Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 92

Thread: How Long do the Second Tier Candidates Last, and Who Will They Help?

  1. #1

    How Long do the Second Tier Candidates Last, and Who Will They Help?

    Of course, we'd have to agree which candidates are "second tier" first. And which have a legitimate shot.

    So lets say on the Dem side, Hilary and Obama are the only two legit candidates. Edwards would be the only real second-tier guy, with the others all deeply behind.

    On the Repub side, it's a bit murkier, but for today, we'll say Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Guliani are the legit candidates, and Thompson and Paul the second teir guys.

    --So the question then, is when does Edwards drop out, and who does he throw his support to?

    --And when does Thompson and Paul drop out, and who do they throw their support to?

    If you wish to add Rudy to the second tier list (he sure is as it stand today), feel free. When does he drop, and who does he support?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2308064]
    --So the question then, is when does Edwards drop out, and who does he throw his support to?

    [/QUOTE]

    As soon as the media starts paying attention to him, Edwards will become first tier. :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    I think Guiliani is still first tier because he hasn't yet begun to really fight. Once he does, he becomes legit.

    Edwards , Thompson , Paul campaigns come to an end in South Carolina depending on just how bad they do.

    I think Edwards rides the fence with his support until he figures out who is going to win. As far as Thompson and Paul I don't know where they throw their support.

  4. #4
    Edwards can stay in for some time, at least until either Hillary or Obama lock up the nomination.

    It is entirely possible the Dems will go to the convention without a clear winner, as is also true on the GOP side.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio;2308066]As soon as the media starts paying attention to him, Edwards will become first tier. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    you consider edwards a second tier candidate??? that failed politician is more fourth or fifth tier....

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    On the Dem side, Edwards will drop out after South Carolina or Florida. This is clearly a two-headed race between Clinton and Obama, and his campaign will come to that realization once he places a distant third in these crutial states. Edwards will throw his support behind Obama as they both advocate change and his dislike of Clinton is very apparent.

    On the Republican side, things become much cloudier. The race is truly up for grabs between the first tier candidates. As such, I don't see any of the top 5 or 6 candidates dropping out before Super Tuesday.

    Eventually, Paul will drop out and may not throw his support behind any of the candidates. There have been rumors that Paul will run as an Independent, and if that is the case, he will try to distance himself from the Republicans.

    Thompson will throw his support behind Huckabee when he drops out.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2308064]Of course, we'd have to agree which candidates are "second tier" first. And which have a legitimate shot.

    So lets say on the Dem side, Hilary and Obama are the only two legit candidates. Edwards would be the only real second-tier guy, with the others all deeply behind.

    On the Repub side, it's a bit murkier, but for today, we'll say Romney, McCain, Huckabee and Guliani are the legit candidates, and Thompson and Paul the second teir guys.

    --So the question then, is when does Edwards drop out, and who does he throw his support to?

    --And when does Thompson and Paul drop out, and who do they throw their support to?

    If you wish to add Rudy to the second tier list (he sure is as it stand today), feel free. When does he drop, and who does he support?[/QUOTE]



    The Democratic race after last night is clearly down to two candidates, with Edwards finishing 20 points out of second. If he stays in, the impact is different depending upon which state you look at. In South Carolina, he probably hurrts Clinton more than Obama, who has a huge african-american pool of voters to court. The opposite may be true in Nevada. I have no clue what it means in the really big states like California. Overall, he has aligned himself with Obama --against "status quo" Hillary, as he put it-- as a "change" candidate, so that's probably who he'd endorse. Doesn't mean they'd all follow his endorsement, though.

    Richardson is an interesting guy to watch, too. As the race moves southwest, latinos become an important constituency and an endorsement from him could have a lot of value out there. He reportedly told his supporters in Iowa to back Obama in precincts where he wasn't viable, for whatever that's worth. But he might want to make it up to Hillary if he sees her as the frontrunner again. so who knows?

