Edwards and the electability question

Lynn Sweet mentions something that's been going around:

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.): At the AFSCME meeting, Edwards launched into what amounted to a general election argument against Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama: that they are not electable and can't get votes in certain parts of the nation. He didn't use their names, but that's who he was aiming at when he said "we need a candidate for president" who "can go anywhere in America."

Last week, in an Edwards polling memo, the public polls from SUSA and from Rasmussen Reports were quoted to make the case that Edwards can compete in more states than either Obama or Clinton, and that nationally, Edwards is even or does better than the others. The electability argument is probably not going to carry as much weight among Democrats in '08 as it did in '04, because Democrats are just coming off a big mid-term victory. There's been a bit of a call to dismiss the electability argument, but I think it probably still holds quite a bit of sway for some voters that, all things being equal, want to nominate someone that can win.

Though it's not a clear-cut case though that Edwards does better nationally than Clinton or Obama, I do think the polls make enough of a case that it's a good strategic move, if only to put the others on the defensive. In fact, it's really interesting that Edwards, while he has become the most vocal about getting out of Iraq, dismantling the WOT frame, and voicing populist economics, is (in some polls) the strongest Democratic candidate for 2008.

Also, Edwards has again opened up the process as we move to the end of the 2Q, showing that he has surpassed his 1Q total of 40,000 contributors, now at 48,000 for Q2; though the $6.75M raised to date is about half of what Edwards raised in the 1Q, he's got more small donors and it looks like the average contribution size in 2Q for Edwards will be less than $150. No word yet on Obama, Clinton or Richardson's numbers.

Update [2007-6-25 12:26:8 by Jerome Armstrong]: I've uploaded the memo's poll details and notes, here and here they are, including these bullet points:

• General election polls almost unanimously show Edwards outperforming all other Democrats.

• Even more important than national polls, Edwards outperforms other Democratic candidates in key battleground states, including Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

• Unlike other Democrats, who will be forced to “run the table” of states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternative scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to winning 270 electoral votes.

Along this same line of argument, a poll last week out of NC showed Edwards beating all Republicans, and drills down into the cross-tabs.

Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

212 Comments

Re: Edwards and the electability question

Of course there is word about Obama, Clinton, and Richardson numbers. There was an article on Huff Post just this weekend that Richardson is poised to do better than Edwards.  And the Clinton camp has been putting out the word ahead of the deadline to expect Obama to surpass her and the two of them be in the high 20's to low 30's.  

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-25 07:18AM | 0 recs
It's the first time since

forever that the most progressive top-tier candidate is also the most electable. He alone has the potential of triggering realignment, and can anyone doubt that the Democratic Senate candidates in the South would rather have him at the top of the ticket? At some point primary voters will take a step back and assess who will most likely to win, and win big, and this will help Edwards. It's his economic populism--not primarily his gender or race--that makes him best suited to capture the all-important industrial midwest, though, yes, his gender especially probably doesn't hurt. Who among us wouldn't rather have Edwards going up against Thmposon or Romney in Ohio?

As for the fundraising, it looks like Edwards is going to have a high percentage of small donors. It's not a surprise that rich people aren't giving to him in droves--apparently they've read his platform. This development can only further liberate him and allow him to become the people's champion he was meant to be.

by david mizner 2007-06-25 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: It's the first time since

Your point on economic populism playing well in the Midwest is an important one IMO. As I recall, Sherrod Brown's populist message in traditionally Republican areas of Ohio was instrumental in helping him to win last year.

by grayslady 2007-06-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
What rural voters want.

This comes from a poll of 500 rural voters taken by the Center for Rural Strategies in late October of 2006.  

Asked what sort of changes they would like to see after the 2006 elections, they gave the following.

The bottom line here is that economic populism trumps all other political messages with the rural voter, and once that issue is placed to the forefront suddenly states with large rural populations come into play.  Republicans depend on 65+% margins in rural areas to combat Democratic strength on inner cities, and parity in suburbs.  The status quo has produced a remarkably evenly divided nation.  

Looking at the percentage rural population by state we see that in the Midwest sans Illinois, the rural population is about 20% of the total, while in the South it's closer to 40%.  

So let's take Ohio, which had 25% rural voters in 2004.  In 2004, Bush won Ohio by about 120,000 votes, with 50.82% of the vote to Kerry's 48.7%.

Recent polling by the Center for Rural Strategies  showed a 21% shift from the GOP to Democrats in president voting intentions.  So let's apply this to Ohio.  To keep it simple, I'm going to use percentages.

So we start with the 2004 Ohio exit poll which showed that Bush won rural voters 60% to 40%.  This means that 15% of the population was both rural and voted for Bush.  So let's apply the 21% shift shown in the Center for Rural Strategies polling.  

A 21% shift in the 25% of the population that's rural yields a 5.25% shift from the GOP to the Democratic candidate.  Which means that if everything else is equal, in 2008 a Democrat wins with 54% of the vote with a Republican taking 46% of the vote.

I'd be very interested to see the by state crosstabs this 2007 poll showing a 21% shift that I've mentioned. My suspicion is that the shift was concentrated in a a few important states, with the Northeast already largely against Bush.  Though remember that New Hampshire is extremely rural, and we took both House Seats there in 2006. And that the shift in the deep South is less dramatic, because rural populations there are either Democratic African Americans or GOP whites.  The upper South (Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina) I think is probably brought into play though.  I think that the real huge shift comes in Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.  Hell, I seriously think that Indiana may come into play if there's a serious shift in rural voters.

Now of course, we have to remember what excites these rural voters, and that's a message of economic populism, and that I believe is the reason that John Edwards can compete in states that Clinton and Obama can't.  It's about the message, not the messenger.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-25 09:45AM | 0 recs
it's the center for rural strategies

what else did you expect?

somehow, rural areas remain the most approving of Bush and the most loyal to the GOP. So does that make them stupid, or does it make everyone besides the Center for Rural Strategies wrong?

by jforshaw 2007-06-25 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: it's the center for rural strategies

The Center for Rural Strategies has been polling since last year, and they've shown a significant shift in rural voters.  Most of the House districts taken in 2006 moved because of the shift in rural voters.  There is a mountain of evidence that rural voters are ready for change.  But it isn't Iraq or gay marriage that they are interested in.  It's inequality that's driving them.

The comments that you've made make absolutely no sense, and suggest that you didn't bother to read the linked documents.  In the blog world, links back claims.  A quick review of you comments suggests that you either lack the ability to link, or don't understand that your failure to do so makes your comments lack credibility.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-06-25 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: it's the center for rural strategies

People have been noting what you said elsewhere. It's certainly interesting for which have candidate is our eventual nominee. The problem you analysis face is not that it is incorrect , but that it faces a conflict with most current Democratic thinking with exception of may be Edwards. I am not sure however how strong Obama is on these issues, does anyone know?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: What rural voters want.

It doesn't hurt one bit that Edwards has a Rural Recovery Plan that is actually quite good. I am from a mostly rural area and it would help us out a lot if completely implemented by Congress.

by RDemocrat 2007-06-25 03:06PM | 0 recs
Yes, but it might be that

a lot of low info people think that Edwards is still a Southern moderate, which would explain his crossover appeal. Progressives think that he is progressive, indies think that he is moderate and some conservative think that he is conservative. It's a dream position to be in, but usually it don't last for very long.

by Populism2008 2007-06-25 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, but it might be that

the polling on what people re looking for contras what you are saying about Edwards. If the GE were looking for moderate- then why are they swing economically leftward?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:30AM | 0 recs
There hasn't been a real shortage of press

on John Edwards lately, most of it negative that is being pushed by the mainstream media specifically to these crossover voters. So I don't think your assessment on why he has such strong GE support is accurate.

by okamichan13 2007-06-25 12:55PM | 0 recs
Rich People

77% of Edwards' 1Q take came in checks of $1000 and up.  Only 15% was $200 and under.

by Adam B 2007-06-25 11:14AM | 0 recs
In all fairness,

you should point out that Edwards had less contributors maxing out ($2300) than either Obama or Clinton.  So regardless of your implications, the truth of the matter is that Edwards is primarily supported by the middle class.

by lobo charlie 2007-06-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
The "middle class"?

How many middle class people write $1000 checks to candidates?

by Adam B 2007-06-25 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The "middle class"?

apparently not as many as who write 2300 checks to clinton and obama

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The "middle class"?

Obama raised, by far, the most in <$200 contributions, both as a percentage of his total and as an aggregate sum.  Obama raised more money from folks giving him $200 or less than Edwards did from the $2300+ checks.  

by Adam B 2007-06-25 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The &quot;middle class&quot;?

my point is just like the discussion about who is more qualified- this dicussion is silly.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Rich People

From the same source:

$1,000 and up contributions as % of total contributions:

Obama  : 68%
Edwards: 77%

Made up 9% more of Edwards' contributions than Obama's, which isn't much difference between the two of them.

But in the real big money contributions (maxed out in primary, perhaps maxed out for the general also it doesn't seperate the two) Obama pulled in 8% of total contributions than Edwards did.

$2,300 and up contributions:

Obama  : 46%
Edwards: 38%

At the more middle class/professional level ($201 - $999) Edwards and Obama are almost identical.

$201 - $999 contributions:

Obama:   10%
Edwards:  9%

At the small donor more grass roots level Obama pulls in 7% more than Edwards does, but let's not forget that a good portion of that is coming from the $15 or $30 (I forgot which it is, anyone know) that Obama reportedly charges people at his rallies to be able to hear him speak. For all those thousands of people at rallies that just want to check him out and see what he has to say he's certainly racked up a lot of small donations and still he only pulled in 7% more than Edwards did.

$200 or less contributions:

Obama:   22%
Edwards: 15%

This seems kinda weird to me that he doesn't have a much larger advantage in this area over Edwards. And that such a large part of his take came from the maxed out $2,300 and up crowd. It's also worth noting that Obama pulled in the largest amount from Wall Street out of any candidate from either party. Frankly I think this ties into what Jerome has posited about Obama's lack of a real movement though his campaign can barely send out an email without metioning "the movement." I'll be interested to see his Q2 haul and how the contribution levels break down and what industries are represented. I'd also note in closing that it's easier to bring in the big money if your fundraisers are calling up lobbyists and asking them to use their networks to bundle donations and to have their spouses donate in a wink, wink, nudge, nudge fashion and when you take money from state lobbyists including a good chunk from lobbyists from your own state of IL when compared to another candidate that takes no money from any lobbyists or PACs and never has.

by Quinton 2007-06-25 01:07PM | 0 recs
Yr Wrong

FYI, both Edwards and Clinton started doing rally-as-fundraisers during the past month or two, and all of Obama's such rallies took place during this quarter, not the previous one.  

