MyDD :: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa

Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa

by MollieBradford, Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:29:47 PM EST

Sorry Edwards fans, but Edwards came in third in IA. Obama says so. He got one less delegate than Clinton which makes him the third place guy in IA and in every single primary so far.

Of course beating Clinton by half a point and claiming "strong second" has always been spin on steroids. Never the less now we know that Edwards placed third in IA, Obama says so and that is good enough for me since it seems to be good enough for the national media.

Tags: campaign 2008, John Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

sucks I know but that is the new way of counting in the new democratic/MSM primaries.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Too bad its absolutely correct. Chris Bowers has a great take on it.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:48:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

actually so many people called out Chris Bowers on his "Obama won Nevada" entry that Bowers admitted that he's just fed up with the momentum-centric/media driven criteria we use to determine winners and losers.

by world dictator on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Without Iowa's stupid caucus system, Clinton would have beaten Edwards in the first round based on entrance poll.

She pulled even with Edwards among men, and was 7 points ahead of him among women.

Edwards' weakness in Iowa actually surprised me...
He's been there forever...

by prisonbreak on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:36:36 PM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (2.00 / 1)

Why don't we just abandon the popular vote altogether and just have Axelrod and McCauliffe box each other to determine the nominee? I mean really, what is the point of getting the most supporters to show for you if the system is rigged against you in the first place? Second choices, proportional weightng, all that amounts to is a second chance for the establishment to steal democracy from those whose vote is increasingly becoming meaningless. ABO is right. Say no to Obama, tell him we nominate Democrats for the Democratic nomination. And Hillary may be a lot of things, but a Republicrat is not one of them.

by Todd Bennett on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (2.00 / 1)

If you Nominate Democrats, then you would be supporting Obama, who has more Democratic values in his little toe than you or Hillary have in your whole bodies.. But you go back to supporting a woman who helped get us into this war and who insisted it was the right thing to do until the public turned on the war and she then waffled. The Great Waffler returns and her name is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is the very definition of a Republicrat. She's a DLC, establishment politician who only gives a DAMN about one thing... Herself.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:51:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree Todd (none / 0)

I have been disgusted by the media. First they are all about momentum and popular vote. Then we Clinton is killing in those areas they are all about delegates and momentum doesn't count, so much so that they will not tell the story about how Clinton keeps coming from behind in the last few days and winning where she had been behind in the polls for several weeks. I want to read someone address her campaign's amazing ability to close the deal.

Either way they want to play it I just want fair treatment for all the candidates. MSNBC specifically is campaigning for Obama.

ps...watching McCauliffe and Axelrod box would be great. There are few other democrats I would rather see get punched in the face. Myabe a tag team match with Trippi and Gibbs?

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

yes I thought he was going to win IA and so did my siblings and dear friend who all support Edwards. I felt bad for them as they were really counting on that win.
If we did like the republicans do she would have gotten more delegates and 2nd in the popular vote in IA. These caucuses really are not very democratic.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:05:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

We need to go back to 2004 and figure out if Joe Lieberman really did finish in a three-way tie for third place.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:46:24 PM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Really?

You're putting all that reliance on the POLLS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

give me a wall! check out one of the best indie bands out of england in a while, ¡Forward, Russia!

by Sean Fitzpatrick on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:50:59 PM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (2.00 / 1)

No -- she is talking about Obama's whining and ungracious attitude on how he "won" Nevada even though he lost the popular vote by 6%

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 11:58:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Including SDs, Nevada was a tie. While she got more precinct votes, the ultimate outcome is to get Delegates and by that rationale it was a clear tie.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 12:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (2.00 / 1)

The Nevada newspapers and the Nevada State Democratic Party seem to disagree with you. But I'm sure they're all in Clinton's pocket anyway, so why listen to them?

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 01:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not polls.... delegate count (none / 0)

Hillary got more delegates in IA which means she came in secound place according to the new reality. If Obama can claim he won in NV and the Media backs him up then Clinton came in secound in IA and Edwards placed third. If you have a problem with that then see Obama and the media who are sucking up to him.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Which is why I think Obama's claim of victory is completely ridiculous. You did not see Clinton say she got more delegates than Edwards so she is number two. No. She accepted defeat, congratulated the winners, changed message and moved on to the next state. Obama on the other hand has complained about both his losses in NH and NV. Did he finally congratulate Clinton?

