Edwards to Endorse Obama

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

He was offered a VP - if he thought they had a chance of winning, of course he'd quit on the Senate. You have to wonder, though, what Kerry was thinking when he picked Edwards.

And I'm laughing at Andy's naiveté.

...Liebermann didn't quit. Kerry didn't quit. Hillary hasn't quit. Nor McCain. Nor Dole. Even St. Gore waited until the next job before he quit his last one.

Only Edwards, that I can come up with, actually left the Senate, or, in this case, chose to not run for re-election.

A man of principle.

As far as wondering what Kerry was thinking, isn't that a bit presumptuous on your part?

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...that's what most people do, quit on a second Senate term when they're a good bet for re-election.

You obviously didn't click on the link I provided you.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...Liebermann didn't quit. Kerry didn't quit. Hillary hasn't quit. Nor McCain. Nor Dole. Even St. Gore waited until the next job before he quit his last one.

That's a good point - I didn't think about that.

Anyway, the fact that Edwards didn't even carry his own state in the general election should tell you something.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Kerad

You obviously didn't click on the link I provided you.

...I did and yeah, I already said you were right; he didn't lose re-election.

Liebermann did both in 2000. I'm not going to bother with any more because you're the one that's not reading anything; people don't just 'throw' away Senate seats. Edwards was no shoo in to win re-election, but I can no more prove than than you can prove he would have won. Fact is, a GOP'er won his seat any way you look at it. I think Edwards would have lost had he run for re-election.

Fact is, Edwards didn't come close to the nomination, his stated goal for not running for re-election, in 2004. Fact is, he did Kerry no good in NC or SC.

You don't have to like it, but it would be nice if you could actually accept that I did concede I was wrong about the circumstances of his senate seat in 2004 and it would be nice if you would be so kind as to notice that I am right about the results.

[awpitt (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...Liebermann didn't quit. Kerry didn't quit. Hillary hasn't quit. Nor McCain. Nor Dole. Even St. Gore waited until the next job before he quit his last one.

Only Edwards, that I can come up with, actually left the Senate, or, in this case, chose to not run for re-election.

A man of principle.

As far as wondering what Kerry was thinking, isn't that a bit presumptuous on your part?

Actaully, Dole resigned from the Senate in June of 96 to focus on his bid for the White House.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

That's a good point - I didn't think about that.

Anyway, the fact that Edwards didn't even carry his own state in the general election should tell you something.

...point. I got my facts wrong; he didn't LOSE re-election, he didn't even try and that is not the norm. People don't just throw away Senate seats. Kerad has shown were some poll showed Edwards leading when he decided to not run for re-election. That is not the norm, giving it up. I think there was plenty of anecdotal evidence and probably some polls as well showing it would have been a tough campaign. It's not worth spending any more energy on.

He didn't run again. I was wrong about that.
His seat went GOP. That's a fact.
He did not deliver either Carolina to Kerry. That's a fact.

I think Kerad is proving a theory I have about Democrats; Your overall point, your idea, can NOT be correct if a fact or two is off. I think a lawyer like Edwards would appreciate that argument. Other people, including Carolinians, may be more of the 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' school of thought.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

Actaully, Dole resigned from the Senate in June of 96 to focus on his bid for the White House.

...another fact I am wrong about, but does that change the point?

Dole was not only an U.S. Senator, but also the Senate Majority Leader. But on June 11, 1996, he resigned his Senate seat to focus on the campaign, saying he had "nowhere to go but the White House or home."

John Edwards was a single term, young guy. Bob Dole had done it all in a long, distinguished career and had one possible advancement left.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...I did and yeah, I already said you were right; he didn't lose re-election.

Liebermann did both in 2000. I'm not going to bother with any more because you're the one that's not reading anything; people don't just 'throw' away Senate seats. Edwards was no shoo in to win re-election, but I can no more prove than than you can prove he would have won. Fact is, a GOP'er won his seat any way you look at it. I think Edwards would have lost had he run for re-election.

Fact is, Edwards didn't come close to the nomination, his stated goal for not running for re-election, in 2004. Fact is, he did Kerry no good in NC or SC.

You don't have to like it, but it would be nice if you could actually accept that I did concede I was wrong about the circumstances of his senate seat in 2004 and it would be nice if you would be so kind as to notice that I am right about the results.

My point wasn't about you conceding the point about him losing a Senate reelection...I certainly acknowledge that and give you full credit for it.

My intention was to point out the reasons why he chose not to run for reelection. The article clearly explains the reasons...none of which were that he was concerned that he would have lost. In fact, the poll that is cited shows he was polling well.

As for the results of Edwards' presidential and VP campaigns, there is no denying how things ended up. But hindsight doesn't alter the reasons Edwards made the choices he made, when he made them.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...
I think Kerad is proving a theory I have about Democrats; Your overall point, your idea, can NOT be correct if a fact or two is off. I think a lawyer like Edwards would appreciate that argument. Other people, including Carolinians, may be more of the 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' school of thought.

My point was limited to exactly what I commented about. I saw yet another untrue claim (you certainly have not been the only rightie to claim Edwards lost his seat due to an election defeat) and corrected it.

I then countered the familiar "Well, he didn't run again because he knew he wasn't going to win." response with a link proving that allegation to be false, as well.

You certainly make valid points about Edwards' influence...but for reasons other than the end of his Senate career.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Kerad

My point wasn't about you conceding the point about him losing a Senate reelection...I certainly acknowledge that and give you full credit for it.

My was to point out the reasons why he chose not to run for reelection. The article clearly explains the reasons...none of which were that he was concerned that he would have lost. In fact, the poll that is cited shows he was polling well.

As for the results of Edwards' presidential and VP campaigns, there is no denying how things ended up. But hindsight doesn't alter the reasons Edwards made the choices he made, when he made them.

...with you that, polls aside, I remember there was plenty of public doubt about Edwards as winning re-election in addition to no particular distinction as a Senator and we're certainly not going to get into the validity of polls, are we?

As circumstantial evidence, Edwards seat was won by a GOP'er and he showed no special affections on the part of Carolinians in the ensuing race. Also, he only got 52% of the primary vote against Kerry. The race was over, yes, but it may have been expected for the state to show their affections for him and approval of him. Further, people, aside from Dole, don't usually let go of their senate seats very easily.