SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Edwards's Dilemma

OCTOBER 31, 2007

Edwards's Dilemma

BY TNR STAFF

The Edwards camp has obviously been eager to talk about how money is corrupting politics. The campaign is starting to make that point in a kind of meta way, too. Edwards has now had two debates in a row where he was by most accounts the winner, and where he overshadowed Obama in pressing the case against Hillary. And yet, the day after the pundits heap praise on his performance, they'll likely revert to discussing him (at least implicitly) as a quasi-marginal candidate. What's more, it's hard to fault them for it. With the spending caps he now faces in Iowa and New Hampshire (having decided to accept public financing), and the overall cap he faces in the primaries, it's hard to see how Edwards will stay afloat between March and the convention (the official end of the primaries) if he becomes the nominee. And if it's hard to see how he stays afloat as the nominee, it's hard to see him getting the nomination in the first place.

I've heard Edwards strategist Joe Trippi make the case that Edwards, were he to wrap up the nomination in March, could ask the DNC to formally declare him the nominee at that point, which would allow him to start spending money for the general election. But I'm not sure how feasible that is legally or logistically. And, even if it were, it seems like it would be tough to overcome the skepticism of donors and electability-minded voters.  

All of which is a long-winded way of asking: Is it possible that Edwards will end up helping Clinton, by overshadowing Obama but not being able to close the deal himself?

Update: I'm a step off today. I wrote that, "With the spending caps he now faces in Iowa and New Hampshire (having decided to accept public financing), and the overall cap he faces in the primaries, it's hard to see how Edwards will stay afloat between March and the convention (the official end of the primaries) if he becomes the nominee." The latter is true, but the spending caps in Iowa and New Hampshire obviously only matter in the primaries, not the general. I'd started down a thought about how the public financing decision makes things tricky for Edwards in the primary and the general, but for some reason didn't complete the first part...  

--Noam Scheiber

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 14 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

14 comments

If he were to somehow win in Iowa and then do the same in New Hampshire he will win the nomination and then the general. I don't see any Republican who can beat him at this point regardless of money. Of course he does have to upset in these two states, or at least come second to Obama.

If Hillary comes in 3rd in both she is toast, the same is true for Edwards and most likely Obama as well. In any event, after these first two primaries we should have a strong idea of where the nomination will go, unless in a bizarre twist the 1-2-3 reverses but I don't see that happening.

- blackton

October 31, 2007 at 6:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR Talkback is dead.  

The post entry-to-publication lag behind the feature articles is too great to allow for any conversation between posters; each post becomes a solipsistic little nothing, all too often saying precisely the same thing as the other ten early posters, not of whom can read each others' comments until it's too late.

And the blog entries come too fast a furious to allow for many decent threads to build.  Come in late, i.e. later than early, and everyone has already deserted the thread for the next blog post.

Of course this is all in the way of things.  TNR has decided to serve the larger proportion of its paying customers  rather than continue to waste resources catering to a tiny cadre of Talkback obsessives.  

Still, we obsessives will miss it.

- aeromonas

October 31, 2007 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince makes a few points in response to my previous item .

- Anonymous

October 31, 2007 at 9:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The lag really cuts into the conversation. Can we get an RSS feed of comments so that we will know when it is updated? That way we can jump right back in? Right now I wander off  into the weeds waiting for a response.

- bsdespain

November 1, 2007 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't forget that Gephardt and Dean got into a p**ing match in 2003 and the above the fray folks (Edwards and Kerry) won Iowa. Maybe Obama should just let Edwards cut into  Clinton?

- virginiacentrist

November 1, 2007 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't forget that Gephardt and Dean got into a p**ing match in 2003 and the above the fray folks (Edwards and Kerry) won Iowa. Maybe Obama should just let Edwards cut into  Clinton?

- virginiacentrist

November 1, 2007 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noam is two steps off -- it is unthinkable that Edwards could beat Hillary in the early primaries but then lose the nomination because Hillary has more money.  Only the pundits will know or care -- everyone else will simply choose which candidate they think is best.

Hillary has been riding a wave of inevitability, and the waves are about to crash on the rocky coastline of reality.

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 9:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm afraid Aeromonas is right.  Notice how discussion threads that would typically build to 30+ comments and develop into an interesting and informative discussion are gone.  I literally lose track of the original post in what has become a massive disorganized heap of small fonts.  Too bad.  I doubt anyone will see this post, so I'm just venting.

- shewchuk

November 1, 2007 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

TNR to Old School Talkbackers: DROP DEAD.

- Wandreycer1

November 1, 2007 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't understand the lag in putting up these posts -- why not let them go up and then purge them if there is a problem?  Are there that many offensive posts?  How much harm is there if one is up for 20 minutes before Marty notices?

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Old School

I like the sound of it.

- purcellneil

November 1, 2007 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Of course this is all in the way of things.  TNR has decided to serve the larger proportion of its paying

customers  rather than continue to waste resources catering to a tiny cadre of Talkback obsessives."

How will that "larger proportion" be better served with this mess? Not to call it cold-blooded murder?

I don't see anyone being served really, except perhaps those that really didn't like to follow conversations on interesting topics by people that happen to like to talk...and prefer to read "approved" and isolated comments in small fonts.

Or those that, instead of having their attentions brought to feature articles written by persons such as Sunstein, Walzer, Wood, etc., begin to think that this site is the land of "The Plank" and "The Stump"...and begin to think that it doesn't really worth it, since there are million other mediocre political blogs on the internet.

At least The Spine raises passions and Open University brings up interesting subjects (although they are placed in a small corner of the main page).

How is this in the "way of things"? This "way of things" only belongs to a mediocre "design" culture that seems to be endorsed by whoever now runs TNR.

- luispc

November 1, 2007 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best TNR content sets off not just one but multiple discussions. A Pinker or Sunstein or Walzer et al piece achieves its highest value when it is debated, and re-read, and discussed and chewed over and chattered about again and again by the widest possible audience of people. These discussions are one-to-many, many-to-many, one-to-one, and should transcend the political spectrum. The Spinian Isr-Pal pissfests notwithstanding, the old TalkBack achieved that depth and quality of robust debate with a frequency that was rare for any online political site.

What the designers of the new TalkBack, I mean, blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs, don't seem to get is that it's the _combination_ of dazzling TNR content-- Gerecht and Johnson debating Iraq, for ex-- and TalkBack that made TNR.com so special. There are sites with great content, like James Woods' and Ryan Lizza's new home, and there are sites with great discussion, like a variety of obscure niche specialist sites, but none that offer both.

- teplukhin2you

November 1, 2007 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen to all who posted above, including the (probably) five posts that were written during the posting lag but did not appear in time for me to see them.  The site has been slow as well.

Need more discretion in Plank and Stump postings.  Sorry to be harsh, but I'd be happy to see it restricted to Scheiber, Chait, Cottle, and maybe Fairbanks.  Need a quota for Crowley, Orr, and Zengerle so they put up just their best stuff.  Kirchick to the Spine.  Interns could do more interning and less posting.

- stgla

November 2, 2007 at 11:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close