I have no idea what metric you're using for "who raised most on Wall Street," because OpenSecrets has Obama behind Romney, Giuliani and Clinton on funds from the "securities and investment" field, and Clinton more than doubles Obama's haul from NYC.

by Adam B 2007-06-25 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Yr Wrong

I'm using the metric of all the media stories on Obama after Q1 numbers came out reporting that he had raised the most of any candidate from either party from Wall Street. It was talking about here and no one refuted it. If it was false reporting then that bares talking about.

by Quinton 2007-06-25 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Yr Wrong

The data doesn't back that up at all.  And I did refute it back then.

by Adam B 2007-06-25 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Rich People

Just wait until the 2Q numbers come out. Edwards already has more donors than last time, but considerably less money than last time. Simple mathmatics would seem to imply that he will probably go way ahead of everyone on % of small donors. I may be wrong, but it seems it would have to.

by RDemocrat 2007-06-25 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Yea, I was referring to official word.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

There is no official word yet.  Your Edwards figures are coming from his campaign. I don't believe any has filed the information at this date.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

No - RICHARDSON SAID he would do better in 2nd qtr fundraising than Edwards.
Candidates never make statements to boost perceptions about their campaigns - right?

by annefrank 2007-06-25 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Yes, Edwards really moved the needle nationally in 2004.  Yet another adoring, almost unquestioning post about Edwards.

In 2006, we proved we could win almost anywhere with exception of the South, which is still deep red.  Given that Edwards, a Southerner, made almost no impact in the South in '04 (and is trailing Obama in South Carolina polls now), could that "compete eveywhere" argument really be made, polls notwithstanding?

Does he really perform better than Clinton or Obama in the Midwest (Obama from Illinois) or the Mountain West or Southwest?  Do we have any evidence of that?  Head-to-head matchups are pretty dodgy at this point.

I find the electability issue very unpersuasive.  Sure he doesn't have the baggage that Clinton does, but he carries his own baggage - namely a fraction of the experience and a very light record in the public arena, and don't think that's not going to be an issue.  

As much as Jerome makes no effort to hide his love of Edwards or contempt of Obama, I clearly can't pretend to be unbiased.  I find John Edwards to be disingenuous and inexperienced.  And before the flames come, I'm as liberal as it gets (without voting for Kucinich).  

But mostly I believe in the facts, and this "electability" thing is light on the facts.

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Also wanted to add - you can like Edwards for substantive reasons all you want, but I hope we're past the concept that a white guy with a Southern accent = more electable.  If that's why we vote for him, then shame on us.

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:27AM | 0 recs
Nice insinuation

Edwards himself has repeatedly stated he doesn't want the votes of people who woldn't vote for Obama or Clinton because of race or gender.

But there is no doubt that he polls across the country better than either.  Fact.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice insinuation

I didn't make the insinuation - so I'm not sure what his point is either.  He never moved the needle in the south before.  

If you think these head-to-head matchup polls are a true reflection of what would happen in a general election campaign, fine.  I don't buy it.  A one-term senator with a light legislative record is a pretty easy target for the Rethugs.  Not saying others aren't either (obviously Hillary is), but I am saying that the polls will change.  fact.

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice insinuation

How about a less than one term senator with absolutely NO record?

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice insinuation

If you're talking about Obama, he has significantly more experience in public life than Edwards.  He has 8 years as a state legislator, not to mention he was a community organizer and taught Constitutional Law.

Edwards was a trial lawyer who went directly to Senator for one term.  

I'm not saying I'm voting for Obama, but I think he has much more relevant experience than Edwards.

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:43AM | 0 recs
ok - thanks

I'll keep in mind that living off Illinois taxpayers while fighting hard for Left Turn on Red on a One Way Street is better training for the Presidency than repeatedly having the life and welfare of a greviously injured person in your hands.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: ok - thanks

I think this whole conversation is irrelevant to the topic of the diary. Both men are probably equally equiped in different ways for the job. This all seems kind of petty. There is no perfect path to being President because of the uniqueness of the job.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: ok - thanks

Pretty silly indeed - yes, you've obviously read through Obama's legislative record in Illinois.  And to denigrate that while holding up a trial lawyer as a paragon of virtue shows there is no discussion to be had here. You have your beliefs, I have mine.  

by dansac 2007-06-25 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: ok - thanks

actually that was for the both of you. Edwards is also qualified for the job.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: ok - thanks

I know - but was responding to his digs at Obama, not your post.

by dansac 2007-06-25 08:26AM | 0 recs
your true colors revealed

you don't like trial lawyers.

That would be why you're backing the one Democrat in the field who supports efforts to restrain plaintiffs' rights.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: your true colors revealed

Huh?  The Class Action Fairness Act was a good bill, which is why Obama and Dodd both supported it.  It was bad for plaintiffs' lawyers, but not for plaintiffs.

by Adam B 2007-06-25 11:16AM | 0 recs
he wants more than that

And the conclusion that it was a good bill is highly debatable.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: he wants more than that

I'm happy to debate it.  Should we start with venue reform, which was a particular problem in Illinois, or the coupon settlement reform?

by Adam B 2007-06-25 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice insinuation

This assumes that polls at this point, when only political junkies are focused on the details, have meaning.  I think polls tell us something at this point, but not much.  For upwards of 90% of the electorate, all they know is that they want change be it called Hillary, Barack or John.  I'd pay more attention to this argument in, say, May '08 than now.  AND if one believes that Obama or Hillary would upset the pollsters models of who the likly voters are then the polls at this point, based on old assumptions about who votes & who doesn't -- are worse than meaningless, they are misleading.  Polling is based on carefully constructed models about who will vote.  If past assumptions about that are upended then the poll is worthless.  

by howardpark 2007-06-25 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice insinuation

Marginally.  There is not a huge gap at this point.   The Newsweek poll shows both Clinton and Obama doing better against the GOP frontrunner Giuliani than Edwards.  Against McCain Edwards is the same as Clinton and behind Obama.  Not a big gap against Thompson, either.  

Jerome Armstrong is correct that while polls are sketchy on that end, it is definitely a good strategy to pursue.  It almost seems as if it is the only strategy left at this stage, as he has not gained traction with anything else.   They have to try something, and this makes sense to attempt.  

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I know it's not necessarily a "hard fact," but one of the most important things for a large percentage of the people who will be voting in 2008 is how comfortable someone feels with a candidate--whether or not they identify with him.

Bill Clinton was the ultimate "have a beer with me" candidate. I think it would be a blast to have a (lot of) beer(s) with the Bub-meister.

I don't think the same can be said about Senator Clinton, at least not yet. She's working on her image, and she looked great at the last debate, but as is constantly referenced around the netroots, she has some high negatives and a lot of people (many who liked her husband) are still turned off by the mere mention of her name. She also doesn't have the "feel your pain" quality of her husband.

One person who has worked hard for that "feel your pain" angle is Edwards. His two Americas stump speech was awesome last time around, and he's seeking to revive it this time out. After he and Kerry lost in 2004, he began work on poverty issues back home in North Carolina. Unfortunately, I think some of the biggest fallout from the round of bad press surrounding his wealth has been the loss of his "have a beer with me" factor.

So far, Obama seems to be leading in this category. A Quinnipiac University poll over Memorial Day weekend found Obama was the candidate most people would like to have a picnic with:http://www.mydd.com/comments/2007/6/25/1 11439/170/3/post#here
MyDD :: Comments Edwards and the electability question


31. Who would you rather chat with at a Memorial Day picnic - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Al Gore?

Total Population
Obama 33
Clinton 24
Gore 16
Edwards 16

Democrats
Clinton 34
Obama 24
Gore 24
Edwards 14

Independents
Obama 34
Clinton 25
Gore 17
Edwards 15

Republicans
Obama 37
Edwards 20
Clinton 15
Gore 5

Voters in "Purple States"
Obama 30
Clinton 25
Gore 19
Edwards 16

Voters in "Red States"
Obama 33
Clinton 20
Edwards 17
Gore 15

"Americans want a president with whom they feel comfortable," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "At this point, they envision Mayor Giuliani and Sen. Obama as either the most interesting, most approachable or perhaps the ones about which the most people are curious - or just the best guys to hang out with."

Obama is the candidate with whom the voters who we are concerned with regarding "electability"--independents and voters in "Purple States" and "Red States"--feel most comfortable.

by Max Fletcher 2007-06-25 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question
Quinnipiac is also releasing polls that include non-candidate Gore - but no accompanying poll without Gore.
I questioned them about it - and their response was defensive and nonsensical. Bingo!
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Gore doesn't seem to be taking support away from any one candidate in particular--it's pretty even.

In any case, he's not even among the most popular candidates anyway.

by Max Fletcher 2007-06-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

"As much as Jerome makes no effort to hide his love of Edwards or contempt of Obama, I clearly can't pretend to be unbiased.  I find John Edwards to be disingenuous and inexperienced.  And before the flames come, I'm as liberal as it gets (without voting for Kucinich)."

I really don't see that.  Even though this diary is a look at Edwards from an electability standpoint, Armstrong allows that polls are laborious here, but that Edwards' pursuing that track makes sense in his current situation.  

As a current Clinton supporter, I agree with that point, and don't see this diary as an Edwards love-declaration at all.    

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:33AM | 0 recs
Polls are cerainly indicators of facts

at least a snapshot of them. You may disagree with them and the interpretation but thats hardly a reason for your unjustified attack on Jerome.

He backed up his post with facts. You claim he's false but back your post up with nothing.

by okamichan13 2007-06-25 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

Edwards needs to be careful on how he uses the "electability card"....

If I'm Obama, i'll jump on him and ask him to clarify why Obama is not Electable"..Obama should say something like that "is it because i'm black that you think i'm unelectable and a white man from the south would do better".

This could backfire on his face if he doesnt watch out on how he uses it...Same thing with Hillary..

Edwards is not doing that much better then Obama on match ups against republicans...Take a look at realclearpolitics match ups..Edwards is slightly doing better then Obama when he's matched up against Giuliani and that's it...Everything is within the margin of error.

Hillary does the worst on match ups against republicans.

by JaeHood 2007-06-25 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

If Obama says its because he's black- he loses.Part of his appeal to white voters is that he doesn't make them feel uncomfortable about race. The minute he reminds them verbally rather than visually that he is black- he's done. As have othr black candidates.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

Jae-

Your comments border on the absured.  Just because you want Edwards to be a bigoted doesn't mean he things African Americans and Women are inferior.  He can use empirical evidence (polls) that show him doing better head to head with the GOP than the other DEMs. Thus he could make an argument that he is more electable.  

