My Frustration with the Edwards Campaign

After the New Hampshire primary, the John Edwards campaign made yet another huge mistake with his speech. This time it wasn't so much the speech itself, but the timing.

After the polls closed, a large chunk of America was watching. The Republican race clearly went to McCain--who, as Cynara observed, gave his speech as if it were a story on Reading Rainbow--while Obama and Hillary were in a too-close-to-call situation. Meanwhile Edwards was CLEARLY in third (15 points behind the two front-runners and never less than 12 points ahead of fourth). While the two possible winners had to wait to give their speeches, the television analysis grew redundant.

Edwards should have given his speech then.

When 20% of the returns had been counted, it was pretty clear the winner wouldn't be announced in the next 15-30 minutes (i.e., soon enough to interrupt a speech). Meanwhile, as more and more Americans turned off the TV (especially in the Eastern time zone...places like South Carolina), the eventual audience grew smaller and smaller. Even I, an avid follower, got bored and turned the TV off 100 minutes or so after the polls closed. There's no way that any gains to be had by waiting until all the results were in could overcome the cost of waiting.

Why wait? The only reason I can think of would be the risk of getting interrupted by the announcement of a winner. But at the time the odds were small, and the audience was shrinking. I think a calculated risk was in order (what was the expected value for the number of people who would hear his speech depending on when he gave it? I believe it was clearly higher to give it sooner...if you want an explanation, ask and I'll post it in the comments). Other possible reasons for waiting would be to call and congratulate the winner (not a big deal), to be able to name the winner (not a big deal), to wait and hope for a second or first place finish (probability = statistically insignificantly different from zero), or just plain not being ready (screw-up by the campaign...though either way, I'd consider it a screw up--if not in preparation than in the call to wait to get the candidate out in front of a podium).

Speeches on nights when everyone's watching and debates are the two best chances John Edwards has. He can't compete on money and endorsements; he has to compete on ideas. And speeches and debates are the best chances he gets to communicate his ideas on equal footing. And in the two most watched primary contests (and two of the three most followed days in the whole primary process--the third being Super Tuesday), the campaign has blown great chances to hit a home run. After Iowa, they screwed up on the speech. And after New Hampshire, the speech barely mattered, because they didn't even get him out there in time for most people to hear anything he had to say.

At this point I'm starting to hope for an Obama-Edwards ticket that uses the Edwards Plan for health care. An underfunded third-place campaign with great ideas and a popular populist message CAN get the nomination, but not the way they're doing it over at the Edwards campaign. They're running out of chances.