"So who comes out ahead? I think it's very inconclusive. Clinton will pick up votes from Obama in some Southern states like Georgia that Obama should win anyway--and Obama will pick up a few votes in middle Atlantic or Midwestern states that Clinton will probably win anyway."

--John B. Judis

The analysis seems about right, but I think that Hillary might have a small edge. According to a LA Times poll (www.latimes.com/.../la-na-poll24jan24,0,6697328.story), the only national poll  that I found that asked  the question:  

"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."

My own take as posted elsewhere is that this would help Hillary in Dixie, where Edwards' support was in the 20s, and not have much effect in other regions, where he has been getting just 10-15% of the vote. Insofar as his supporters were overwhelmingly working-class whites, Hillary might benefit or if there is a white "backlash" because of Obama's monolithic support among blacks...

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not sure who this helps. There's been a long-running debate about

Despite the conflicting polling data, this is a case where my gut tells me that Obama will pick up a larger share of the Edwards vote, though not significantly more. The most telling exchange between the three candidates was during that debate when Hillary opened up an opportunity for Edwards to attack Obama and instead he turned his guns back on her, aligned himself with Obama and made that speech about the status quo resisting the forces of change. I thought that was very significant in indicating where his real loyalties were and I suspect his supporters got the message as well.

BHLnyc -- So why not endorse?

I think John, below , is dead on about the splitting of the Edwards vote -- and that, particularly, the

Edwards' departure helps Obama.  The main reason has to do with the Thursday debate.

While those of us reading these blogs now all the ins-and-outs of the race and the candidates' positions, the reality is that for most ordinary Democratic voters, Hillary is the default choice as a towering and well-known figure in the party; the burden is on those candidates, like Obama, who claim they will be better than her.  Until Obama wins that argument on a broad scale, he'll be doomed to a series of impressive but losing showings.  With Edwards out, that debate tomorrow night will get a HUGE audience, as CNN should and will relentlessly promote it as the first mano-a-mano battle between Hillary and Barack.  The image of only two people on the stage will remind people subconsciously of what the general election debates are going to look like in the fall.  Obama's stature will be elevated.  He will, for the first time, be her equal in terms of the visuals of the event.  If he steps up and rises to the occasion, he can win over more voters than if Edwards were up there.  If Hillary starts to attack Obama, he can now counter attack without Edwards jumping in to interrupt his response and pretending to be high minded.  If, on the other hand, we see high-road Hillary, Obama typically excels and competing on that high road, whereas with Edwards there would always be the risk that he'd take a shot at Hillary, evoke sympathy for her, and give her a chance to attack without looking unjustified in attacking.  Also, perhaps without Obama's even attacking her, Hillary may, in response to a question, get a little strident or shrill.  The longer she stays in that mode, the worse she does; and with only two people on the stage voters will hear more of her offputting tone.

In sum, with Edwards in Obama is, to be sure, more likely to emerge from Tuesday in decent shape but behind.  With Edwards out, Obama has at least some chance of breaking through in a more significant way than otherwise might be the case.

BHLnyc  said:

"Despite the conflicting polling data, this is a case where my gut tells me that Obama will pick up a larger share of the Edwards vote, though not significantly more."

You know what the "gut" is full of and it will never be a substitute for reality-based factual analysis, and no analysis can be conducted in vacuo. It must give a face to the voters, who ultimately decide. People who  responded to Edwards' populist message were mostly working-class whites, who have not been numerous  among Obama's supporters, but made up the bulk of Hillary's. Why would they would choose to support Obama is unclear. The rest of your post about how Edwards had teamed up with Obama against Hillary in the last debate seems like something else from the "gut"...

BHLync: But didn't Edwards attack Obama at teh SC debate? Seems inconclusive to me.

BHLync: But didn't Edwards attack Obama at teh SC debate? Seems inconclusive to me.

dcshungu:

I've never suggested that the "gut" is a "replacement" for data, but if there's one thing we've all learned this season (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina), it's that the electorate has been highly changeable and the polling data not always reliable.

ZACummings:

Yes, Edwards did question Obama about his "not present" votes, but that was more a conflict about procedure than substance. Edwards' attack on Hillary, by contrast, put him squarely on the side of challenging the status quo, which, of course, is Obama's core message.

Does anyone really think Edwards - who is certainly talking with the Obama campaign - would have have dropped out if he didn't think it would help Obama?  I may be wrong, but I'm sure he thinks he's doing what he (and probably Obama) thinks will help Obama's chances most.  

Of course, maybe he just thinks (and here I'm channeling Cohn) that he can further shape the rest of the campaign by making Obama and Clinton further adopt his agenda.

"It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard. But I...

Edwards, who always spoke about "two America's" today adopted the Obama language:

To wit:

One America, one America that works for everybody.

One America where struggling towns and factories come back to life because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil.

One America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college. They will be honored for that work. One America where no child will go to bed hungry because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty.

One America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care.

One America with one public school system that works for all of our children.

One America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end. And brings our service members home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

--- Sounds like an endorsement is coming whenever Obama asks for it.

Neil

PS - All my friends who supported Edwards appear to be going to Obama.