I am unaligned but a quick jont over to TMP election central brings me to a june 22 poll.

http://www.worklifeexpress.com/PPP/pdf/s urveys/PPP_Release_062107.pdf

Which shows Edwards beating all four Rethugs.  Clinton looses to Thompson and Guilianni.  Obama does worse, he manages to only beat Rommny and Thompson.  

There you have it my friend.  An empirical, non bigoted, argument for Edwards electability.

ZING

by Ortmann for America 2007-06-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

Well, that's one poll, not an empirical analysis by any means. In truth, all our candidates beat all of the GOP candidates, and the difference between Obama and Edwards is negligible.

Head over to the Real Clear Politics Election 2008 page to see the averages of recent head-to-head matchups. All of our candidates beat all of the GOP candidates. Edwards and Obama do better than Clinton in all the races. Edwards does slightly better against Romney and Giuliani than Obama, and Obama does slightly better against McCain.

by Max Fletcher 2007-06-25 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

McCain doesn't matter. The two favorites at this point are Romney and Thompson, and Edwards does much better against them.

For what that's worth 16 months out.

by david mizner 2007-06-25 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

You know, that particular state poll was from NORTH CAROLINA.  That happens to be Edwards' home state.  Are we going to make points with HOME STATE polls now?  How about we look at the same questions for NY and IL then?    

Taking an NC poll on electability questions makes no sense.  

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

I don't think Obama should say anything like "Is it because I'm black . . . " primarily because it suggests a kind of knee-jerk racial sensitivity that tends to rub people the wrong way. A question like that might appear to reflect Obama's own stereotypical view of white southerners--consequently, turning off those potential voters. Instead, Obama should simply ask, "In what part of the country, John, do you believe I will be unable to campaign and effectively compete?" If he responds "the south," then Edwards would be the one to suggest a stereotypical view of white southern voters.

Of course, I don't think Edwards would say the south. Rather, Edwards would probably just decline to answer to evade the question somehow. There is also the problem concerning how to publicly ask the question. In a debate? In written correspondence? Neither of those seems like a good forum for the question.

by DPW 2007-06-25 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree

>>>>Obama should say something like that "is it because i'm black that you think i'm unelectable and a white man from the south would do better".

Yes!! Obama should say that. Loud and clear - in a debate.
Go Edwards!

by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I don't think there's really any question about whether or not any of our candidates are electable, at least from the top-tier. They've all been beating the GOP front-runners in head-to-heads, and even if Edwards has the "white guy" thing going for him, I honestly think the nation is past that, and if they aren't, there will likely be a lot of new voters coming out for Obama (between young people tired of business as usual and the possibility of closing the gap between black and white participation, which hopefully we're well on our way to anyway with the election of Democratic SoS's across the country in 2006) and possibly even Hillary (a lot of women sometime voters coming to the polls, or female independents). I don't think electability is a problem as long as we don't stray into Gravel and Kucinich territory (my apologies to their supporters)

But I am glad we picked the "most electable" candidate in 2004. Think of what four more years of the Bush Administration could have meant t--

oh, shit.

by Max Fletcher 2007-06-25 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards was unable to carry his own state

Ugh.  You kinda need to campaign to win a state (especially one that trends right in national elections for years) no matter who you are.

John Edwards is not Jesus Christ... being sent to NC more than twice by the Kerry campaign (and spending some money on a staff office or some advertising) may have given Edwards a fighting chance to try and win his home state.

Kerry wrote off the South - Edwards was chosen for his candor and his economic message to take into PA, MO, FL and OH.  And MO and FL were dropped pretty early.  Kerry never fought for more than 280 or so EVs.  Thats not Edwards' fault.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 07:36AM | 0 recs
I think you need to update your GOP script

that one is tired.

KERRY CLOSED OFF NC IN JULY.  Believe me, I was here.  I worked with the campaign.  A friend of mine was the director of Kerry-Edwards in NC.  He was left sitting at his desk - no money, no attention.

All Kerry's doing.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:42AM | 0 recs
guess Edwards'

campaigning wasn't getting too much traction down there.

Excuses.

by jforshaw 2007-06-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: guess Edwards'

Edwards wasnt campaigning down there.  Expense filings how that Edwards did 2 events in NC in the summer.

Edwards was sent to OH, MO, FL, PA far more than NC.

These aren't excuses - theyre attempts to bring us all back down to reality about the 04 campaign before good Democrats start re-writing history becasue theyre trying to promote another candidate.

Edwards may be the nominee - and itll have been follish for Democrats to convince themselves that somehow it was Edwards' fault that NC didnt flip in 04.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: guess Edwards'

Interesting- and the fact the strategy of 2004 was narrowed early on to battleground states fits into your views how? I mean- let's talk about the neigboring state- Virginia- something I know about. They pulled out even where polls were suggesting it was becoming poor competitive. Indeed, one of the reasons why the 50 state strategy came into vogue was the feeling that the Democrats never compete in red and purple areas and ceded it to the GOP. But according to you- this was all special to Edwards not being able to carry NC? You do more than stretch credibility. You make shit up.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: guess Edwards'

that should read "more competitive"- and a fact by the way which was later borne out by our win with Webb

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I think you need to update your GOP script

This all may be true but from a purely political standpoint you want a VP nominee who is strong enough to carry his/her homestate without campaigning in it a lot.  You want the ticket campaigning to expand the base, not protecting what you should already have.  

by John Mills 2007-06-25 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I think you need to update your GOP script

When the Kerry Campaign wrote off Missouri Kerry went UP in the polls.  I guess that might say something about those memorable TV ads by Bob Schrum for Kerry.  Gosh, if only Kerry could have run some more of those great ads!!

by howardpark 2007-06-25 08:55AM | 0 recs
Kerry and Clinton

are both establishment choices (04 and 08).

In red states Dems like myself realize there's probably a few percent difference between Hillary at the top of the ticket.

Most dems don't realize what local candidates face when having an unpopular figure at the top of the ticket.

Larry Kissell will be a good test case.  With almost no establishment support he lost by a few hundred votes.  This time, Emanuel and the DCers are supporting him.   Last time he had almost no name recognition.  If he loses with Hillary at the top I think it will make it clear what happened.

by TarHeel 2007-06-25 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry and Clinton

"Larry Kissell will be a good test case.  With almost no establishment support he lost by a few hundred votes.  This time, Emanuel and the DCers are supporting him.   Last time he had almost no name recognition.  If he loses with Hillary at the top I think it will make it clear what happened."

So, from your choice of wording I take it that you have already written this nomination season off?  A bit early, don't you think?   :-)

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:39AM | 0 recs
coming from gop-land

The GOP is not afraid of Edwards.

Sure; he polls well, right now. Kerry kept him practically invisible, so Edwards did not help Kerry and also was not rendered damaged goods.

However, the swifties would be working three shifts with the amount of grist that's on Edwards. The attacks on Edwards have worked to pretty powerful effect among Democrats; do you think they would be less effective with an independent or Republican audience?? Republicans haven't tuned into the race, and still have fuzzy memories of Edwards as a vaguely charming, inoffensive Southern optimist.

Also, the notion that Obama "can't campaign in certain parts of the country" is almost as wrong as it is racist. The only way to put any southern states in play would be by putting black turnout on steroids. It is also shameless: "Of course, none of us is a racist or a sexist, but as far as winning racist and sexist votes goes, I'm your guy." (P.S. the vast majority of the GOP is not racist)

Edwards' pitch that he can somehow win southern states was an absurd flop in 2004, when he rolled the dice on the presidential race instead of (simultaneously, even) fighting for his Senate seat, which would have theoretically made NC more competitive anyway.

The amount of white gullibility with regards to Edwards is mind-boggling. The AA's had his number from day one.

by jforshaw 2007-06-25 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: coming from gop-land

<The only way to put any southern states in play would be by putting black turnout on steroids>

I believe this is exactly where Obama strengh in the south resides...An Obama nomination would awaken the black votes and millions of black voters that never voted before, would be excited to make sure to get the first black man to the white house

by JaeHood 2007-06-25 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: coming from gop-land

Isn't it more like, "coming from Obama land"... you really think it's a racist, or are you just willing to stoop that low to gain a political rhetorical edge.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-25 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: coming from gop-land

Actually it may be GOP-land.

His personal blog is filled with posts dening global warming and taking pot-shots at all leading Democratic issues.

I dont got a huge problem if he wants to have a discussion - but trolling about race issues is really not enlightening this debate.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: coming from gop-land

Isn't it more like, "coming from Obama land"...

Jerome, don't paint with such a broad brush.  Many Obama supporters have said when this story initially broke that it was not a racist comment.  The vast majority of us realize that Edwards was most likely not insinuating anything racist.

by Obama08 2007-06-25 08:43AM | 0 recs
that was the implication

that was generally drawn from the comment.

If Edwards wasn't referring to the [racist redneck] South when talking about Obama, what was he referring to exactly? Please clarify.

I thought you had read enough of my stuff to know that I have some GOP roots.

Yeah, I stepped over the line with the accusation a couple of weeks ago. But what else would Edwards have been implying?

by jforshaw 2007-06-25 09:47AM | 0 recs
Believe it or not

Several southern states have elected black candidates to statewide office - Florida, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, at least, not to mention Harold Ford's strong run in Tennessee.  In 2006, Georgia re-elected three - Chief Justice Leah Sears, Attorney General Thurbert Baker, and Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond - even as it turned down white Democrats elsewhere on the ticket.  

So when Edwards says that he might be able to go places that Obama and Hillary may not, perhaps he's simply referring to the same places as those three went to secure their victories, and not, you know, to the racist rednecks.

Similar (and stronger) logic applies with respect to women.

by Drew 2007-06-25 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

First of all, as a Northerner, I'm offended by the assertion that Northerners aren't welcome in the South.

Second, I've had quite enough of hearing that a region of the country that not only seceded but also now constantly shows disdain for most of the country claims to be the most patriotic.

Third, while Edwards might be electable in a general, we must keep in mind that he is neither smart enough nor real enough to be President, and I'm not going to take electability over competence and trustworthiness.  Edwards is Huey Long for a new generation, except his wife is the one running the show.

Furthermore, he's slipping dramatically in the polls, and he wonders why people in New Hampshire don't like him.  Americans are sick of being pitted against one another, and I for one am sick of being told that rich people are the enemy.  POVERTY is the enemy, and we're the big tent party.  Even considering all of that, I haven't addressed why people in New Hampshire don't like Edwards:

1. He's all pander and no substance.

  1. His breed of pandering doesn't speak to New Hampshirites.  The Granite State has the highest median income in the world and the lowest poverty rate in America, not to mention a fundamental disdain for government redistribution of wealth, so his words alienate my fellow Graniteers.
  2. People in New Hampshire pay attention.  They know, like I do, that Edwards is a hack, a two-bit former one-term Senator from North Carolina who thinks having a Southern accent and a blue-collar father qualifies him to be President.