    On the GOP side, the chaos keeps almost everyone in it for now. I do think Fred Thompson is toast if he doesn't come in at least second place in SC. Same for Romney if he doesn't win Michigan. Rudy got a huge break last night by barely edging out Ron Paul. If he'd lost to him in Iowa and NH, he'd have a weak case for relevance. Now he lives to fight in Florida, but he'll have to win there to stay in the race.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2308130]The Democratic race after last night is clearly down to two candidates, with Edwards finishing 20 points out of second. If he stays in, the impact is different depending upon which state you look at. In South Carolina, he probably hurrts Clinton more than Obama, who has a huge african-american pool of voters to court. The opposite may be true in Nevada. I have no clue what it means in the really big states like California. Overall, he has aligned himself with Obama --against "status quo" Hillary, as he put it-- as a "change" candidate, so that's probably who he'd endorse. Doesn't mean they'd all follow his endorsement, though.

    Richardson is an interesting guy to watch, too. As the race moves southwest, latinos become an important constituency and an endorsement from him could have a lot of value out there. He reportedly told his supporters in Iowa to back Obama in precincts where he wasn't viable, for whatever that's worth. But he might want to make it up to Hillary if he sees her as the frontrunner again. so who knows?

    On the GOP side, the chaos keeps almost everyone in it for now. I do think Fred Thompson is toast if he doesn't come in at least second place in SC. Same for Romney if he doesn't win Michigan. Rudy got a huge break last night by barely edging out Ron Paul. If he'd lost to him in Iowa and NH, he'd have a weak case for relevance. Now he lives to fight in Florida, but he'll have to win there to stay in the race.[/QUOTE]

    Obama is the Faux Change candidate. It would matter little to me personally if your scenario actually came to pass.

    Btw, I consider Richardson to be a complete buffoon.

    Thompson is probably already toast.

    I don't think Rudy got a break from McCain's win. While they have vastly different resumes and positions, they somehow appeal to similar voters. Rudy's strengh in national polls was showing when McCain was down. The situation is now reversed.

    Romney is an interesting candidate, btw. I heard his concession speech last night. It was actually pretty good. He sounded a lot like Edwards.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2308145]

    Romney is an interesting candidate, btw. I heard his concession speech last night. It was actually pretty good. He sounded a lot like Edwards.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, Romney's speech resembled Edwards. Both of them lost huge yet gave speeches as if they won. Voters see that nonsense as reality-defying spin and tune out, as evidenced by the returns of each last night and in Iowa.

    Edwards actually gave the same exact speech he gave in Iowa --when he was also routed, albeit by a lot less. I really do enjoy hearing about poor Natalie Sarkisian over and over again. FWIW, insurance companies screw alot of people; would it be so hard to find more than one example to mix into his speeches.

    Furthermore, am I the only person who finds it hysterical that the guy who spends his entire campaign demonizing corporations has picked a Chevy commercial anthem as his theme song?

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2308162]Furthermore, am I the only person who finds it hysterical that the guy who spends his entire campaign demonizing corporations has picked a Chevy commercial anthem as his theme song?[/QUOTE]

    :D

    I couldn't stop laughing when he entered the stage for his speech last night.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=parafly;2308165]:D

    I couldn't stop laughing when he entered the stage for his speech last night.[/QUOTE]

    [I]This is ooouuuuuuuur country![/I]

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2308122]you consider edwards a second tier candidate??? that failed politician is more fourth or fifth tier....[/QUOTE]

    :zzz:

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2308162]Furthermore, am I the only person who finds it hysterical that the guy who spends his entire campaign demonizing corporations has picked a Chevy commercial anthem as his theme song?[/QUOTE]

    Even more hysterical is that you think GM is a health insurance or drug company. If you knew more you would know he has said good things about several companies and what they do for their employees.

    Actually GM is a perfect example of the problem here since their health insurance costs are a huge factor in making their products less competitive than foreign competitors manufacturing in countries where they have national health insurance.

