Exactly. Now he doesn't have either of the "Carolina's". Edwards biggest argument for being placed on the Front Runners list has been state polls. That's the only reason why it's a big deal. All the state polls he was touting when he demanded the Media place him as a Top Tier candidate, he has dropped dramatically. I wonder if he would have been better off if he just kept his mouth shut and gained silently in the background. Oh well.

But you didn't say that in the comments, you frame it as Edwards trailing in NC, which is not statistically accurate.  They are all tied, there is nobody in first.

I agree with this...Edwards is up by more then 1% in IOwa because ARG had been staking the numbers for Hillary...I've seen ARG polls stating that Hillary is up by 15% in Iowa.

If ou take out all those ridiculous polls which shows Hillary with double digits leads in Iowa, you will get a different story...

I don't believe his candidacy is dead.

I agree.

$9 million ain't chicken feed.

And, there's no way he's going to throw in the towel before the first primaries....just no way.

Don't worry.

The Clinton supporters don't want anything to happen to John Edwards because they know full well that if/when it is made clear that he will not win the Primary, Clinton is GONE! So they will assist in any way possible to keep Edwards going.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/06/the_edwards_implosion_is_bad_n .html

I'm not an Edwards supporter, but I totally agree with you. His campaign is not dead. Polls 6 months out mean nothing. plus anything could happen between now and January that might affect the polls. we just have to wait and see....

Of course they are. I know their weakness and their biggest fear.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/06/the_edwards_implosion_is_bad_n .html

I disagree.

I think Gephardt would have helped a lot in Missouri and some other states. He could have done a lot to get the union turnout up more. Edwards was not a bad choice he just could not bring in any votes.

Yeah, I don't know.

He's not going to carry the South in the general anyway, so maybe it's a good thing if he abandons his regional base.

I'm just not sure whether he's going to improve on Dean's attempt at a nationwide progressive base, or he's going to wind up with the same result.

This is why Edwards faces such a tough challenge inside the democratic primary in the south..There is nothing that Edwards could tell black voters which will permits him to gain supports among black voters.

Edwards thought that by just talking about poverty, he would pick up support among blacks, but the problem with this is when you're facing powerhouses like Obama and Hillary, this poverty such doesnt mean a thing.

I dont even think Edwards is campaigning inside black communites and it seems like he has given up on this front.

You will not win the democratic nomination if you cant get enought support from black voters in the south...Even black voters in South Carolina are leaving Edwards for Obama, so what does that tell you?

Edwards support is not broad enough to beat Hillary..Only Obama has the kind of broad support to beat her.

I would just note that the start of his slide started with "the haircut". I'm sure it's a combination of factors though. Here is PPP's take on it

....John Edwards' support has continued to slide in North Carolina since a strong showing in April following the announcement of the recurrence of his wife's cancer. The Edwards' campaign has had a few media missteps in the last three months (his home, haircuts and hedge fund). Those problems coupled with Clinton and Obama winning the fundraising battle, could explain his drift and their growth in the poll.

You know, I don't think the haircut thing is to be overlooked. The fact that he tries to charge personal expenses to his campaign says something about what kind of a person he is.

That's very telling.

Clinton has 19 percent of the Black Vote

Edwards has 7 percent of the Black Vote

Obama has 59 percent of the Black Vote

Now, watch all the Clinton supporters who have been touting Hillary's dominance of the Black vote say.

"But But But .....will the Blacks vote?"

LOL

"Becos" so far it's been

"Will the Youth Vote ?"

"Will the 350,00 Donors Vote?"

Watch.

I want everyone to watch carefully to the black votes movement.

The black votes have been moving toward Obama ever since he announced his candidacy...You will start seeing them votes in droves toward Obama in a few months and the only reason why the movement to him has been a bit slow is because :

a)Obama is not well known yet and still hasnt reached 100% name I.D inside the black electorate

b)The Clintons are well known among black voters and they want to give Bill's wife a strong look.

c)Black voters wants to know whether Obama is their savior and whther he's in fact electable.

Remember guys,the black votes knew very well that jesse jackson had no chance in winning the nomination in 1988, and dispite the fact that black lawmakers lobbied black voters against voting for Jesse, they voted for him anyway...Jesse won the black votes by a 90% clip eventhough they knew he had no chance.

I see something similar with Obama..Bill Clinton is not running and even if he was, i still dont think Bill would have gotten the majority of the black votes while going against Obama.

A lot of white folks just do not understand what it would mean for the black votes to see Obama win this nomination...I strongly believe that this would be a huge albatross around the neck of the clinton.

Obama has the chance to make history and prove to the black votes that the sky is the limit if you work hard at it and the color of your skin should not stop you from aiming high.

This would re-energize young african americans that feels that white america been shitting on them for decades.

Black voters will support Obama by a large majority.

i am going to collect them as a reference to hubris

Thank you for your explanation.  To your first item, it could have been explained like this: Edwards no longer holds lead in North Carolina.  End of statement, thanks for linking to it in this open thread.

I disagree also that this diary helps me to better understand points 2 and 3.  I read national polls and see fundraising totals when they're actually written about objectively and critically and in fact do not need anyone to explain to me how 30+ million is more than 9 million.  I graduated first grade with flying colors.

Further, the only analysis put forth is to declare a particular candidate to not be credible.  It does not discuss leadership capacity, issues or perspectives, it does not critically analyze trends among voters, and ultimately offers no commentary as to whether John Edwards would or would not be a good President.  It boils down to "don't vote for this guy because other people probably aren't going to vote for him."  This is dumb.  I don't particularly care who anyone supports in the presidential primary (I don't support anybody in particular right now), but I do care about people being dumb.  George Bush has been making this country dumber for the better part of a decade and it's lamentable that this passes for reasonable political discussion anywhere.

Rob your'e right and another problem for his is that Iowa is kind of expected to go for him so he probabaly won't bet the huge "surge" from a win there he would have to blow everyone out in the Hawkeye state to probably get any meaningfull momentum,the lack of money and volunteers that Obama has or the institutional advantages of Hillary seem to be too much to overcome unless some major unions really go all out for him. Obama I think is going all out to try to win Iowa becuase the momentum of him winning there would be so huge it would be unstoppable, Hillary would be seen as "enelectable" in the minds of future state voters by virtue of losing to such an upstart in the first state, plus don't discount the "winning in an overwhelmingly white state" thing, proves Obama's point about overcoming the natural resistance to him.

it's not shocking and todays little tit for tat on the pardons does Hillary no good on that front, many voters who think Bill did a good job are going to start to wonder if maybe 16 years of these two families running things might be enough.

Wasn't there a series of polls recently that showed Edwards the only Dem candidate to lead in all 3 of the most likely general matchups?  So what I want to know is how if you use the logic that polling means inevitability at this point, you rectify that Hillary is inevitably the best candidate for the general.  Or maybe you don't, maybe you just don't like those polls.  After all, cognitive dissonance is bliss.

Careful what you wish for with inevitability folks.  Polls might show that it's inevitable that Hillary loses in the general.

Or maybe after the polls (predicted) on the same day as the election in 2004 not matching the results (observed), we should be careful how much stock we put in polls 6 months away from the primary.  That goes for Edwards in Iowa, Hillary in the nationals, Edwards in the matchups, Guiliani in the nationals, and the Nielsen families for keeping "According to Jim" on the air for so long.

By the way, I always got a kick out of the idea that one interpretation of the polls could be that 100% of Hillary supporters like spending time on the phone answering polls.