What a prick.

If you want someone real, someone with the experience and the brains to get things done, as well as the most electable person in the field, Richardson is the clear choice.  Though, I'd take Obama, Clinton, Biden, or even Giuliani before Edwards.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I was with you 100% until you said Giuliani.  I'm no Edwards fan, but Rudy would be an awful awful president.  

Edwards is literally my last choice among the Dems (okay, Gravel, but c'mon), but I would always vote Dem over Repub.  I can't vote for a party that doesn't believe Global Warming is real.

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I don't think Giuliani would be a good President; I was exaggerating a bit.  Let us pretend I said Michael Bloomberg.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 10:51AM | 0 recs
You're an idiot

Seriously.  Completely stupid.

Edwards not bright enough?   Tell that to the insurance lawyers he routinely beat the hell out of.

Can you type without lying?

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You're an idiot

I'm not lying; I'm giving an opinion.  Personally, I have a pretty high standard for how intelligent one must be in order to hold the job of President of the United States.

If you think saying someone isn't smart enough to be POTUS means they're stupid, you have pretty low standards for your leaders.  I'm not good enough at chess to beat Gary Kasparov; that doesn't mean I don't know what a rook does.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 10:49AM | 0 recs
two posts - no blog entries

one ill-informed and badly reasoned attack on Edwards, and one joke of a post calling Bill "Roe v. Wade was in the 80's" Richardson the most qualified.

Summer break is when you're supposed to go outside.  You should go ride your bike, seventh grade starts sooner than you think.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

So many inaccurate staements in here I dont know where to begin.

Where has John Edwards ever said that "rich people are the enemy?" rather than focusing on how to eliminate poverty and increase wealth among all people?

When did Edwards advocate "wealth redistribution"?

And so speaking about poverty is "pandering"?  To whom?  The poor?

And since NH has a low poverty rate, he shouldnt speak of this issue there?  Give me a break - he'll speak of it everywhere.  He talks about poverty with his high-dollar donors.  Its his most pressing issue.  Don't like it - dont vote for him.

Sorry JRE doesnt pander to your tastes.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Unnecessary personal attacks on Edwards, that neither offer a compelling reason for us to change our opinion, or contribute something meaningful to the conversation:

we must keep in mind that he is neither smart enough nor real enough to be President

...his wife is the one running the show.

What a prick.

And furthermore...

Americans are sick of being pitted against one another, and I for one am sick of being told that rich people are the enemy.  POVERTY is the enemy, and we're the big tent party

If you would spend even five minutes listening to Edwards on poverty you would realize he is not slinging the rhetoric of FDR - rather he is preaching about lifting people out of poverty by giving them the tools and the opportunities they need. He is NOT a hardcore redistributionist and he is NOT attacking the wealthy.  (hell, I wish he was!)

Finally...

The Granite State has the highest median income in the world and the lowest poverty rate in America, not to mention a fundamental disdain for government redistribution of wealth, so his words alienate my fellow Graniteers.

That would be a great reason to boot NH out of its early primary spot - except it's not even true. NH does not have a higher median income than New Jersey, let alone Luxemburg.

by LandStander 2007-06-25 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Your first three examples of what I said are elements of my perception, and your rebuke is no more substantive than my original assertion.

How many times have you heard people whine about the wealthiest 1%?

I'm attacking a public figure with common perceptions of his character; I have no intention of attacking anyone here, but I will stand by my facts:

"NH does not have a higher median income than New Jersey, let alone Luxemburg."

Tell that to OECD and the US Census Bureau.

For international numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_i ncome_in_the_United_States#International _comparison

National:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_i ncome_in_the_United_States#Income_by_sta te

Way to do your homework, though.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Luckily, I've got a lot of free time on my hands....

Your first three examples of what I said are elements of my perception

I like how you call it "elements of my perception"? You are basically trashing a candidate - and just because you might perceive someone to be a child rapist doesn't mean you should say so out loud. It's not useful, respectful, polite, convincing, entertaining or interesting. It's just offensive.

and your rebuke is no more substantive than my original assertion.

You claim Edwards is anti-rich, I said that he is not anti-rich. What's the difference? I'm right and every election-obsessed political junkie on this site knows it. Edwards is simply not preaching an anti-wealthy, class warfare type of politics. Like I said, I wish he was, but he ain't.

And now the fun stuff (nice job linking to wikipedia - is that how you do your homework?)
You mention the US Census - you should have checked their page. Fortunately, New Jersey (my home state) and NH are right next to each other on the list. Median Household Income is ordered by family size. NJ beats out NH in all but one category. And NJ tops NH in the "Total" category by nearly $8,000.00/year.

And you mention the OECD. I checked out their page, too. Yeah, Luxembourg beats out NH by a lot. In fact, Luxembourg has the highest median GDP per capita of any nation.

by LandStander 2007-06-25 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Whether or not someone is a child rapist is not a subjective matter.  Whether or not someone comes off as anti-rich is a question of opinion.

I'm not afraid to cite something that is cited.  Unfortunately, GDP per capita (and I'm well aware of Luxembourg's wealth, thank you) is not the same thing as median household income.  GDP per capita is a country's annual gross domestic product divided by its population.  Unlike median household income, it can be skewed by the presence of extremely wealthy people and organizations.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

If in fact Edwards is all pander and no substance, and if what you're saying about NH is true (too well off to want to hear about Poverty), then wouldn't that mean, by your logic, that Edwards would be spewing some tax-cut garbage at the NH votes to appease their wallet sensibilities?  

by donati303 2007-06-25 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Haha.  You have to understand - he's upset because Edwards isnt pandering to HIM.

When a candiate refuses to make you and your issues the center of his world - s/he's a "panderer."

When he does - s/he's "authentic."

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I don't want pandering, I want something real.  I think Edwards is a panderer, and I'm pointing out that he's not even pandering to the correct audience.  Edwards promotes raising taxes and expanidng social programs as the fundamental piece of his platform.  That won't help him in New Hampshire.

Plenty of Edwards' pandering appeals to me, but I reject him because I see pandering for what it is.  He says what he thinks the public wants to hear.  He's slimy.

I respect John McCain more than Edwards.  He stands by what he believes in even when it's unpopular (I wouldn't vote for him, he's on the wrong side of too many issues, but at least he's honest and real).  He also has an air of competence Edwards lacks.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I think Edwards is a panderer, and I'm pointing out that he's not even pandering to the correct audience.  Edwards promotes raising taxes and expanidng social programs as the fundamental piece of his platform.  That won't help him in New Hampshire.

You just showed that you dont understand the word "pander."

Pandering is saying something that you think will get you votes - not what you believe.  By your definition - Edwards is the furthest thing from a panderer.

Respect McCain more - youve lost my respect.  John McCain is a stubborn old fool and he completely flip-flopped on the religious right.  Falwell was an "agent of intolerance" then he went earlier this year to kiss his ring at LibertyU.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

This is not really the setting for cheap misogyny a la "everyone knows his wife really runs the show." Call it into Rush, if need be.

by sb 2007-06-25 08:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I didn't say "everyone knows," I accept that there are multiple sides to an issue.  I'm not a misogynist.  I want a candidate who is his/her own person.  I dislike Hillary for the same reason, because her husband is her most appealing attribute and she owes him her career.  I would vote for a woman for President; I think Senator Boxer would do an excellent job, and I believe Justice Ginsburg is the most talented jurist in America.  My problem is with marionettes, and IN MY OBSERVATION, Elizabeth Edwards seems to be the brains of that operation.

by GraniteMan 2007-06-25 11:07AM | 0 recs
I share your views on Edwards

But the good news for those of us who see through his act is that he is very unlikely to be our next President.

by samueldem 2007-06-25 08:53AM | 0 recs
Wash your mouth out with soap.

by mrobinsong 2007-06-25 09:27AM | 0 recs
Oh NOOOOOOEZ!!!!!11!!!

Someone said somethin bad about teh rich ppl!  Class warfare!  Class warfare!

Suffice it to say, if you want the most Republican of the Democrats, then yeah, I suppose Richardson is your best choice.  He loves to talk about those tax cuts, that's for sure.

by Drew 2007-06-25 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Amazing how few facts are in Jerome's post, isn't it?

by dansac 2007-06-25 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

He mentions polling data. Something that none of the post against his points does. You simply say "believe me that Edwards isn't the most electable." Okay- I will believe you when you back that up with something other than discussing the primary in avoidance of his discussion of the general and can show polling that shows electability of a candidate is no longer a real factor in with Democrats AND can show that the general electorate really doesn't think Edwards is the better candidate .

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Where did I say "believe me that Edwards isn't the most electable"?  

I didn't at all.  So that was just made-up.

I said I don't buy that head-to-head polling is all that relevant now.  Look how much they have roller-coasted up and down the last few months after all.  And they will continue too.  I also asked for evidence that Edwards can compete everywhere in America better than Clinton or Obama - I haven't seen that either.

I'm a big believer in facts, which is why I didn't say what you claimed I did.

by dansac 2007-06-25 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Pollign data for the most part isn't going to be that helpful right now, which is why we should focus on issues. Neither the national primary polling data, or state data or this data are going to truly tell us who is goign to win what. They are, however, snapshots. Other people want to play with the numbers but then when they don't favor their candidate then the numbers aren't relevant. I honestly agree, but I say that for all the numbers this far out. If you agree with that then that's fine, but if you are being selective then yes these numbers also matter.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

I certainly wasn't being selective.  I don't buy any of the numbers this far out.  But again, you claimed I said something I didn't - I appreciate that you want to change the subject.    

I said, simply, I don't buy any poll numbers regarding head-to-head matchups now.  In fact, I agree that head-to-head matchups are snapshots.  

I believe polling regarding primary standings are snapshots.  But head-to-heads about hypothetical matchups (whereas primary polls are ACTUAL matchups) a year away seem ridiculous.

by dansac 2007-06-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Then I will await your disapproval of the daily drum beat by the various camps for Obama or HRC tauting this or that primary poll. If I don't see your criticism there on the sound grounds can I assume you only mean it in the context of Edwards polling well?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
Really high quality posts on here

Who needs the GOP when posters at MyDD can swiftboat Edwards left and right with inuendo, wisper campaigns, and RW talking points.

It believe its quite clear that Edwards statements on "campaigning anywhere" speak to the Kerry 04 race and the Schaller thesis which should be absolutely rejected.

We need a 50-state strategy, Edwards is endorsing it right here, right now.  He's forcing Obama and Clinton to do the same.  Come out and be clear that youre not planning some special "EV math" election where you give up on huge regions of the country.