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:31:08 AM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

He didn't even stick around to thank his supporters or the state of NV volunteers.

I said weeks ago that I did not think he had the temperament to deal with the media and the republicans during the GE and I am sure I am right. He has shown what a petulant ungracious man he really is.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

I wonder if John will be packing it in after South Carolina. There's an article in Monday's NYT about Edwards which claims his moneybomb on Friday only netted him $300,000. That's a huge blow to what they set out to achieve. And with his 12% showing in Nevada being advertised as 4% I can't see how he can get the promotional foothold he needs.

by Piuma on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:38:47 AM EST

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

The campaign didn't do the moneybomb and they were quite surprised by it, so it's only a good thing.

by Progressive America on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Oh really? I thought the campaign was doing it but I never read things carefully. Who was behind that?

by Piuma on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 02:56:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

It was started by a poster at dailykos and all the Edwards supporters pushed it for five days, not a whole lot of time. The $7 million goal was just an ambitious target set and should probably have been set at $500,000 and given more time, but I think the high goal got people really excited. I would have to guess at $300,000 contributed, several thousand people must have donated and that total will also be matched for the most part.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 /13/171722/549/52/436243

by Progressive America on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 03:07:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in SECOND in Iowa (none / 0)

I pitched in what I could for the moneybomb, and can varify that it was grassroots driven, not campaign driven. Even the goal was set by the grassroots; their mistake putting out too high a figure.

With regards to the original post, I really don't care how Obama defines victory in Nevada or anywhere else. The junior Senator from Illinois does not define my political worldview. As votes are measured in both the Iowa and Nevada caucuses, it was Obama, Edwards, Clinton in the former and Clinton, Obama, Edwards in the latter. The unusual nature of caucuses, and how national delegates to not always crrespond to local results, has been thoroughly discussed here. That our nominating system could use some serious changes could use more discussion.

Needing still more discussion is how petty the Clinton supporters here are. Even now, their lives are incomplete and wanting if they don't belittle John Edwards and his contributions to the primary process. I would think you have bigger fish to fry, but hey, what do I know?

Take out the trash. Down with Saxby Chambliss!

by CLLGADEM on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:04:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in SECOND in Iowa (none / 0)

I find both the Clinton and Obama supporters get a little hyped up with their insistence that Edwards drop out. It's all very schoolyard.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 08:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

There were no less than 2200 contributors who responded to the 2 polls I set up on DailyKos. These polls allowed us to have some sense during the day Friday of the amount of donations (since there was no "thermometer"/"bat" available at the Edwards campaign site, since it wasn't an official fund-drive. Last time I counted, Kossacks who responded to my polls had donated about $140,000 (apparently roughly half of the total draw that day, if the NYT information is accurate), and most of those donations would be doubled by matching-funds, meaning a one-day draw from these Kossacks of around 1/4 million (and somewhat more than twice that much from everyone else that day.) Very nice effort, and totally grassroots from start to finish.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

I think he should stop after super tuesday. I can see him hanging in until then. But longer than that and he is nothing more than another vanity candidate. There will be no king-making in CO. If he and Obama put their votes together to defeat Clinton should she had the plurality of delegates, that would be very bad for the democratic party. It is not a good idea to piss people off that way.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards came in THIRD in Iowa (none / 0)

Whole we continue this petty stuff

Both Clinton and Obama voted to fund Iraq 2007

Neither went to the Senate floor DEMANDING that Gitmo be closed..

The ONLY way to support the Troops is to bring'em Home...This year..
I want either of them to speak out on this like Dodd spoke out on FISA..
but they won't..they had their chance in 2007 and certainly won't jeopardize their Candidacy this year..
Those who support either Clinton or Obama?
If Iraq and Gitmo have faded to the back of your outrage of Cheney/Bush inc...then you enable them..but hey we can wait until 2009 right.?

Listen to a real voice..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG -U

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 06:49:26 AM EST

no diary comment section (none / 0)

would be complete without illogical Nadernonsense rhetoric.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.