Despite being reduced in importance by penalties from both parties, the Florida primary on Tuesday was the straw that broke the camel's back for both the Giuliani and Edwards campaigns. With Super Tuesday only a week away it seems precipitous for the number three contenders in both parties to suddenly give up the ghost, but after spending close to $100 million between them without achieving a single primary win, both campaigns ran out of money and had to weigh their priorities.
The looming question for both campaigns was whether they could do more good by holding out and trying to get as many delegates as they could on Super Tuesday and take them to the convention to have some influence - or use this opportunity to pick one of the frontrunners and throw their support behind that candidate to strengthen their position for the coming primaries.
Both campaigns chose to give up now for very much the same reasons, because the situations in the two parties were surprisingly similar.
In the Democratic Party you had two relatively idealistic populist progressives and a moderate party insider. You could even call Hillary a 'Humphrey Democrat'. In that situation and with no primary wins, Edwards was never going to be able to catch up, and he was hurting Obama and wasting his time. Edwards did not endorse Obama immediately, but a timely endorsement after the one-on-one debate this week between Obama and Clinton seems quite likely. Clinton has a narrow edge in delegates and momentum right now, but with Edwards' strong appeal to white working class voters, if he does endorse Obama he could push Obama into a real lead. Of course, Edwards' supporters among the trial lawyers and unions are probably pushing him towards Clinton, but I'm betting that when it comes time to choose he'll follow his conscience.
In the Republican Party you had two traditional Republicans splitting the vote of the old-line constituency and one self-styled conservative. It made sense for Giuliani to drop out now and throw his support to McCain to unify the votes of traditional Republicans who still make up more than half of the GOP. It was the best way to shut out the neocons and theocons and box Romney in before the critical votes on Super Tuesday. Giuliani's withdrawal and rapid endorsement have likely cemented McCain's lead and ought to carry him through to the nomination. As for Giuliani's fate, despite the speculation of pundits, he seems an unlikely choice for McCain's running mate. Maybe he'll get the job that was made for him and end up as Attorney General under McCain.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Brett
Huckabee has every bit as good a chance of taking this nomination as Romney. He's polling ahead of Romney nationally in the WSJ and Bloomberg polls. Romney can't win in CA or NE. He can't win in the South or Midwest. So where can he win? No where that will bring this race closer. A vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
2 - Walt
You do realize that "the votes of traditional Republicans" would go to Ron Paul. He is the traditional Republican. McCain and Romney are the ones considered neo-cons or "new conservatives". New conservatives are generally described as war hawks with liberal leaning spending tendencies. This describes Romney and McCain to a T.
3 - Michael J. West
The Edwards thing is a pretty big deal, considering he's likely to endorse Obama. Bear in mind that all of the Super-Duper Tuesday polls that put Hillary in dougle-digit leads were conducted before the Kennedy endorsement (which will carry weight with the main-line Democrats) and the Edwards quit. Could it be the nudge Obama's been waiting for?
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The American monkey-in-chief race seems a bit more interesting now that some of the monkeys have bumped their heads and been knocked out, but the fact of the matter is that the American election will not have as much bearing on matters as navel-gazing Americans think.
German ships traveling to Gaza, spiking oil prices, a falling dollar and collapsing American economy are far more important issues than the chattering of the marmosets in the monkey cage of those who would be the monkey-in-chief in Washington.
5 - Clavos
Wake up and smell the chads, people!
Huckabee and Paul are done. Finished.
Stick a fork in 'em.
6 - Les Slater
Clavos,
“Huckabee and Paul are done. Finished.”
I’m not so sure about Paul. He’s got money and a core of backers who could care less about which of the other candidates run, or if he might be a spoiler. If he is serious, he will run on a third party ticket.
Les
7 - troll
anyone who allows the likes of Anderson Cooper to walk all over him as Paul did last night is far too much of a wimp to be Prez
or was he trying to give his supporters something more to whine about - ?
8 - Les Slater
troll,
“or was he trying to give his supporters something more to whine about - ?”
I doubt if he was trying to come off as a wimp, but he is. That’s why I said, ‘if he is serious’. I have my doubts.
His mob doesn’t seem to care about such trivialities. His reactionary appeal is to the freaked out middle class.
Les
9 - Dave Nalle
Huckabee has every bit as good a chance of taking this nomination as Romney. He's polling ahead of Romney nationally in the WSJ and Bloomberg polls. Romney can't win in CA or NE. He can't win in the South or Midwest.
Huckabee has no chance at all. Romney may not be able to win California, but he can win New England states, which at least makes him competitive. The problem for Romney AND Huckabee is that the midwest, the southwest, California and New York are all going to go to McCain. End of story.
You do realize that "the votes of traditional Republicans" would go to Ron Paul.
Quite true IF he were not campaigning as such an extremist and if he had not sold his campaign to the lunatic fringe.
He is the traditional Republican.
No, you're wrong. Paul is a libertarian Republican, which is an element within the party with a long history and which is compatible with traditional republicanism, but it is not the traditional mainstream of the party. Traditional Republicans are fiscally conservative, socially indifferent or libertarian, and strong on defense. Paul is fiscally conservastive, socially conservative and weak on defense.