It has nothing to do with race or gender - Clinton and Obama CAN campaign anywhere if they choose.  So stand up and tell all Democrats (and all Americans) that you will fight for every single vote - because thats what we need to unite this country.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 07:45AM | 0 recs
all the polls show

Edwards as most electable.

the same polls Hillary uses to justify her candidacy.

by TarHeel 2007-06-25 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Thank you for this post. I didn't expect you to make it solely about Edwards however. I support Edwards, but I think these things need to be understood in broader terms like going more behind the numbers. I am not an expert on this, but that would be interesting at the very least to shut down some of the critique that may or may not be legit that this is race or gender related, etc. I am not sure how that critique changes the underlying point, but it's definitely something we need to understand. DOes anyone has this kind of polling data?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I'm mostly interested in starting the discussion on this topic. As for the color and sex baiters on the thread, they have a short lifespan ahead of them here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

To add to the discussion I have included below what I could find on favorables:

Clinton

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/ 2007/01/hillary-clinton-favorableunfavor able.html
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/hillary_cl inton_favorableunfav.php

Obama and Edwards

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/22/6117 /83770

The numbers that really concern me are those for Clinton. As I have tried to mention- the other candidates at least have a shot, but HRC's is based on polling from 1993 until the present. Anyone claiming things will change between now and the general has to discount 14 years of history.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

To say that race and sex are not relevant to this "electability" discussion is irresponisble. I don't think Edwards was being racist or sexist when he said this, but he needs to be careful when he says his opponents "can't go everywhere" and his opponents are the highest-profile woman and black candidates we've ever had. We'd like to think we're at a place where we don't have to think about race and sex - but we're not. Everything said about Obama or Clinton has these connotations, especially, sadly, when they come from Edwards, who is the white Southern candidate in this race. To say otherwise is willingly ignorant of our reality.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-06-25 10:26AM | 0 recs
by Ortmann for America 2007-06-25 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Wow that's quite an interesting poll. thank you.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

It is from NC.   We have seen Clinton blow Obama and Edwards away when it comes to "head-to-heads" against GOPers in NY polls.    

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:49AM | 0 recs
Hillary will not run a 50 state campaign

her husband never did.  She won't.  You want to see an active and vibrant Democratic Party in the South and West?  Don't nominate Hillary.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Let's not forget the fact that Edwards was unable to win his own state in 2004.

by BigBoyBlue 2007-06-25 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Was Edwards the Presidential nominee in 2004? I didn't know that.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

No, but VP candidates are usually picked in the hopes that they can "deliver" their states.   I would imagine that any of our candidates who look at VP candidates will do so partly with geographical motives, i.e. a Richardson selection would aim in part at having him "deliver" New Mexico to the Democrats.

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Check out the comment thread towards the top reminding all rational people how completely hollow this argument is to claim that Edwards is not electable.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Provide the same polling data referenced in this 'ridiculous' post and then we will listen. Otherwise - sour grapes don't count.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

Rasmussen for one.  Go look at them.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-25 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: CNN

no thanks- you make the claim- you prove it.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
The electability question: Look at Richardson

With Richardson at the top of the ticket, Democrats can take AZ, CO, NV and NM.  All the states Kerry carried in 2004 stay Democratic.  Dems have a great chance of taking Florida and even Texas comes into play.  Dems win in a landslide with Richardson on the ballot.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-06-25 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: The electability question: Look at Richardson

OK, I'll look at him.  

Um.... nope.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I've followed Edwards' primary run in 04 & there was considerable data that he would have done the best among the various Democratic contenders. The recent data seems to parallel the past pattern.

Why is this the case? TWO REASONS: 1) His economic populism resonates with a lot of people not doing well in middle America. Many of these people vote Republican because of cultural issues & Edwards turns them around with his strong economic message. As a southerner, he seems reassuring culturally to the hinderland in a way that someone from the East or West coasts do not.

by carter1 2007-06-25 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You win by winning, not by 'electability'

Dude, you made youre point like 4 times in this thread - we get it.

And being a VP and the results on the 04 primary cannot be used as evidence of Edwards fortunes as the nominee in 2008.  Thats apples to oranges.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Jerome, where are you getting 48,000 for Q2 ...$6.75M raised to date from ?

by desmoulins 2007-06-25 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Their frontpage of the website.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-25 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: why don't you update the lastes newsweek poll?

it seems depending on the candidate- and if they are being targeted as weak or strong in an area- we are being told that the front pagers here are favoring a candidate. last week, i made the point that what we need is a complete picture- jerome is doing it in pieces, but he is giving a picture. he gave one for which ever your candidate is at some point- and imagine some other person will claim he is pro obama or hrc

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

An LA times poll showed Obama the most electable by a size-able margin. I have even seen Clinton with electable leads in some polls, the data is all over the map. Even that North Carolina poll, basically showed Edwards within the same statisical universe as the other candidates. I think Edwards and Obama are equally electable, with Hillary being just slightly less so.

by Democraticavenger 2007-06-25 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

what are the average polling data showing- I haven't seen an average being all over the map at all. It seems you are cherrypicking.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:49AM | 0 recs
Hail Mary pass by Edwards's crashiing Campaign

If anyone here believes that Edwards is more electable than Obama, you must be listening or reading too much meaning to Jerome's wishful thinking and disdain for Obama too long.

We all read the polls. Edwards was in the single digits on most polls last week. Some polls did not even poll him against the top tier GOP.

Only God's knows what motivates Jerome to come up with shit like this. You can promote your candidates but don't take your readers for fools.

Edwards's campaign is in its last throes but if you want to waste your money on him, make my day.

by mdiogu 2007-06-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Mary pass by Edwards's crashiing Campaign

"Last throes"?

I'd stick with that assesment - it seems to work well for others that like to live in bubbles.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hail Mary pass by Edwards's crashiing Campaign

Well, the Iraqi insurgency has been in its last throes for years now, and they're only growing, so it seems like a good position to be in.

by dbeard115 2007-06-25 10:07AM | 0 recs
What are we really saying?

This explains why Edwards is so mystifyingly popular - he's a white dude from the South, thus he's seen as more "electable".  So I guess we should limit our nominations to those deemed "electable" - who happen to be white guys from the South.  Wow, that was easy!  (They almost got into the club this time.)

I'm not sure about Hillary, but I didn't realize electability was an issue against Obama.  Jeeze, I wonder what makes him not electable?  Is there something specific here that is left unmentioned? Is there a bigger elephant in the room that we can dance around?

Also, did Edwards really say we need a candidate who "can go anywhere in America."?  What the hell does that mean?  What, Obama and Hillary are going to be chased out of rural America?  So, we're going to strategize based on the 1928 election?

Electability can devolve into a racist and sexist code word in this instance if the Edwards campaign would be foolish to use it as such.  I'll have none of it.

by Nasara 2007-06-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: What are we really saying?

Read Jerome's update.  He is the candidate that will runa 50 state campaign.  Hillary won't - her team never has, never will.  Obama has openly questioned the wisdom of such a strategy.

Maybe he's right, but there's no doubt that Edwards pulls in more Republican and Independent voters than either Clinton or Obama.  

Your accusations of racism are beneath contempt.

by DrFrankLives 2007-06-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
But I've got a crystal ball!

Eh... this diary is engaging in mystucal thinking if anyone believes it's possible to know at this point, well before the GE has even begun, who's the "most electable."

And  think Edwards, at least, is too smart to try such an occult argument. Remember, that's how we wound up with John Kerry lastr time--he was supposed to be the most electable.

He wasn't.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-25 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

give some historical evidence for your assertion

by bruh21 2007-06-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

You've got it the wrong way around. Give some historical evidence that head to head matchup polls, a year and a half out, before the GE has even begun, hold any accuracy whatsoever. Even polls taken within the week of the voting are often wrong, and when it's this far out you might just as well check the candidates astrological charts or read the bumps on their heads.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-25 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Okay. I get you disagree with the polling, but you are the one making the claim that we shouldn't look at this snapshot. Prove it or say that you can't prove it. By the way, of the three candidates Clinton is the one that most concerns me- and here in my links is why:

Clinton

http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/ 2007/01/hillary-clinton-favorableunfavor able.html
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/hillary_cl inton_favorableunfav.php

Obama and Edwards

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/22/6117 /83770

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

The claim being made is that national Head to head polls at this point are accurate enough to declare John Edwards the "most electable." I can't prove a negative, but I can point out that the whole basis of this diary is without basis. What were the head to heads saying at this point in 92 Clinton vs. Bush? Yet Clinton won.

Trying to read too much into head to head polls at this point is like declaring one basketball team the winner because they did better in the shoot around before the game had even begun.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-25 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

I provide favorables which are less likely to change for someone like HRC as an indcator of what maybe behind the polling data for the GE. HRC's numbers are 14 years in the making. A few months aren't going to matter. ALthough apparently her supporters seem to think it will. I believe these numbers also give us some insight into Obama and Edwards. Again, as I said above if you are claiming it doesn't matter to another person then none ofthe polling matters.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

I agree that HRC's unfavorables are likely to remain more solid than those of the other candidates, but it's still a loooonng way away.

And Edwards doesn't exactly have a sterling record when it comes to actually winning campaigns. He's only ever won one campaign in his life. He's one for three, which is not a strong indicator that he would make the best GE candidate. Hillary is two for two, and Obama is three for four.

Not that you can make alot of hay out of those facts either, but it seems to me that if we're going to try to figure out who's the most electable it would make more sense to look at past performance than these very preliminary polls.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-25 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

How many races in your mind has Edwards run? I count only the Senate since that was the only one where he was at the top of the ticket in voters minds. THis isn't theory- it's well known polling data that shows people don't vote the VP - they vote the Prez. All the VP can do is not hurt. Give you example- more people disliked Chenney 2004 than disliked Edwards, but it was the match up against Kerry versus Bush that decided their vote. You can also look that up as this is from memory.

As I say else where when people post things like what you just wrote it streches your credibility to the breaking point.

And HRC's problem is that this polling has been consistent for 14 years, and she has name recognition in the 90s. What miracle do you forsee happening between now and Nov 2008 that will change this dynamic? The two numbers I mention- name ID and favorables together says she doesn't have room for growth. That's why I bring them up. It's more than a snapshot if its consistent over a period of time such as these are.

She is also not the politician her husband is.  She is also probably not facing a race with a strong indepedent that he needes despite his talent to win in 1992.

Her supporters seem to be saying- rely on us- why? why should we do that- show me with actual numbers she has a shot then lets talk.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Fair enough on not counting the 2004 race against Edwards. That was Kerry, you're right.

And I really don't disagree with you regarding Hillary Clinton. She has won two out of two elections, but I think she did that mostly by riding her husbands coat-tails. It remains to be seen how strong she really is as a candidate. And she does have an uphill battle to overcome pre-existing negative perceptions which neither Edwards nor Obama have to deal so much with.

by Mystylplx 2007-06-25 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Dont get me wrong- they will both face negatives- it's just not as entrenched as HRC's and what bothers me is no one is coming up with a way to blunt this if she becomes the nominee.

