for the New Hampshire primary?  It had Obama up by double digits to Clinton yet she won.

I still say it is about ground game more than anything else.  Whom ever has the better ground game will win.

I hope Edwards is getting ready to run commericials with that clip in SC ASAP. If he can afford to spend the ad money reminding SC voters why he did so well in the debate, he might squeeze in a 2nd place.

If Democrats are picking candidates based on debates, then God help us all.

I mean... good lord... Reagan got absolutely mopped by Mondale - the first '84 debate has to rank as one of the biggest Presidential debate blowouts in history - yet Reagan won 49 states.

...and do we even need to recall the Boy King's performances in 2000 and 2004 especially?  Got wood?

Just wow... It's absolutely puzzling to me - with all the "Obama is nothing but an empty suit, pretty face, good speechifying...yada yada" -- people are going let 90 minute sound bite contests decide their votes.

beats Obama's ground game.

Even in NV -- Obama basically lost the raw vote (but won the delegate count) -- because the Reid machine saved Clinton's ass in the Vegas area.

If SC comes down to ground game, I'm quite fine with that.

confirm Zogby's findings before getting too optimistic. The margin of error for subgroups is too large for me to believe based on one poll that Edwards has gained significantly among black voters in SC.

But of course it would be fantastic for Edwards to make up a lot of ground this week in SC.

Yeah, Reagan did get blown out of the water in the first 84 debate-but he came back in the 2nd one with that famous "I won't hold my opponent's age against him" line, which went a long way to defusing the question of his age.

Bush did suck in the 2000 debates, but Gore did worse and in the low-expectation game it made Bush look like a winner.

Kerry beat Bush pretty decisivly in all thre debates, and yes he didn't win, but it did go a long way to making him more competitive than he probably would have.

Soundbites matter. Do you think most Americans actually spend two hours watching debates? What they hear are the zingers and one liners -- and the fuck ups -- on TV and radio the next day and Edwards got off his best of the campaign.

I woke up Tuesday morning hearing a loop of Obama and Clinton insulting each other and Edwards acting like the voice of reason. It does go a long way.  

finally is distinguish himself from O and C at the same time. Previously it seems as if he's felt he's had to make a choice between going after O or C when in fact he need not make a choice at all.

But I'm not getting excited yet. We'll see.

ARG this morning for South Carolina:

Obama 45
Clinton 36
Edwards 12

Somebody is way off.

Good post, Todd.

I am hopeful that Edwards does well.  Even a close finish to Clinton would be good.  Beating her for second would be fantastic.

Poll based upon voters Jan 22-23

Obama 45%

Clinton 36%

Edwards 12%

Undecided 6%

http://americanresearchgroup.com

There was a surge in nevada that was either a bad poll or a head fake. He totally collapsed.

Come on all you Edwards supporters! We have work to do! Phone calls to make and media to contact!

Take a look here for information on how you can do this.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1 /23/0443/14588

Also, this video helps a lot of people to decide.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1 /21/234431/309

JedReport has another version where things are sped up in the first min. Check his YouTube site for more.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jedreport

I assume all of the South Carolina poll respondents are democrats only. Edwards won South Carolina last time but alot of his voters were republicans crossing over. I believe alot of republicans will cross over to vote for him again. I know Edwards has been doing alot of campaigning in the rural areas. Obama and Clinton have been ignoring the rural areas. This might be to Edwards advantage on Saturday especially among delegates. If he can get more delegates in the rural areas then Obama and Clinton and have the 15% in the urban areas then he will do well. Also, I think the childish bickering between Obama and Clinton at the debate turned alot of people off. This will also benefit Edwards.

Sounds like that interview went very well for Edwards.

I am a believer.  I just gave him some more money.

I think Obama will be in 1st.

My prediction

Obama 45% Clinton 33% Edwards 21% Kucinich cuz of a late Edwards surge of the undecideds towards him.

Obama's numbers have been solid at 45%.  I expect a LARGE African-American turn out perhaps larger than the 45% used in the ARG poll.

I like to follow polls as much as the next guy (depending on who the next guy is). but paying attention to shifts of 3 or 4 points in the difference between two candidates is inane. Even a perfectly conducted poll of a perfectly static population will vary that much just randomly, at the sample sizes we're talking about. That's what margin of error means.

If Obama wins by single digits, I think it will be in part due to his remarks about Reagan. Democrats do not like Reagan, but Reagan is radioactive with black voters. They just plain do not like Reagan.

As long as we are just playing with numbers:
If Edwards has 27%

then someone else lost 12%

If Clinton is e one losing that 12 % that gives her 13%,  Obama losing all of the 12% shift to Edwards would give him 31%.

Equal loses of 6 % for both would give us 39% for Obama, and 19% for Clinton.

Not that we know anything yet, bad polls, sudden surges, out side the mean polling numbers, but still fun to imagine. Go South Corlina. That was some debate

Whenever people hear Edwards message, his numbers improve. He faces a big problem in that the media black out of his message will continue regardless of how he does. This is about narrative over fact. As I have said, I believe the post mortem from this Democratic primary season will be three things-- the triumph of triangulation, the failure of identity politics to protect us again the establishment and the triumph of narrative over facts.

Indeed, identity politics actually plays into the hands of The Establishment, mainly because it is so narrow.  You can be a strong supporter of civil rights-and of feminism, gay liberation, zionism, etc.-and still back unrestrained free-enterprise capitalism.

One of these days hopefully we shall get beyond these constantly repeated themes.

To all of my fellow Democrats who still believe numbers from the polls or words from the idiot media about this election, I would suggest that you go back to your DVRs and watch the news coverage just before the polls closed in New Hampshire as they giddilly danced on the grave of Hillary Clinton.

And to all of those who still believe in the polls or the idiot media, I've got a really sweet deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn.

Edwards numbers increased in the latest Mason Dixon FL poll, too (which should reflect more of a national sentiment since no one is on the ground there).  I think he did come across in the debate as the one that was above the childish bickering that the Clintons have dragged Obama into and it's making a difference.  I still doubt that he would be able to actually get back in the picture for the final nomoination, but who knows this year.

basically endorsing Edwards over the first black President wife and the first black presidential candidate, it says a mouthful to black voters.  

Conventional Wisdom was that Edwards hurt Obama for the anti-Hillary Vote, but that seems to have been turned on its head.

Where Edwards does well, he seems to compete for much of the working class vote that Clinton does so well with (high school degree, some college, etc.) - see Iowa.   Whereas, where he is a nonfactor, Clinton captures the lion's share of that vote and wins - see Nevada and New Hampshire.

Further evidence is this Thursday's Times/Bloomberg National Poll stating:  "Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina drew the support of 11% of Democratic respondents. When asked for whom they would vote if their first choice dropped out, slightly more Edwards voters leaned toward Clinton than toward Obama, the poll found."  

While this does not definitively show that Edwards is sapping Clinton with his support, it at least debunks the conventional wisdom on the "Anti-Hillary" vote.

In other words, what we may be dealing with is an Anti-Obama vote and us Obamaniacs should hope for a strong second place finish by Edwards to jump start his candidacy going into Super Tuesday.

I don't know- Edwards supporters thought Nevada was a three-way race going into it- it wasn't.

These numbers of his may hold, but I don't think they will.  I think people will realize it's a throw-away vote and go for Clinton or Obama when it gets down to it.  His campaign can't be revived at this point, I'm sorry.  If he gets Attorney General, though, I won't be as unhappy about it as I would have before.