McCain and Romney are the ones considered neo-cons or "new conservatives". New conservatives are generally described as war hawks with liberal leaning spending tendencies. This describes Romney and McCain to a T.
Like most Paul supporters you have no idea what Neocons are or whio Neocons are and just throw the term out at anyone you don't like. Traditional Republicans have always supported a strong defense, and that does NOT make them Neocons just because there's a superficial similarity. And if you think Romney and McCain have the same position on military or foreign policy you're just not paying attention.
Dave
10 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
troll,
The idiots who want to be "president" of your country are not what are dropping like flies. It's your economy. And as you all know, presidents can do little about the economy.
It matters little which idiot presides over the fall of your nation. What matters is that it is going down....
11 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
The American dollar continues to fall against the shekel and against the euro. Look at the bottom of the above link and you'll see the value of the dollar against the shekel in the lower right hand corner (about 3.6xx) and against the euro towards the center of the page (about $1.4xxx). In addition, as an added fillip, Jobless claims surge in latest week. First-time claims jump back to 375,000, the loftiest level since October. Against this, the presidential race is meaningless. I repeat. It doesn't matter which idiot presides over the dissolution of the wealth of the American people.
12 - Les Slater
Ruvy,
“It doesn't matter which idiot presides over the dissolution of the wealth of the American people.”
It does matter some, but not enough for the majority of us to vote for them.
Les
13 - Lee Richards
Ruvy,
Economic and business cycles are the norm. Returns will be more moderate for awhile. True, the US is in a downturn. True, Bush doesn't know what steps to take, preferring more deficit spending to budget control, and other sound monetary and fiscal policies. True, politicians are jumping on his bandwagon to buy votes in November, little caring what it costs future generations.
But a permanent "dissolution of the wealth of the American people" is maybe going a little too far. Your distaste of all things American has clouded your perspective somewhat.
Knowledge is better than fear or, in your case, wishful thinking, when assessing a nation's economic future.
14 - Chad_Underdonk
"Paul is fiscally conservastive, socially conservative and weak on defense."--Dave Nalle
Not squandering our military resources on a neo-con nation-building, empire building agenda would seem to create a much stronger defense to me. Not pissing in everyone's pool would seem like a much stronger defense to me. Actually going after Al Qaeda in a an asymmetric attack using special forces and a policy of Letter of Marque would be a whole lot more fiscally responsible and a whole hell of a lot more effective at actually punishing those who took credit for 9/11.
Instead we are destroying other nations. We will eventually have to leave them (at probably no better off than they are now or have been for the last couple of years) with nothing but more death and destroyed infrastructure for them and more debt for us. Let's leave and tell them that when they figure out a peaceful government and stop their civil-war we will give them X amount of money -10% per year that it takes them to resolve their problems.
Every remaining candidate except Dr. Paul is ready to go into Iran, and McCain is chomping at the bit to do so. The last thing we need is a 3rd battleground on our hands, and for no good purpose. Our military is stretched thin, they are burnt out, and they need a break. If we open up another can of worms that we cannot win (we are occupying their country, we would never surrender, to assume they would is foolish) we will surely have to reinstate the draft. Except this time we won't have the huge numbers of the baby-boomers to fall back on and will wind up drafting a larger percentage of a whole generation and women to boot.
Maybe if our Armed Forces had been home instead of being picked off one by one trying to subdue other nations in pre-emptive wars we could've done something about the aftermath of Katrina. Boy wouldn't it have been nice if we would have had a couple hundred helicopters and several thousands troops within a few hundred miles (101st Air Assault Division, Ft Campbell KY) of that disaster. What are we going to do in the next disaster, what if its a nuclear one? You do realize that our troops are the ONLY large force we have that has ANY training in nuclear operations? Or equipment to deal with it?
We are fighting a NON-nation-state enemy by trying to conquer nations states. Our current strategy is akin to trying to swat a flea with a pair of golf-cleats while sitting in a rubber raft; we're unlikely to ever hit our target, and the more we try the faster we create new holes, which just causes the whole raft to sink that much faster!
Instead of making more enemies we should dismantle our empire, make the homeland more secure, and fight our real enemies in a real and effective manner. Ron Paul is the only one even willing to talk about these ideas...how can anyone consider that weak on defense?
/end rant
15 - Chad_Underdonk
Ruvy,
There are a lot more of our dollars floating around overseas than there are at home. If/When the dollar ceases the be the international standard many of those dollars are going to come back here to buy up as much as they can before inflation causes them to become completely worthless. When that happens the Federal Reserve will have absolutely no tricks on its hands other than to say "give us all your money and we'll exchange it for new bills at a 20 to 1 rate."