As I mentioned else where- even if she gets a win what does this means for our solidifying ourselves in Congress?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!
Hillary is already attempting to "increase" her favorability rating by push polling against Edwards. Get it?
Most likely she'll do the same against Obama.  Change the public's perception of them - cause she sure can't improve her image.
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

that may help with a sympathetic dem crowd- how will it help with the general?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

I'd bet heavy money the head to head match-ups this far out have been pretty wrong.  To give you an idea of how bad a predictor this stuff is 18 months from an election, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had approval rating around 47%. Those are not numbers that predicted large re-election victories and yet that is what happened with both of them.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

If you are right provide the link to the polling- thanks

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

See the links from the Roper Ctr below.  You can see both were avg about 47% at this time b/f their re-elections.

Reagan - http://137.99.36.203/CFIDE/roper/preside ntial/webroot/presidential_rating_detail .cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Reag an

Clinton - http://137.99.36.203/CFIDE/roper/preside ntial/webroot/presidential_rating_detail .cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Clin ton

by John Mills 2007-06-25 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Both attypical elections. Octomber Suprise for Reagan and Clinton competing against a strong independent and GOP candidate- what does the overall picture show?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Huh???  You are confusing 1980 and 1992 with 1984 and 1996 when both Reagan and Clinton were incumbents.  There was no October Surprise in 1984 when Reagan won big and Perot was a non-factor in 1996 when Clinton beat Dole by almost 10 pts.  

by John Mills 2007-06-25 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Sorry-but my second point about the power of the politician's ability is remains applicable even with my mistake - and in the case of your examples especially. Especially with 1996 and 1984 with Dole (who a GOP friend referred to as the MC from tales from the grave at the time) and 1984 with Mondale. Do you think HRC has their abilities?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

I am not sure about HRC but I know enough not to count her out.  She has this way of winning enough people to her side to win solidly.

My point with the Reagan-Clinton data is polling data 18 months out shows nothing but what people are thinking at that moment and Edwards is playing a dangerous game claiming he is the most electible in Nov 2008 based on it.  He may be for all I know but we know for sure until the fall 2008 when we are in the throws of the GE.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

so you are saying despite her 14 year unfavorables, and because as you say below she won in a blue state agaisnt a weak GOP candidate, we should trust in her? Why? Based on a hope and a prayer? Policies? What are we to base this on?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

implicit in all of this is that she has the ability to overcome her negativities- based onw what I am asking will this occur?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

the question raised by this diary by the way is against all GOP competitors- not merely the ones that hrc beats. which of the three has the ability against all, i am now including in that personality of the candidates and their natural ablity as politicians. even on that front i believe obama and edwards have the better shot

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Also- both noted as the best politicians of their respective parties in a generation- do we have someone on the field like that now?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Yes, we do.  

by georgep 2007-06-25 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

george- i am going to give enough respect to respond. you are delusional, and i am not going to waste time arguing with you.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Hey, opinions vary. Clinton is certainly the most popular candidate with DEMOCRATS, which means that some people out there disagree with you.

by georgep 2007-06-25 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

The point I am trying to make is that polls 18 months out aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  They show what people are thinking today and are in no way a predictor of the election 18 months later.  Any candidate using it as such needs to beware they are standing on quick sand as the Reagan-Clinton approval numbers show.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

and the point i am trying to make is that we can predict that a candidate with hrc's unfavorables along with other polling data a long with historical analogies can give us a clue about who has a better shot- not who will definitely win.

you are making the relatively unremarkable statement that we can't predict the future. thats true but we can look behind the numbers to test present assumption, and understand for example that if hrc's numbers are bad with her favorable and she's nto the politician of her husband's ability- etc - then we can start to have a snap shot. no one is saying its certain, it does however give us something of an understanding of dynamics.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Really?  And that is why HRC was basically tied with Rick Lazio a week b/f the election in 2000 and went on to win a solid 55-45 or that she had favorable ratings in the mid-30s shortly after taking office and then went on to get 69% in 2006.  The one thing I have learned about the Clintons - never, ever underestimate them.

I understand there is a solid 40% of the country that will never, ever vote for either Clinton.  I am not supporting anyone in the primaries at this point but I really get offended by this idea she can't win.  It is like annointing sports teams champions in the off season.  There is a reason we have elections rather than choosing by opinion polls.  We'll see what happens but count me as one who doesn't buy into the Hillary can't win theory.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

are you seriously comparing NY state to the rest of the states she has to win? And are you seriously comparing a very weak GOP candidate who made a lot of misteps in the general in a blue state to what she will have to do in say Ohio? Basically, you are saying to us depend on the GOP to fuck up in order for us to win in the states that are actually in contention. Your argument streched credibility. And its a solid 45 to 50 percent, by the way dependon the polls and those polsl go back 14 years now. You don't have to like what they say, but to pretend this is a momentary blip or do use NY state- a state that has been mostly blue for a very long time to compare her chances in a place like OH and FL (the actual topic of the conversation even if you didn't explicitly mention it) is a false comparator from the start.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

You have to ask this question - is there a state that Kerry and Gore carried that any Dem won't?  I think the answer is no.  Are there states in play today that weren't 4 yrs ago?  Ohio for one plus a lot of the Rocky Mountain West, Arizona and New Mexico are all in play.  Does Hillary win a landslide?  Probably not but I can put together lots of scenarios where she wins solidly.  Remember, any Repub is going to have the lead weight of Bush around their ankles and I think that is enough to sink any of them.

One other thought - I think Edwards is going to have a lot of answering to do about his transformation from a moderate Dem to a populist as the Dem nominee.  He is going to get hit as a flipflopper and hard by the Rs.  Look what they did to Kerry and most of his position changes were far more nuanced than Edwards transformation.  

Having said that, I think all 3 can win.  In fact, unless something changes, I am convinced the Dems can run anyone but Dennis Kucinich and win.  People are that hungry for change.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

Add Mike Gravel to the list of unelectable Dems.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

I think Obama and Edwards have the better shot of winning due to the fact it's one thing to fight a short term meme- and quite another to change 14 years of entrenched belief. It's just the reality of human psychology that I think many of you are glossing over. Long term thinking is harder to get rid of than short term thinking.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

And as for the states- by your logic we can't win. By minds we can win some of the states- but it will take not having a rock around our necks going into the general. between 2004 and 2008- 2006 happened which proves it doable if you do it right.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!

You make a very good point.  Head-to-head polls this far out from the general election are very flimsy and much less meaningful than state primary polls.   The primaries are coming upon us rapidly (perhaps as early as mid-December.)  They are also important for organization building in states, getting early support from representatives, operatives, and are an important measure for fundraising.  Head-to-head polls are more or less anecdotal.

 I like how all our candidates beat all GOP comers, but beyond that, not much can be said about actual electability.   I see how badly Edwards does in state polls across the South to both Clinton and Obama, a region he should actually be dominating right now, which tells me that he has a ton of work to do even in his "natural" region.  

by georgep 2007-06-25 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: But I've got a crystal ball!
You're using Reagan and Clinton stats??
Good grief! the Neocons have peformed a de facto coup!  The country is ready for change - and see the stalemated Congress following the money - not The People's interests.
Edwards is a threat to the DC insiders!
It's doubtful Hillary and Obama would get on the impeach bandwagon either - especially since Hillary wouldn't even upset her loyal Republican friends by answering a question about pardoning Libby.
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:18AM | 0 recs
The Electability Smokescreen

Electability. Dewey beats Truman. 'nuff said.

by Trey Rentz 2007-06-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Electability Smokescreen

Dewey beats Truman?

Thomas Dewey was an afluent NYC Republican very much tied to Esatblishment/business interests that happened to be leading in the polls and the early results on election day.

The Chicago Tribune took a guess that Dewey would pull it out and got it wrong.

What does that have to do with electability?  Truman was the sitting President.

"Electibility" is usually a meme for the challenegr or the party out on its luck.  Democrats have not won the WH thin the past 3 (we all know its 2) national elections - therefore the discussion is of electibility for Democrats - to overcome previous shortfalls.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 08:53AM | 0 recs
This is a bullshit argument.

Electability is a code word for appealing to the racist bigots.  If JRE chooses to play the race/gender card (and yes white people can do it too) then I will have lost all respect for this guy.

I already heard him discussing this on Thom Hartmann and I really think this is an offending last ditch effort strategy to promote his candidacy.

by lovingj 2007-06-25 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: This is a bullshit argument.

Electability is a code word for appealing to the racist bigots.

This is nothing more than the opinion of a very nasty, sad little man that has lost perspective on American politics.

Thats sick man.  Small politics, IMO.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-06-25 09:21AM | 0 recs
Jerome, A Question For You

Primary polling data, though certainly no predictor, is at least viable as a snapshot in time.  Why?  Because they are real match-ups in a real line-up of primary candidates.

But hypothetical general election head-to-head match-ups while the primary campaign is just under way cannot be seen as a snapshot of anything, IMO.  And the fluctuation of these match-up polls over the past few months certainly bears that out.  Considering that Democratic voters are most focused on their primary campaign, and Republican voters on theirs, and independents, well...who knows...are these polls really valid?  

So my question is this: do you believe that this polling data is a true reflection of how the American people will vote in November 2008?  Do you have historical data to show past head-to-head match-up polls taken 17 months in advance of a general election and during a primary season that was an accurate predictor of a result?

If this can be proven to be a historically reliable snapshot of what an actual general election result would be, I will acknowledge that Edwards is indeed the strongest candidate to go against the Republicans.

by dansac 2007-06-25 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, A Question For You

Bush vs Gore in '99, it wasn't until late in the election that Gore had a shot. But I'm not sure there's been that study, seems interesting if so.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-25 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

It's very odd to bring up the money aspect as showing Edwards superior electability.  He raised a little more than half what Obama raised in Q1 and Obama did it with 22% under $200 to Edwards' 14%.  And now the estimates are Obama will exceed Edwards by 4 to 5 times as much and this is somehow proof Edwards is more electable.

by Doug Dilg 2007-06-25 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question
O'Liely's going soft on Hillary because of all the Fox News fundraisers - but has he even mentioned Obama?
Fox News doesn't miss a day smearing Edwards.
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Interesting post.  Some thoughts.

1 - Polls, even with cross tabs, mean very little at this point so a poll showing Edwards the strongest in the general election should be taken with a grain of salt.  Example - I'll bet my last dollar Rudy Giuliani is not the R nominee even though he is ahead right now.

2 - Electability is a bad issue to run on b/c it makes you seem vapid.  It tends to be an issue people fall back on when nothing else is working.

