NY and I'm voting Edwards as long as he's in it.

              Edwards '08 tees!

It can be argued that voting third party in the general election is throwing away your vote, but the whole idea of the primaries is to vote your first choice and not doing that is throwing your vote away in the primaries.

Getting Edwards to as many parts of the country so people can hear is message is smart.

Getting Edwards delegates into the convention is smart.

Keeping Edwards message in the debate between the candidates is smart.

So vote your conscience, vote your heart, and vote your head.

I am kind of doing the same thing in CT except I will be voting for Kucinich.

He by far the most progressive candidate.

Being in New York, Hillary will probably win anyhow, so just stick with your guy.

Forget the horse-race tactics and vote they way your heart AND head tell you to vote!

because they are afraid their vote for Edwards would help Hillary. I personally am sticking w/ Edwards, and I have a sneaking suspicion that many ppl are going to vote for who they want and I also believe they want real change. That leaves me to believe that Edwards is the person they will vote for. I think he's going to do way better than we can see at this moment.

Just my opinion.

all the way. Since I'm in Texas and it very most likely won't make a hill o' beans difference, if he doesn't get the nom I just might do a write-in for the GE.

:hi: SCE!!!!

The naysayers can eff themselves. Gently. With a chainsaw.

If you're an Edwards supporter, vote Edwards.

And I support Obama.