Totally weird. 23% reporting with Kerry ahead 26 votes. I have no idea how they're projecting a winner. They must be comparing the locations the votes are coming from with the exit poll results and seeing that it's only going to get better for Kerry. That's the only thing I can think of, at least. I'm a bit surprised that they would get that advanced, though.
I agree that a close second is a win of sorts for Edwards - I also think that this is good for the Dems to have a little excitement (press coverage) for the next month or so with a tight race. Hopefully there won't be any more major NASCAR events for Bush to parade around in for the next few weeks … Oh yeah - Dean it's over THROW IN THE TOWL
They must be talking about the primaries. Bush and Edwards (like Bush and Kerry) are diametrically opposed on every single major issue. It makes no sense that anyone who cares about the issues and knows the candidates' platforms could be happy with either one.
It has been alleged by a "reporter" with a proven track record of making things up that he cheated on his wife. Please take those GOP slogans with a grain of salt the size of a deer lick.
If that was the GOP, they would drop that stinkbomb in November, not now. I'm telling you, this has the disgusting fingerprints of an inside job. Why waste a good wad early? Or maybe that was what Bill Clinton said to himself in the Oval Orifice?
Here's an interesting read from William Safire on the Wisconsin results. I'm not Safire's biggest fan by a long shot, but some of this I agree with. I'm also ticked off at Kerry for doing something again tonight to Edwards that he did after the New Hampshire returns had shown he was going to win. He waited to see when his opponents were going to the podium to make their concession speeches and then ran out to start his own, knowing that the media's cameras would move over to cover the winner. It's gracious to allow the defeated candidates a chance to concede. For someone who is trying to come across as a statesman, I think it's a low tactic and lacking in class.
I caught Chris Matthews gang discussing this. If I recall, Edwards allowed Dean 15-20 minutes to address his crowd (and the TV cameras). Edwards' own crowd started to get restless, so he came to the podium.... BUT as they say Kerry "bigfooted" him.
Yeah, that was kind of strange and I was a little miffed. I wanted to hear what Edwards had to say. If this was done on purpose, it's disheartening!
What is interesting is that Edwards finished well in both Iowa and Wisconsin. In both states, the longer the electorate saw him the more they liked him. Also in both states, Edwards picked up major newspaper endorsements leading into the primary/caucus vote. I think this bodes well for Edwards. From here on, there are only two serious candidates left. The CNN/LA Times debate on Feb 26 may be a two man affair. If this is the case, it will be interesting see how well Edwards does in Cali on the strength on that debate, especially since he will likely be spending much of his time in NY, GA, and OH.
I'm also ticked off at Kerry for doing something again tonight to Edwards that he did after the New Hampshire returns had shown he was going to win. He waited to see when his opponents were going to the podium to make their concession speeches and then ran out to start his own, knowing that the media's cameras would move over to cover the winner. It's gracious to allow the defeated candidates a chance to concede. For someone who is trying to come across as a statesman, I think it's a low tactic and lacking in class. Completely classless. Kerry may be trying to get the Democratic campaign over with, be denying Edwards the spotlight of his concession speech. Given Dean's dislike for Kerry, this might push Dean into endorsing Edwards.
Issues aside and taking the extremely long view, If Kerry wins the nomination and picks Edwards for VP, the Democrats could be setting themselves up for the next 12 years. Kerry wins the next two elections, Edwards gets lots of experience and is still a young and vibrant candidate in 8 years. He's definitely a strong speaker and good campaigner. Alternatively, if Edwards wins the nomination, I'm not sure who would be a good VP pick.
No. Delegates pledge to support the candidates they said they'd support, but the pledge isn't binding even if the candidate's still running. As of now, Dean's delegates are pledged to Dean and would be expected to show up for him in Boston, though there's no real penalty for moving to another candidate (the same is true of Kerry delegates, though they'd face serious stigmatism back home for dropping a viable candidate). If Dean releases his delegates (as I believe Gephardt has), they're completely free to vote as they choose at the convention. Also, most of Dean's delegates are super delegates (not chosen in primaries or caucuses, mostly elected and party officials who are guaranteed a vote at the convention) and they were peeling off even before he dropped out. They're free to go wherever they want and, really, always were. But the short answer to your question is that no candidate can convey delegates to another campaign. In Dean's case though, with the passionate support that his regular (not super) delegates have displayed, an endorsement would mean a lot. In most cases, Dean delegates hate Kerry already (not nearly like they hate Bush, but they hate him) and are likely to stand up for Edwards if he's still viable.
Will interpolates some poll numbers and likes Edwards' chances better than Kerry versus Bush in the electoral college. http://slate.msn.com/id/2095655/ Turning the Tables Can Kerry stop the bleeding from his Wisconsin wound? . . . That's true. But the exit polls show that, by and large, Democrats aren't voting for Kerry because they prefer him on the issues. They're voting for him because they think he's the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. What happens if they find out he isn't? What happens if they realize that Edwards is doing as well as Kerry among independents and is doing better than Kerry among crossover Republicans? . . .