3 - Edwards is not very battle tested.  He did beat Lauch Faircloth, one of the dimest bulbs to inhabit a Senate seat, which was nice but I'd really have liked to have seen him to get re-elected to it b/f running for Pres.  I was also seriously unimpressed with his performance against Dick Cheney 4 yrs ago.  I wonder how tough a candidate he will be in a general election based on that performance.  

Say what you will about Hillary, she will be tough as nails against the Rs and give as good as she gets.  Will Edwards or Obama do the same?  I haven't seen it yet from either of them.

I have been searching for a candidate since Mark Warner dropped out and I haven't found one.  I like different pieces of each but none of them set me on fire.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question
Could be you're equating "toughness" with the Neocons and "24."
Interesting that Obama and Hillary supporters consider smackdowns of opponents as toughness - but not targeting the huge conglomerates that sponsor corporate media.
   
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I made it clear I am not supporting anyone at this point so please don't associate me with a candidate.

When I talk toughness, I am talking political strength/ability to strike back, not "24" or neocon idiocy.  Two very different things.  I watched Edwards be all polite with Dick Cheney during the debate while he was being chewed up and spit out 4 yrs ago and I wonder whether or not he has the politcal skills/strength to go through a grueling GE campaign where he will be subject to that treatment in spades.  It is a legitimate concern - campaigns are not just about issues as much as we would like them to be.

I am not supporting HRC but she has been through the fire and then some, something NONE of the rest of them have.  

by John Mills 2007-06-25 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

If campaigns were about issues alone, we would have had President Dukakis and President Kerry but alas it didn't happen b/c the Repub smear machine destroyed them.  One of the reasons I don't yet have a candidate is I haven't found a candidate that appeals to me that I think can to stand up to that.  

by John Mills 2007-06-25 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

He did a crappy job with the debate in 2004. That's very true. I don't sense this is the same guy first of all. And in 2004 he was constrained by kerry. Now- we will see what he is made of in the coming months.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I haven't ruled him out but the two concerns I have are his 2004 debate performance and his pretty drastic position changes even though I agree with most of them.  I want to see him perform in the primary campaign and I also want to get a sense his position switches are genuine.  I am doing the same with Obama, Richardson, etc and sometime b/f Feb 5 I will make a choice.  

You are very reasonable bruh21 and I enjoyed our discussion above even if we don't agree.  However, I must admit today is not the first day I have been attacked by Edwards supporters for not being on the team and it is not making me warm to him.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

No one should use online supporters as a basis for anything. If that were the case, I wouldn't have come around to thinking more seriously about Obama over the last couple of months. HRC is going to require a lot more work, but that's another story.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

You are right and in the end it won't influence my choice but I must admit I don't like being called a neocon twice when I am about as far from one as you can get.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

By the way my perfect candidate for me would be an amalgame of HRC's toughness (she is our iron lady), Obama's natural talents and Edwards positions on the issues. But we don't get perfection so I am left to choose among them.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

That would be it but unfortunately you don't get to design the candidate although Eliot Spitzer was as close to a designed candidate as I could have wanted last year.  But that happens very rarely.

by John Mills 2007-06-25 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

You're spinning like a tornado. He's posting horrible numbers.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

So when Obama mentioned the number of people who gave to him versus HRC- it was spinning then too?

by bruh21 2007-06-25 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

At least he had a lot more money to boast about. There is no upside to Edwards' numbers.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

actually what people were in part boasting a bout was the number of people donating not just the admit versus hrc's amount.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

If a hundred people donate a penny. It does not amount to much.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

if some bloggers make shit up- it amounts to even less.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

True - Edwards isn't bundling employee contributions from huge corporations like Obama and Hillary. For Progressives, those huge contributions diminish their rhetoric that supports a "change" in DC.

by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

Most of Obama's contributions are small donations.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

you talk out of both sides of your mouth. with me- the number of contributions doesn't matter. with this poster they do. I was just compliment today by someone on this very thread because of my reasonableness. It's posters like yourself who create the perception of rabidness on blogs

by bruh21 2007-06-25 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

I was dispelling the myth that Obama's money is coming from corporate bundling. I'm also dispelling the with that somehow raising less than half of either of the top two candidates means he has momentum. Obama is raising money from generally the same class of donor as Edwards, but apparently they are giving more frequently. There is just no positive sping to Edwards' position or he would not have sent out a desperate email like he did last week.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Fundraising

you are talking out of both sides of your mouth is wha tyou are doing in order to justify your unreasonable dislike of a candidate. I like both Edwards and Obama. I even like HRC but for the fact i don't think she's electable and her strategy is triangulation. What I will not ignore anymore are posters such as yourself who waste a lot of time bullshitting your way through arguments. Consistency isn't always necessary but if you are going to flip in the exact same thread- at least have the balls to admit you dont really give a shit about the conversation because you want your candidate to win.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 03:46PM | 0 recs
Obvious

Note: only went back to December out of fairness to Senator Obama.  John Edwards has consistently outperformed other Democrats.  Though polls sometimes show Senator Clinton or Senator Obama doing best, if you look at the totality of polling it becomes crystal clear that the most electable Democrat is John Edwards.

Rasmussen - June 23, 2007

Candidate/Def. FOR / Def. AGAINST/ Net

Rasmussen - June 22, 2007

Candidate / Def. FOR / Def. AGAINST / Net

John Edwards  28% / 32% / -  4
Fred Thompson  23% / 31% / -  8
Rudy Giuliani  26% / 37% / - 11
Barack Obama  28% / 40% / - 12
Hillary Clinton  29% / 46% / - 17
Bill Richardson  12% / 35% / - 23
John McCain  16% / 42% / - 26
Mitt Romney  13% / 42% / - 29
Mike Huckabee  10% / 42% / - 32
Joe Biden  6% / 47% / - 41

Favorable/Unfavorable

John Edwards 54 / 38
Rudy Giuliani 53 / 40
Fred Thompson 46 / 33
Barack Obama 50 / 44
John McCain 49 / 45
Bill Richardson 33 / 39
Hillary Clinton 49 / 48
Mitt Romney 36 / 42

Public Policy Polling - June 21, 2007
Likely North Carolina Voters

Giuliani - 46%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 46%
Obama - 42%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 46%

McCain - 42%
Clinton - 46%

McCain - 45%
Obama - 44%

McCain - 40%
Edwards - 48%

Romney - 41%
Clinton - 47%

Romney - 43%
Obama - 47%

Romney - 37%
Edwards - 51%

Thompson - 46%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 45%
Obama - 44%

Thompson - 43%
Edwards - 47%

Rasmussen - June 21, 2007 Update

Favorable / Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 49% / 49%
Barack Obama - 50% / 44%
John Edwards - 54% / 38%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 38%

Edwards - 49%
McCain - 36%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 51%
Romney - 33%

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 43%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 51%
Thompson - 38%

Gallup Poll - June 20th, 2007

Clinton - 50%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards -50%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 49%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 48%
McCain - 46%

Edwards - 50%
McCain - 44%

Clinton - 53%
Romney - 40%

Obama - 57%
Romney - 36%

Edwards - 61%
Romney - 32%

Rasmussen - June 15Th Update

Favorable Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 47% / 51%
Barack Obama - 50% / 44%
John Edwards - 52% / 38%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 42%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 41%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 44%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 51%
Thompson - 38%

Rasmussen - June 10th Update

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 47%

Edwards -47%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 42%

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 41%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 44%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 36%

Rasmussen - June 1st, 2007

Favorable/Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton: 47% - 51%
Barack Obama: 58% - 36%
John Edwards: 55% - 33%

McCain - 44%
Clinton - 48%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 46%

McCain - 41%
Edwards - 48%

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 44%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 47%

Romney - 44%
Clinton - 47%

Romney - 37%
Obama - 49%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 55%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 47%

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 49%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 53%

Diego - Hotline - May 20th, 2007

McCain - 43%
Clinton - 45%
Unsure - 12%

McCain - 39%
Obama - 42%
Unsure - 19%

McCain - 39%
Edwards - 44%
Unsure - 16%

Newsweek - May 3rd, 2007

McCain - 44%
Clinton - 50%

McCain - 39%
Obama - 52%

McCain - 42%
Edwards - 52%

Giuliani - 46%
Clinton - 49%

Giuliani - 43%
Obama - 50%

Giuliani - 44%
Edwards - 50%

Romney - 35%
Clinton - 57%

Romney - 29%
Obama - 58%

Romney - 27%
Edwards - 64%

Survey USA - May 2nd, 2007

Massachusetts

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 48%

Thompson - 31%
Clinton - 60%

Thompson - 25%
Edwards - 61%

New York

Thompson - 38%
Obama - 50%

Thompson - 30%
Clinton - 64%

Thompson - 29%
Edwards - 59%

California

Thompson - 36%
Obama - 53%

Thompson - 36%
Clinton - 57%

Thompson - 31%
Edwards - 54%

Washington

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 53%

Thompson - 37%
Clinton - 54%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 57%

Oregon

Thompson - 36%
Obama - 50%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 48%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 49%

Wisconsin

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 45%

Thompson - 43%
Clinton - 46%

Thompson - 37%
Edwards - 50%

Minnesota

Thompson - 40%
Obama - 48%

Thompson -37%
Clinton - 53%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 56%

New Mexico

Thompson - 40%
Obama - 47%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 51%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 52%

Iowa

Thompson - 41%
Obama - 51%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 46%

Thompson - 35%
Edwards - 58%

Missouri

Thompson - 41%
Obama - 47%

Thompson - 41%
Clinton - 49%

Thompson - 32%
Edwards - 53%

Ohio

Thompson - 43%
Obama - 43%

Thompson - 38%
Clinton - 53 %

Thompson - 33%
Edwards - 57%

Virginia

Thompson - 46%
Obama - 40%

Thompson - 47%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 38%
Edwards - 48%

Kentucky

Thompson - 48%
Obama - 42%

Thompson - 40%
Clinton - 53%

Thompson - 34%
Edwards - 56%

Texas

Thompson - 46%
Obama - 42%

Thompson - 43%
Clinton - 49%

Thompson - 38%
Edwards - 49%

Kansas

Thompson - 42%
Obama - 46%

Thompson - 49%
Clinton - 42%

Thompson - 37%
Edwards - 50%

Alabama

Thompson - 53%
Obama - 37%

Thompson - 49%
Clinton - 44%

Thompson - 44%
Edwards - 42%

Survey USA - May 2nd. 2007

Ohio

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 48%

Giuliani - 51%
Obama - 40%

Giuliani - 42%
Edwards - 50%

Iowa

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 44%
Obama - 49%

Giuliani - 40%
Edwards - 54%

Missouri

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 50%
Obama - 42%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 48%

