Edwards’s Withdrawal Will Show Tension Between Message, Identity Politics

Former Sen. John Edwards suspended his presidential campaign Wednesday afternoon after disappointing showings in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

I wrote previously that Edwards really drove much of the debate during the 2008 Democratic primary. He was the first candidate to release a universal health care plan, the first to really push hard against accepting PAC and lobbyist money, and, perhaps most importantly, it was Edwards, not Obama, who most aggressively criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton as Clinton saw her armor of inevitability begin to crack.

Now the question is how his exit from the race will affect the remaining two candidates. Where his supporters go will tell us a lot about how primary voters really make their decisions.

At OpenLeft, Chris Bowers thinks there are two conflicting factors that will determine which of the top two candidates Edwards’s supporters choose: momentum and demographics. He says momentum benefits Obama, while demographics benefit Clinton.

I think there’s a third, more important factor related to message and process issues. If Edwards supporters break for Obama, it’s that factor that will explain it. If they break for Clinton, it will be based on demographics or, to put it another way, identity politics.

If the rest of the country were like Iowa, it is pretty clear from anecdotal evidence and some polling that Edwards supporters will shift towards Obama. When Iowans were introduced to Edwards, he was still an angry progressive who railed against Clinton’s acceptance of PAC and lobbyist money, against NAFTA, and against “corporate Democrats.” If they stuck with Edwards through the summer and fall, they weren’t going to support Clinton.

But the rest of the country isn’t like Iowa. Most Americans were tuned out during Edwards’s angry phase. As we saw in South Carolina, the demographic exit poll data seemed to show Edwards and Clinton splitting the white vote. Whether this was a coincidence or not, it was used to vindicate theories of identity politics. White men preferred Edwards, white women preferred Clinton, and black voters of both genders preferred Obama.

What will happen over the next week? Will Edwards’s supporters, who are a significant (and potentially decisive) block of votes in many Super Tuesday states, choose the candidate who lines up closest to Edwards on process issues? If so, they’d likely pick Obama, who, like Edwards, refuses money from PACs and lobbyists. Obama has run an outsider campaign like Edwards.

Or will Edwards supporters line up behind Clinton? If they do, it could be based more on demographics and identity than anything else. There are a few policy issues (most notably, perhaps, a health care mandate) where Clinton lines up closer to Edwards than Obama does, but voters who are tuned into the the subtleties of policy aren’t likely to overlook the process issues that tie Edwards to Obama in order to support Clinton.

There’s also the question of organized labor. Do the unions who backed Edwards, if not officially than unofficially, head to Obama or Clinton? And what about trial lawyers?

Of course, a lot could turn on who Edwards himself decides to endorse. Pundits on television seem unwilling to give odds on which candidate he would choose, should he choose one. Perhaps they are merely too cautious to speculate on this, but I’m reckless:

If Edwards supports a candidate, it’ll be Obama. I have heard him say too many bad things about the Clintons for him to get away with an endorsement of Hillary. I have heard his staff say far worse things about her. Mudcat Saunders just said on MSNBC that he would do everything in his power to prevent Edwards from endorsing her, and Joe Trippi has at times appeared as much as an Obama operative as an Edwards operative. There’s no way he endorses Clinton, so the question is whether he endorses Obama or no one at all.