AHC: Nominate John Edwards for President in 2008
- Thread starter Statesman
- Start date
I meant with the affair still in place, but beyond that I do imagine Obama not running would help him a lot.
Almost impossible without a very different Democratic race.
Edwards had almost no appeal among minority voters. It's part of why he did so badly in both Nevada and South Carolina despite initially being expected to perform very well in both states. You can't win a Democratic primary with only white rural voters, and that's the only real base that Edwards had.
Edwards had almost no appeal among minority voters. It's part of why he did so badly in both Nevada and South Carolina despite initially being expected to perform very well in both states. You can't win a Democratic primary with only white rural voters, and that's the only real base that Edwards had.
Aside from no Obama running, how do you think the Democratic race would need to be different? If no Obama, doesn't that make him and Hillary the two front runners?
Well, even without the affair and with Obama not running, he would still be the underdog against Clinton. He would pick up much, though by no means all, of Obama's OTL white support, but very little of his African American support (the latter was overwhelmingly a pro-Obama, not anti-Clinton, vote).
But *with* the affair still in place, he has no chance--whether he gets 40, 50 or 60 percent of the primary vote doesn't matter because the affair will definitely be out by the time of the convention. It was out by then in OTL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and the mainstream media will probably pursue it much earlier than they did in OTL if it appears Edwards has a good chance of getting the presidential nomination.
Could another female possibly split Hillary's support or was she too much of a front-runner all around?
IIRC he used campaign funds to keep the whole thing quiet, what if he used even more to keep it quiet longer, could that delay the story from coming up until after his nomination?
In the event that Obama does not run, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, and she may or may not win the election. Part of the reason Obama had such support within the party was the drive to keep the Clinton line blocked from eight more years in the Oval Office, an act of desperation for which Democratic leaders are now paying the price.
Clinton/Edwards vs. McCain/Palin?
Clinton/Edwards vs. McCain/Palin?
Delaying publicity about the affair until after the Democratic Convention only delays Edwards' downfall. For him to become POTUS the affair needs never to happen. Even w/o an affair, these are the obstacles in the way of his reaching the presidency:
~ He still has a "do as I say not as I do" problem to overcome
~ He will still be viewed by many as an empty suit and faux man-of-the-people.
~ He still is head & shoulders below Clinton, Obama, Biden in terms of "presidential stature" (Kerry, Dean & Gore as well).
~ He still has a wife battling cancer who he's placing second behind his political ambitions.
Overcome these 4 obstacles and he wins ... but then again, he'd have to be a different "John Edwards".
~ He still has a "do as I say not as I do" problem to overcome
~ He will still be viewed by many as an empty suit and faux man-of-the-people.
~ He still is head & shoulders below Clinton, Obama, Biden in terms of "presidential stature" (Kerry, Dean & Gore as well).
~ He still has a wife battling cancer who he's placing second behind his political ambitions.
Overcome these 4 obstacles and he wins ... but then again, he'd have to be a different "John Edwards".
Last edited:
It would be a whole different person, to be honest. Frankly, to me there's no way he wins. Even if nominated, he loses to the Republican.
If nominated, Hillary Clinton will win (and no, she will not choose Edwards as running mate, certainly not with his OTL affair). After the fall of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing financial crisis, there is no way the Republicans can retain the White House.
She will get a slightly less heavy turnout from African American voters than Obama (though almost an equal percentage of the votes of those African Americans who do turn out) but will do better with white voters, especially in Appalachia. She might even carry Arkansas: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ar/arkansas_mccain_vs_clinton-591.html
Well that's actually what I had in mind. Hence the title "Nominate" not "Elect". I was thinking it as a possible way to elect a Republican getting elected, with his affair coming out after his nomination.
How likely would it be for him to win Iowa over Hillary if Obama isn't in the race?
Realpolitik
Banned
Pretty hard. I don't know much about the man, but what I do know does not point to a candidate who can get enough support. As others have mentioned, he just doesn't appeal outside of a section of the upper-middle, largely white, class.
If the affair gets covered up long enough for him to secure the VP nomination and the news breaks afterwards, do you guys think that could be enough to throw the election to the GOP?
He edged Clinton out for second place in the Iowa Caucus, but only just barely, by about 0.3% or something like that. If he does beat her, it'll be by a small margin.
As a candidate, Edwards' strength in Iowa IOTL was probably around the maximum, given how he'd been campaigning there nonstop for years by the time of the caucus. If anything, Edwards will do better in Iowa when *more* candidates are in the race, seeing how one of his greatest strengths was as a second choice.
Ultimate Paragon
Banned
I find it virtually impossible Edwards would win. He never had that much support to begin with, and the affair would only make things even worse.
No, she would not win because McCain was a "milquetoast." She would win against McCain or any other GOP candidate simply because the economy was melting down at a time the GOP controlled the White House. (If the Democrats had controlled the White House in 2008 and the same meltdown occurred, the race would be equally hopeless for whoever the Democratic candidate would be.)
True, unemployment was not yet as high as it would be in 2009. But politically, it is not the actual unemployment rate that counts. Unemployment was high in both 1936 and 2012 yet the incumbent president was re-elected, because though unemployment was high, it was going down, and in both 1936 and 2012 the economy was growing (though certainly not very fast in 2012). In short, it is the perceived *direction* of the economy that matters politically, and hardly anyone doubted that in late 2008 the economy was tanking.