    Obama will eventually get around to telling you about this sort of thing when he begins providing some substance to his speeches. Maybe by May or so, but then I am an optimist.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2308272]Even more hysterical is that you think GM is a health insurance or drug company. If you knew more you would know he has said good things about several companies and what they do for their employees.

    Actually GM is a perfect example of the problem here since their health insurance costs are a huge factor in making their products less competitive than foreign competitors manufacturing in countries where they have national health insurance.

    .[/QUOTE]

    GM certainly has employee benefit problems (severely underfunded pension promises, etc.), but its primary issue is that its been run by idiots trying to sell Hummers during a period of record gas prices.

    They got their butts kicked in the free market by Honda and Toyota because they were slow to recognize the demand for more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles. Those companies employ thousands of American workers with similar insurance-cost strains, yet they're thriving because they've been better run.

  15. #15
    The writing is on the wall for Edwards. He tried to coat tail Obama and paint the two as the canidates for change (that word again). He saw a chance to try and bury Clinton in the debates and make it a two horse race and he did, he just isn't one of the horses. He has to win SC or he is done. But I don't think he bows out until after Super Tuesday and then he will endorse Obama. Richardson is done after SC. Endorses who cares.

    The Republican race is wide open. Romney has been caught and past but he has the money to keep running but if he doesn't win I see him endorsing McCain. Guliani hasn't even started yet and if he can win Florida his plan to concede Iowa and NH may be a risk that pays off. Don't see it though. He will get behind McCain as they are both like minded about the surge in Iraq.

    Thompson doesn't have a chance. I think he gets behind McCain and don't have a guess about when he quits.

    Huckabee is there till the end against McCain. I think Paul runs as an Independent because he has no chance to win the Republican nom but belives that he has a message that resonates with people from both sides.

  16. #16
    Could Thompson be a potential VP candidate for McCain, to appeal to southerners and the more deeply conservative voters McCains liberal, aisle-crossing ways may not appeal to?

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2308429]Could Thompson be a potential VP candidate for McCain, to appeal to southerners and the more deeply conservative voters McCains liberal, aisle-crossing ways may not appeal to?[/QUOTE]

    Warfish, you will hate this, but the OBVIOUS veep choice for McCain --if he holds on-- is Huckabee. The evangelicals have never forgiven McCain for calling Falwell et all "agents of intolerance," and he needs them to turn out to win. The Club for Growth Republicans will puke at the prospect of that ticket, but that's probably their best play if Mac is, indeed, back.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2308322]GM certainly has employee benefit problems (severely underfunded pension promises, etc.), but its primary issue is that its been run by idiots trying to sell Hummers during a period of record gas prices.

    They got their butts kicked in the free market by Honda and Toyota because they were slow to recognize the demand for more fuel-efficient, environmentally friendly vehicles. Those companies employ thousands of American workers with similar insurance-cost strains, yet they're thriving because they've been better run.[/QUOTE]

    It figures a liberal elitist like you would be pro-Toyota.

    Ftr it is far more complex a situation than you contend.

    That's not the point. The point is that GM is not one of the corporations that has a stranglehold on the mess that currently constitutes the health insurance and drug industries.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2308435]It figures a liberal elitist like you would be pro-Toyota.

    Ftr it is far more complex a situation than you contend.

    That's not the point. The point is that GM is not one of the corporations that has a stranglehold on the mess that currently constitutes the health insurance and drug industries.[/QUOTE]

    I'm an elitist because I said the company that currently dominates the auto industry did so with smart consumer insights? Because I like Obama?

    You're a cartoon character parody of a DailyKos reader.

    By the way, the big unions Edwards has been courting so aggressively in Nevada must be elitist, too: They all endorsed Obama today.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,941
    [QUOTE=Big Blocker;2308435]It figures a [B]liberal elitist like you[/B] would be pro-Toyota.[/QUOTE]

    That is absolutely hysterical coming from you.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us