Exactly how much confidence would that leave in our dollar? Exactly how would our economy survive while they got their crap together long enough to do it? The value of our money is being destroyed by poor fiscal policy, it is only a matter of time until that policy comes back to roost. We are using fiat money, the most memorable instance of that failing was when Germans in the Weimar Republic (pre-Nazi Germany) were using a literal wheelbarrow of cash to buy a loaf of bread. IT HAS HAPPENED HERE. The original U.S. dollar was a "continental" it was based on a promise too. It was such a disaster that the Constitution went so far as to REQUIRE that we be on the gold or silver standard. Our predecessors lived through this, now we will get the privilege of repeating our history.
16 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
At 19:31 our time, 12:31 New York time, your dollar was worth NIS 3.616. Put differently, a $1,000 pension, would get you NIS 3,616 - barely enough to get by even in the "low rent" district where I live.
When I moved here in July 2006, that same $1,000 got you NIS 4,400. That is quite a drop in value, Lee. Put a little differently, the dollar is worth 80% of what it was worth last in July 2006. That is less than two years. Daily, the dollar seems to go down.
And then there is all that good news about the banks and the sub-prime crisis, all the folks getting laid off, and the fact that America is a debtor nation. As was pointed out above, when all the dollars floating overseas go home, your dollar will be worth garbage, and three generations of lives will have been ruined. That is what is coming your way. I don't envy you where you are.... I pity you.
17 - Les Slater
Ruvy,
“I pity you.”
Please don’t. It will certainly be an interesting experience. It will be difficult and some won’t survive but I believe we can rise to the occasion and come out much, much better for it and go on from there.
We need a thorough house cleaning anyway. There is much baggage that will be difficult to remove, but also an enormous wealth to cherish and save.
Les
18 - Brad Schader
Ruvy is big on the pity thing. I got it from him yesterday. I feel bad for him considering how high that horse he sits on must be and how great that fall is going to hurt. Perhaps me and the other Jews here should convert to Ruvyism and just follow him...
19 - troll
now now - it's impolite to turn down a dose of pity freely offered
20 - Clavos
"What matters is that it is going down...."
Actually, Ruvy, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter any more than any other empire going down ever has.
That said, IMO it's a long way from "going down," but if it does, who cares?
21 - Dave Nalle
At 19:31 our time, 12:31 New York time, your dollar was worth NIS 3.616. Put differently, a $1,000 pension, would get you NIS 3,616 - barely enough to get by even in the "low rent" district where I live.
So what you're saying here is basically that a low income in dollars used to make you better off in Israel than you would be in the US, and now the value is closer to equal. Wouldn't that suggest that the dollar has been inflated and is now moving towards its more natural value?
Dave
22 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Let's add some more wood to the fire, Dave.
Food prices appear to be on the rise. And the pattern seen is that this will be a permanent change. This is quoting the International Herald Tribune, hardly a source of conspiratorial banter. Let's look at the article, shall we?
Now let's look again at that drop in the value of the dollar against the shekel. It's not an issue of the dollar dropping to a more "natural" value. I used the example of the $1,000 pension, actually what a widow or widower with two kids under 18 could expect from Social Security, as an example.
It's an issue of seeing the first stages of a terrible fall in the dollar that may accelerate entirely unexpectedly. And the point is that those holding the dollar can send them home any time. After some rather rapid attempts to shift the debt to someone else's hands, eventually those dollars will go home to you - and depreciate rapidly in America, as people try to use them for money and discover that they are as valuable as rolls of toilet paper....
Now, don't get me wrong. Toilet paper has a very definite value. But using a $100 bill to clean your rear end is humiliating, possibly greasy and very possibly a cause of some nasty paper cuts. But that is what it may come to.
Buy plenty of bandages and iodine, while the dollar still has some value. Those paper cuts can infect easily, especially in sensitive areas....
23 - Dave Nalle
I'm all for an increase in food prices. It makes small farmers more competitive and helps balance out the decrease in prices for most manufactured goods. Combined with the increase in fuel costs this should lead to an increase in localized food distribution which will help increase food independence and profits for local farmers.
And BTW, while the dollar may be down vs. the Shekel - as if anyone in their right mind cares about Shekels - it has been more or less stable against the Euro (a currency which actually matters) for the last two months.
Dave
24 - Lee Richards
Snow in the forecast doesn't mean the sky is going to fall.
Except to Chicken Little.
25 - Baronius
Hey Ruve, here I was defending you a couple of days ago for your ability to stay on-topic. Oh well, no one died and made me Thread Sheriff. Too bad though. I'd be the rootin-tootinest Thread Sheriff these parts had ever seen. The funny thing is, by changing the subject to currency rates, you literally turned the topic to the price of tea in China.
One big difference between the Clinton-Obama and McCain-Romney race is that the Dems are split on race/class/sex, and the Republicans on ideas. That seems appropriate, because the Democratic Party has no ideas except race, class, and sex.
It seems like Nalle is rooting for McCain. The more I think about it, the more he seems like a bad nominee. In recent years, both parties have run unpleasant war heroes with no particular vision for the future. They've both lost badly. McCain had really better articulate what he wants to do as president.
Exchange rates have both good and bad effects. A weakening dollar increases the cost of oil, but it also makes American manufactured goods less expensive relative to imports. A weak dollar increases foreign investment. Nalle is right: the most important thing is to get your currency to its correct value.