Wisconsin

Giuliani - 45%
Clinton - 44%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 39%
Edwards - 49%

Minnesota

Giuliani - 45
Clinton - 48%

Giuliani - 49%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 41%
Edwards - 49%

Virginia

Giuliani - 49%
Clinton - 44%

Giuliani - 53%
Obama - 38%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 45%

Kentucky

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 46%

Giuliani - 54%
Obama - 38%

Giuliani - 44%
Edwards - 47%

WNBC/Marist - May 1st, 2007

McCain - 42%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 11%

McCain - 46%
Obama - 39%
Unsure - 15%

McCain - 39%
Edwards - 49%
Unsure - 12%

Giuliani - 43%
Clinton - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 43%
Obama - 41%
Unsure - 16%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 49%
Unsure - 8%

Diego - Hotline - April 30th, 2007

McCain - 45%
Clinton - 45%
Unsure - 11%

McCain - 37%
Obama - 48%
Unsure - 15%

McCain - 37%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 14%

Rasmussen - April 9th, 2007

Note: This poll made Edwards the first Democrat to beat every Republican in Rasmussen polling

Favorable/Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 48% / 50%
Barack Obama - 59% /34%
John Edwards - 57% / 35%

McCain - 46%
Clinton - 47%

McCain - 42%
Obama - 48

McCain - 38%
Edwards - 47%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 47%

Giuliani - 44%
Obama - 43%

Giuliani - 43%
Edwards - 49%

Romney - 41%
Clinton - 50%

Romney - 37%
Obama - 52%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 55%

Thompson - 44%
Clinton - 43%

Thompson - 37%
Obama - 49%

Thompson - 36%
Edwards - 50%

Newsweek - March 1st, 2007

McCain - 46%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 7%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 45%
Unsure - 12%

McCain - 43%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 47%
Clinton - 46%
Unsure - 7%

Giuliani - 48%
Obama - 43%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 47%
Edwards - 45%
Unsure - 8%

Romney - 38%
Clinton - 53%
Unsure - 9%

Romney - 34%
Obama - 54%
Unsure - 12%

Romney - 30%
Edwards - 58%
Unsure - 12%

Newsweek - January 18th, 2007

McCain - 47%
Clinton - 48%
Unsure - 5%

McCain - 44%
Obama - 46%
Unsure - 10%

McCain - 43%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 9%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 47%
Unsure - 5%

Giuliani - 45%
Obama - 47%
Unsure - 8%

Giuliani - 45%
Edwards - 48%
Unsure - 7%

Investor's Business Daily - January 4th, 2007

McCain - 48%
Clinton - 41%
Undecided - 12%

McCain - 48%
Obama - 36%
Undecided -16%

McCain - 44%
Edwards - 43%
Undecided - 12%

Giuliani - 48%
Clinton - 43%
Undecided - 9%

Giuliani - 49%
Obama - 36%
Undecided - 15%

Giuliani - 47%
Edwards - 42%
Undecided - 11%

Romney - 35%
Clinton - 48%
Undecided - 17%

Romney - 31%
Obama - 43%
Undecided - 26%

Romney - 29%
Edwards - 53%
Undecided - 18%

Gallup - December 20, 2006

Favorable - Unfavorable - No Opinion

John Edwards: 54% - 21% - 25%
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 53% - 42% - 5%
Al Gore: 48% - 45% - 8%
John Kerry: 43% - 45% - 11%
Barack Obama: 42% - 11% - 47%

Note: As for crossover appeal, Hillary Clinton is clearly the most polarizing candidate . 86% of Democrats view her favorably, compared with just 13% of Republicans.

Favorable Ratings by Party. Candidates listed in order of performance
Democrats - Independents - Republicans

Giuliani: 70 - 72 - 92
Rice: 43 - 53 - 86
Edwards: 72 - 51 - 36
McCain: 51 - 51 - 63
Clinton: 86 - 48 - 13
Gore: 69 - 47 - 19
Kerry: 67 - 40 - 16
Obama: 58 - 39 - 28
Gingrich: 27 - 30 - 59
Romney: 14 - 19 - 23
Brownback: 8 - 11 - 10

NBC News / Wall Street Journal - December 11th, 2006

McCain - 47%
Clinton - 43%
Undecided - 10%

McCain - 47%
Obama - 38%
Undecided - 19%

McCain - 41%
Edwards - 43%
Undecided - 16%

by EdwardsSupporterCentral 2007-06-25 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Obvious

Also,Edwards_is_included_in_far_fewer_ge neral_
election_polls_than_Obama_and_Clinton.If he_was
included_in_all_of_then_there_would_be_e ven_more_
examples.

This_also_means_that_when_his_averages_a re_hurt_
more_when_Quinipiac_,whose_polls_always _show_Edwards_doing_far_worse_than_every _other_polling_firm_no_matter_what_kind of_poll_they_do,shows
Edwards_not_doing_well.

As_you_can_see_my_space_bar_is_all_f'd_u p_so_no_
arguements_today...the_numbers_speak_for
themselves

Clinton_and_Obama_have_their_moments... more_Obama_than_Clinton_...But_when_you_ look_at_the_totality_of_polls_it_is_clea r_that_Edwards_is_the_most_
electable

by EdwardsSupporterCentral 2007-06-25 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obvious
Dang!  no wonder Hillary and Obama supporters attack Edwards!
He's the most electable Dem.
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

did someone delete my diary

by Democraticavenger 2007-06-25 09:58AM | 0 recs
How much of this can be explained

by low info voters thinking that Edwards is still a Southern moderate?

Quite a lot, I'd say.

by Populism2008 2007-06-25 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: How much of this can be explained

I am a Southern Moderate. I have moved to the left with John Edwards. I am not alone. Edwards is very believable. When he explains his policies and shows us how they will work for everybody and how he will pay for them, he shifts people a bit farther left. I endorse all of John's policies, and I do so because I trust John Edwards.

I believe he is the candidate to win in the south. Not because he is a white male, but because he has a way of speaking straight to people that is believable. He connects with the southern voter.

by bettync 2007-06-25 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: How much of this can be explained
Exactly!  Comparing the 3 top candidates' speeches: They all speak about the many problems facing our nation. But Edwards has a clear vision how to solve them - and offers detailed and comprehensive solutions.
On healthcare, Hillary considers HER scars from her previous battle with the health care industry MORE important than OUR scars for lack of affordable health care!! She received almost ONE MILLION smackaroos from the health care industry in lst qtr. - and promises to reach a "consensus" to make it a reality in 10 years.
Obama is inspiring - but where's the beef?
 
by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: How much of this can be explained

Well said, Betty.  The country is moving back left and returning to the center like it does when it goes too far one way or the other.  Edwards is the candidate of the people who now realize how much they've been lied to over the last 30 years.  He's electable because he symbolizes the best of American values;that we have moral obligations to each other.  He's a person who is willing to accept responsibility and not blame others.  He's the symbol of the best of the South; Grit and grits.

by Feral Cat 2007-06-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

by bettync 2007-06-25 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

But...I thought it was playing into right-wing frames to talk about a candidate being electable?  Me confused.

Also, I bet if you polled the electorate as to which candidate (of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) was the most conservative, Edwards would come out on top.  Because he's a white guy from the South.  At this low information stage of the game, that's the kind of "analysis" that is in play for the horse-race matchups.

What actually makes sense in judging electability?  Familiarity and favorable/unfavorable data.  Everybody knows Hillary and a very significant number dislike (even strongly dislike) her.  IIRC, Obama performs slightly better in those metrics than Edwards, but probably easily within the MOE.

Ultimately, I think Obama is a better general elction candidate (NOTE: Not PERFECT, but better) because Edwards is pretty easy to caricature as a lightweight and/or a phony.  Whether it's true or not, it will be out there and I think it will stick, at least partway.

by NC State Dem 2007-06-25 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Fox News is doing everything they can to make it stick.

by annefrank 2007-06-25 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I agree with your analysis.

by bruh21 2007-06-25 12:12PM | 0 recs
Rolling Stone opinion on electability

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffa irs/index.php/page/2/

Tim Dickinson says

A top handicapper told me recently that he expects Hillary to perform in a general election as `Generic Democrat Minus Five Points.' Meaning that she can win -- but only in another wave election like we saw in the 2006 election, where resentment against Bush and the GOP gives Dems a 6 to 8 point head start.
Barack Obama may have a similar structural disadvantage. (Though given his ability to mobilize untraditional voters -- millennials and gen xers in particular -- he might be able to make up for it. He remains as ever a wild card.)
If Democrats are looking for a safer bet to take back the Oval office, Edwards the silver tongued Southern senator looks like a winner from this poll data...  especially if he's fortunate to run against another flip flopper from Massachusetts.

by Feral Cat 2007-06-25 11:34AM | 0 recs
We want a fighter who will stand up for himself

How do you like this fight? What else do you want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlkPMdoTV Lw
John Edwards: "They're not going to kill this voice."    

"People ask me why I'm running for president. I can honestly say it in one sentence. So that everybody has the same kind of chance that I had. I came from nothing and I now have everything.

"Sometimes I get reporters, they ask me, they say, `I don't understand why you're out talking about the poor. How can someone with your resources talk about the poor?'

"I don't claim to be poor. Does that mean I can't speak out for people who don't have a voice? Does that mean I can't stand up for the disabled, the disenfranchised, the poor?

"Listen, I'm here to tell you whenever you do that you're going to get attacked. Every time you do that you're going to get attacked. It's always true in American history because people who have wealth and power, they do not want to hear this. They want this message to be squelched and so they try to kill the messenger. In this case, that's me.

Let me say this very directly. They are not going to kill this voice. As long as I'm alive and breathing, I am going to stand up for people who need somebody to speak for them."

by mrobinsong 2007-06-25 12:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Edwards is doing a $2300/$750 event tomorrow night in San Francisco.

by RandyMI 2007-06-25 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

Edwards is wrong about the others not being electable.  The latest Newsweek poll shows Hillary ahead of all leading republicans so she has made gains in that area.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19373524/sit e/newsweek/

To say they can't get votes in certain parts of the nation is just racist and sexist to me.  We'll never elect a woman or African-American with that kind of talk and attitude and I don't believe that anyway.  But you know what?  Edwards can't get votes in certain parts of the nation either- those states that can spot a self-serving hypocrite when they see one.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-25 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards and the electability question

I love exploring questions of electability in primaries. That worked so well for us in 2004 when the conventional wisdom among many Democratic Party activists in the early states was that the Republicans could not possibly discredit a war hero during a time of heightened national security. In Iowa, it was the "electability" question that propelled Kerry at the last minute and helped trample Dean.

I'm so over this question. I just don't think it means anything.

by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona 2007-06-25 07:41PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads