Edwards Rising

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:30:21 AM EST

Is John Edwards "America Rising" close in Iowa working? If you've made an enemy of beltway pundit Stuart Rothenberg out of it, I think so. Rothenberg is the sort of DC pundit that said Sherrod Brown could never win in Ohio with his progressive populist message. The sort of Broderite pundits that, after 12 years of a dividing Republican rule in Congress and 8 years of a dividing Bush both come to an end, on the eve of a Democratic trifecta, seem to be having a midnight conversion to bipartisanship.

They really don't have a clue as to what most Americans want.-- that 'change' isn't mean a word somewhere in-between 'hope' or 'experience' but a real confrontation against the financial inequality that is widening in this nation:

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.
If that's really the question that voters are to make --are there structural problems to be acquiesced or confronted-- I think most partisan Democrats would chose the latter. The good thing about an Edwards win in Iowa would be the quick turn by Clinton and Obama to a similar message.

What's also so ironic about this, is that Clinton and Obama have each spent millions of dollars poll-testing and focus-grouping their message this year. Meanwhile, Edwards has not, and has just been campaigning out among the people and listening.

The latest Zogby numbers for Democrats:

           12–27/30      12–26/29

Clinton    30%           31%
Obama      26%           27%
Edwards    26%           24%
Richardson  5%            5%
Biden       5%            5%
Dodd        1%            1%
Kucinich    1%           <1%
Undecided   6%            6%
In fact, if the recent polls are to be trusted, they are finding that a populist message resonates with Independents just fine:
"Edwards had a good day by virtue especially of increasing support among independent voters," Zogby said. Edwards led narrowly among independents over Clinton and Obama.
Hard support and second choices:
The poll found Clinton's supporters remained the most dedicated with 73 percent saying their support was "very" strong, compared to 66 percent for Edwards and 63 percent for Obama... Edwards was the most popular second choice with 28 percent, while Obama had 25 percent and Clinton 14 percent.
A couple more days of this trend and Iowa becomes Edwards to lose.




Tags: Iowa (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 145 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Edwards was leading big time with independents in NH too in the latest ARG poll. The media refuses to acknowledge this, however, as they try to falsely portray it going to Obama or McCain and ignore Edwards.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:39:57 AM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Edwards is going to kick butt in Iowa and NH. The establishment status quo candidates might as well return to their jobs in the Senate.
by dkmich on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:52:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 1)

Whats really interesting to me is that his populism in many states appeals not only to those who consider themselves independents but "conservatives." A lot of people I've spoken to about politics here in NV consider themselves "conservative" which to them means anti-elite.

The right has exploited this sentiment for a generation by defining "elite" as cultural rather than economic-political. I feel like I've been waiting all that time for a Democratic candidate who can make the case convincingly that the real elites who have too much influence are the financial and political elites that have run this country into the ground, not with but against the will and support of a majority of the American people.

I heard JRE's stump speech on C-SPAN this am and it confirmed for me once again that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportuntity for a country to elect a real populist progressive.

America rising, indeed.


by desmoulins on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

I agree Jerome. Edwards is looking damn good in IA. But I'm still routing for an HRC win, which I think is possible given certain dynamics.


by lonnette33 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:40:36 AM EST

it is very possible (none / 0)

All of the precinct captains I know are having a hard time getting a handle on the number of HRC supporters who will show up to their caucus.

If she turns out tens of thousands of women who have never caucused before, she could win this thing, and I would give her campaign a lot of credit.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it is very possible (none / 0)

You won't see me shedding a tear if that happens, as it would be an incredible omen for the general.  Likewise, if Obama can somehow manage to get hordes of students and new voters to turn out for him in a caucus, you better believe we can count on those votes in the general as well.

Do you think it's a given that this year's caucus will set a new turnout record (barring an ice storm or something), or could the early date turn out to be that much of a downer?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

a lot of regulars are out of town (none / 0)

I know lots of people who have never missed the caucus before but had already puchased tickets and will still be on vacation.

If the caucuses were being held a couple of weeks from now, I think we'd have record turnout.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is why we need Edwards to win... (none / 0)

"populist message resonates with Independents just fine" It goes back to the old Howard Dean pickup trucks with the confederate flag. He knew it then and nobody would listen, now it is Edwards turn to say it again. If you transcend all the bullshit, we all shit and pee and need to work and raise our families. Edwards and the populist message unite the people. Obama wants to unite the ruling elite. fuck that.
by dkmich on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

The change from yesterday is statistically insignificant, but if you look at recent polls in general there's no question Edwards has some momentum in Iowa. According to the real clear politics average Hillary has a 2 point lead with Obama and Edwards now tied. This is exciting.


by Christopher Lib on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:43:23 AM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

The usual beltway BS form Rothenburg. Bush is ''passionate'', ''strong'', ''resolute'', ''bold'', ''a leader''. Dems like Edwards are ''angry'', ''confrontational'', ''partisan'', purveyors of ''class warfare''. Fingers crossed that the Stu and his ilk are all in for a mighty shock on Thursday night/Friday morning.


by conspiracy on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:46:37 AM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Edwards is definitely looking strong heading in the finals days before the caucus but I have a feeling with the predicted record turnout, he will have a hard time coming out on top.


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:50:00 AM EST

I would welcome a record turnout (none / 0)

I think Edwards will close strong no matter what the turnout is.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would welcome a record turnout (none / 0)

I Mojoed you for that!

Edwards/Edwards 08!


by Pericles on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I would welcome a record turnout (none / 0)

John Edwards / Chet Edwards '08? 2 guys that kick ass and will never be silenced?


by KainIIIC on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 1)

Being far away from Iowa, my only metric to judge Edwards' surge is by the comments here on MyDD.  A week ago there were all these comments like "Edwards isn't my candidate, but I could live with him as the nominee, I like his message, etc."  Now all of a sudden we're back to him being the ambulance-chasing Breck Girl.

It's funny how much differently people behave based upon whether they perceive someone to be a threat. :)


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:52:00 AM EST

From Clinton supporters? (none / 0)

Heh.
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 1)

The important side story here is that Clinton leads consistently (albeit narrowly) and also has a 7% lead over Edwards and a 10% lead over Obama when it comes to "very strong" support.   "Very strong" supporters are more likely to caucus than anyone else.  

I think in the end it will come in:

1. Hillary

  1. Edwards
  2. Obama

Coming in third in Iowa would probably devastate Obama, as he was (and still is) pegged the frontrunner in Iowa, yet I don't think that case can be made any more in reality.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:00:03 AM EST

anyone can still win Iowa (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you that third place would be a big blow for Obama, although it would depend on the margin. If the top three candidates were bunched closely together (which I do not expect), that's very different from third place by 10 points or more.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama loses IA he's done. (none / 0)

Ask Michelle she said it.


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:17:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just spoke to someone who (none / 0)

has been up in NH nearly every day for Obama from MA and a third place finish in Iowa for the Obama campaign is what they are dreading. I can hear the nervousness in this person's voice.

Oh, and the spin has started - "Edwards should win - he's spent so much time there, Obama started from scratch, it really has been an uphill battle...." I just heard defeat in the tone. They do not want 3rd at all it doesn't matter how much spread separates the candidates.


by merbex on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I just spoke to someone who (none / 0)

Makes sense. No campaign will want third, no matter the spread.


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (2.00 / 2)

Sen. Clinton has far more money, more staff, a two-term president and two-term governor campaigning for her. If all of that's not enough for her to come in first, you have to wonder what it would take for regular Americans to ever support her.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (none / 0)

Obama has outspent everyone in Iowa, including Clinton and Romney.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois. (none / 0)

Obama also has no excuses whatsoever not to win in Iowa.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Edwards has been in Iowa for four years, while Clinton has national name recognition. Obama had neither until very recently, and he's doing pretty well seeing as how he had to start from scratch.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Obama had to start from scratch??  *scoffs*  Have you checked a map lately? Illinois and Iowa border each other. I hardly call that starting from scratch.  Half of Obama's campaign staff is working from across the state line.


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Umm... Obama had nearly no recognition until quite recently. That IS starting from scratch. Illinois being next to Iowa gives him a much-needed benefit but it doesn't change that, please start using your head a little more.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True. Obama has been quickly built up by media. (none / 0)

Imagine what Edwards could do with the relentlessly positive corporate media coverage and vast amounts of money that Obama has received. Instead, he's had to rely largely on his impressive personal campaigning skills and political savvy.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:32:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

Why hasn't he done better with small donors?  And where would he be without the lifeline the Mellons are throwing him.  3/4 of a million dollars plus bundling efforts by Forger.  This should be addressed.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

Here's an actual answer understanding of why you see what yous ee with small donors:

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

the average voters weren't paying attention, the press wasn't covering, and several polls left his name out- you do the math as to what that means for Edwards regarding small donors.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:43:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

Here's an actual answer understanding of why you see what yous ee with small donors:

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

the average voters weren't paying attention, the press wasn't covering, and several polls left his name out- you do the math as to what that means for Edwards regarding small donors.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:44:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

That's more of an excuse than an explanation.  Why didn't Edwards get more attention?  This became a two-horse race when the money became a two-horse race.  There is no disadvantage Edwards had going in, he has name recognition, he was considered a serious candidate.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

It's comments like this that tell me you are more of an interesting person to know after the primaries. Free press is more of an excuse than an explaination? Really- and here I thought press coverage was a corner stone of your candidates run for office and indeed every candidate. seriously but-for 2004 and his speech- no one would know the name Obama. You really need to be something other than an advocate for your candidate when writing.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

Perhaps it's because I've worked in a business where you try to create press coverage.  You can't just dismiss the Convention Speech as something illegitimate. Obama connected with milllions of people that night.  It wasn't empty media hype.  Obama has connected with thousands of voters and gotten them to donate.  That is the story and the media goes after the story.  If Edwards was bringing in 10,000 people to his early rallies the media would have been there.  That is not advocating for my candidate.  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. Obama has been quickly built up by media (none / 0)

Actually it is. You are essentially arguing, and I m sure Madison Avenue and Hollywood would be fascinated to read your post, that hype has nothing to do with crowds. That its all about talent and substance. Thats why every film is Oscar calibre and every show deserves an Emmy and every product we buy really will get us laid- its never about hype at all. Free press doesn't matter at all. It's all about how wonderful your candidate really is. I should ink you to this great Jason Bateman article. In a tangential way it doves tail perfectly into this discussion and how much you are off base about how media matters.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is such nonesense (none / 0)

Days spent in Iowa as of December 28

Courtesy of Politico

Dodd 93 days
Biden 88
Obama 77
Edwards 75
Clinton and Richardson 66
Dennis Kucinich 11

But, but, hasn't he been living there since 2004???

It is a myth to explain a loss that supporters of Obama keep trying to use.  Of course he forged some connections in the 2004 campaign, however he has been busy doing many other things since that campaign.  Who would attend town hall meetings and rallies two to three years before the primary.  Pure nonsense.

In 2005 Elizabeth was undergoing cancer treatment.  Edwards set up the poverty center in NC.  Took students to NOLA to help and traveled overseas.  In 2006 he crossed the US helping Democratic campaigns everywhere and helping unions in six states get increases in the minimum wage.  And he was building a 5 star environmental home in NC.  ;-)

Edwards is an amazing workaholic but even he has a limited number of hours in the day.  


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois (none / 0)

To be fair, he does have an excuse. Not many black people in Iowa. And many of the white people are German farmers.


by antiHyde on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:52:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois (none / 0)

and now the race card


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:15:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois (none / 0)

"and now the race card"

It's always there, everywhere in American society and especially in politics.


by antiHyde on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois (none / 0)

The use of it when you are losing an argument is the race card. Racist exists. But Obama's issues aren't about race


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good point. And he's from neighboring Illinois (none / 0)

No, Obama's issues aren't about race. But people will hate him for his race anyway, and lily white places like Iowa will hate him even more. In my experience, German farmers are mostly bible-thumping  racists. Which explains the popularity of Huckabee and Ron Paul.


by antiHyde on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (none / 0)

Yet on their conference call this morning, Pouffe kept talking about all the help Clinton and Edwards are getting from outside groups.

This whining strategy strikes me as very unsound.


by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (none / 0)

That's the real point here, is it not, Obama a one term Senator with zero executive experience is running for President.

Or is he?

Where would Edwards be  if it was a two person race with The Hill and had been such from the beginning. No matter where Obama finishes he's done his job.

Blocked Edwards.

And he doesn't even pretend to anything else, really. Since he's 'announced' that if he doesn't win this time he will not run again.

Interesting how little exposure that story got.....


by Pericles on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She has less money/staff than Obama! (none / 0)

That's just one of the incorrect statements in this posting which smells of sour grapes to me.


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:15:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (none / 0)

She is well ahead in states more accurately representing the demographics of the United States (such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc.)  Iowa is not such a place.  The lack of minorities (especially Hispanics) that make up a good portion of her constituency group was bound to hurt her overall support somewhat (just as we have seen a couple other such states not respond to Clinton like Ohio and Florida have - for example, we had seen Idaho show Edwards ahead of Clinton, the only state in the entire country to show Edwards in the lead.)

I think the logic you apply here is too simplistic.  By that logic, since Obama has outspent everybody by a large margin, he should be running away with this race.   Don't forget that all year long, until the end of August, Edwards was the prohibitive frontrunner for Iowa, the heir-apparent, favorite son, quasi-incumbent.  Having lived in the state since 2001, he was regarded as the strong favorite to win Iowa due to the infrastructure he had built and the connections he had made.  I am not buying the theme that Edwards is the Democratic version of Mike Huckabee.  Iowa was Edwards' state for most of the year, after all.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:23:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True, Hillary has no excuse at all not to win. (none / 0)

Should have said:  "Having practically lived in the state since 2001"  (which is a quote taken directly from the DesMoinesRegister, btw.)


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The more people get to see and question... (2.00 / 1)

...the candidates personally, the better Edwards does. In Iowa, voters have had more face time with each candidate, and you see Sen. Clinton's numbers significantly lower than her national, corporate media-inflated numbers.

Voters elsewhere, including minorities, know that Bill was able to win in the '90s and they see relentless media coverage of Hillary portraying her as the front-runner. But if their view of her as a winner gets shattered on Jan. 3 by the Democrats who have seen her the most, that media-created image isn't likely to be enough.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The more people get to see and question... (none / 0)

Well, whatever makes you feel better, I suppose.  I guess if Clinton does indeed win Iowa you will simply post that she was "supposed to," that she "outspent Edwards," etc.    Let me go on the record and state that even if Edwards were to win Iowa (the one state he had built a strong infrastructure in for years, led all year and was the prohibitive frontrunner until the end of August) it will more than likely not be enough to parlay that into enough victories in other states to win the nomination.  I guess we shall revisit this right before Feb. 5 (after Florida) again.


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thought same thing when reading Rothenberg's B.S. (2.00 / 1)

Edwards scares the hell out of the corporations and their stooges.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:02:17 AM EST

I've got four Republicans in my precinct (2.00 / 2)

who are crossing over to caucus for Edwards, for what that's worth.

I am not paying attention to minute movements in a tracking poll, but what I hear from lots of volunteers and field organizers is that undecideds and leaners are starting to commit to Edwards in a big way.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:03:37 AM EST

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

Desmoinesdem,
             Since you are on the ground in Iowa, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but from my vantage point, I think a record turnout would undoubtedly hurt John. He has not focused too much on bringing new voters. Instead, he relied heavily on previous caucus-goers(who are very reliable-thats a plus for him)but with 180,000 turnout, I don't see how he will come out on top.
"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:16:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

But even if Obama gets a lot of new voters out there, how well distributed would they be? He could get every since student at U of I to caucus for him and he still wouldn't win.


by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:21:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

Yeah, I think he might get big turnout, but all in the same area, so it's not going to have any effect on his delegate count.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:26:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

I think what most miss is that a big turnout will also benefit Hillary Clinton strongly.  73% of her current supporters state that they support her "very strongly," the number is 7% lower for Edwards and 10% lower for Obama.  That is significant, as not only are "very strong" supporters more likely to show for caucuses, but "very strong" supporters are obviously also highly unlikely to switch allegiances at the last minute.


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:35:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

I agree, I think big turnout could actually help Hillary more than Obama, since I'm guessing her support is more spread throughout the state.

As far as the "strongly support" thing, the McClatchy poll showed both Edwards and Clinton tied at 85% for very strong support.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:39:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've got four Republicans in my precinct (none / 0)

I've heard a lot of Republicans on C-Span who are saying they're going to vote for Edwards and Elizabeth said she often hears that a lot too. In 2004 I know many Republicans crossed over and vote for Edwards. This is something the polls might be missing.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards only hope is IA. (none / 0)

What Jerome neglects to mention while castigating Clinton and Obama for poll tested messages (Edwards has never poll tested a message in his life of course) is that he has virtually lived in the state for four years. He started off the race in the low to mid thirties and now he's in the low to mid twenties. He has a small chance of winning IA but it's small and if he does it will largely be at the expense of Obama. Then where does he go. How does the narrowest of wins in IA translate into winning the next five Jan primaries let alone the super Tuesday sweep. I'm coming increasingly to view that Clinton is actually going to win IA. We've seen a bit of shift in her direction in a notoriously difficult to poll contest and her lead in the nationals which essentially go to the gut issues has improved over the past few weeks probably as voters come closer to reality.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:12:47 AM EST

Re: Edwards only hope is IA. (2.00 / 1)

Actually, Edwards himself, at the beginning of this campaign, publicly eschewed the focus-group poll testing of his messaging. He threw it away, realizing it was much better to just listen to people on the campaign trail.

"largely be at the expense of Obama"

Yes, God forbid that anyone take something away from the media-chosen alternative.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:17:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards never poll tested a message? (none / 0)

Jerome: With due respect I find it very difficult to believe that Edwards in the whole of this campaign has never poll tested a message. That would be like going to a knife fight with a peashooter. But then Edwards said he's never taken lobbyist money and then it turns out he's taken it at state level. I see nothing wrong with all of this it's the rather corrupt system we have but the holier than thou is a bit of a stretch. And yes Obama is the media chosen candidate but he was principally chosen to have the role as the Anti Clinton in their little play. They could just as easily have chosen Edwards and probably would have done had he been polling more strongly at the start of the campaign.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:31:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards never poll tested a message? (none / 0)

 it's not about what you believe. That seems to be the core problem- when given a choice between reality and faith- all too many Democrats are willing to go the Republican route of faith over reality.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards never poll tested a message? (none / 0)

Edwards said he's never taken lobbyist money

No, I believe if you listen he says "Washington lobbyists money."

But he acknowledges that he doesn't claim to be without sin; that he too has "turned his head" in the past to these problems in the system, which he wants to see reformed.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:58:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Even a narrow victory against two candidates... (none / 0)

...who have FAR more money and who have received FAR more corporate media coverage would be an amazing achievement by Edwards, who as you point out has relied heavily on his impressive personal campaigning skills to remain even with the money/media candidates. If they can't beat Edwards despite their huge advantages, you really have to question their abilities on a far more level playing field in the general election.

And let's see just how narrow this actually ends up...


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards only hope is IA. (none / 0)

Edwards is now at 21% and 20% in two polls in NH. He was within 10 points of Hillary and 5 points of Obama. Edwards can win all four early states, giving him momentum for the long haul.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Progressive;believe if it feels good. (none / 0)

Edward's chances of winning any state other than IA are zilch.


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:34:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Progressive;believe if it feels good. (none / 0)

who are you trying to convince?


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bruh:just expressing an opinion. (none / 0)

There's no hope of convincing anyone here. In my judgement Edwards is a single shot candidate. Even were he to win Iowa it wouldn't make a fat lot of difference to his position in other states. He'd probably pick up some anti Clinton votes from Obama but that would only serve to further split the opposition to her because Obama has loads of money to preserve the fiction he's a player. Strategically she is in a well nigh invulnerable position. My personal hope is she's the candidate by early Feb and the Republicans are fighting it out all summer. Perfect for democrats.      


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Progressive;believe if it feels good. (none / 0)

Fours years ago they said the same about Kerry. He was dead. For the life of me, I can't see why Iowa and New Hampshire matter to voters in other states, but they do.


by antiHyde on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

This leads me to a question for the Edwards supporters. if Edwards wins Iowa, who does Edwards want to come in 2nd? I see rationales for both Clionton and Obama. (clinton - squeeze out obama and consolidate anti-HRC support; obama- because they view any HRC head of steam as too dangerous). I ask this question becasue I wonder what, if any, deals will be cut amongst the front runners to shave off support of one other frontrunner.


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:17:49 AM EST

I want Obama in second. (none / 0)

But I'm losing hope that Barack will pull it off. I suspect it will be a real dog fight for a distant second place.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I want Obama in second. (none / 0)

What's your rationale?


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:31:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have some hope that Obama might take on... (none / 0)

...the powers that be as president. Clinton wouldn't. And I have marginally more hope that Obama could win a general election, but I doubt that he or Clinton could beat McCain, whereas Edwards would beat McCain badly.

Strategically, I want Obama to hang around for awhile because he's pulling more support from Clinton than from Edwards.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:55:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have some hope that Obama might take on... (none / 0)

I have some hope that Obama might take on the powers that be as president.

...

Have you been paying attention to the race at all? Obama is the "politics of hope" candidate who wants everyone to work together and sing "Kumbaya." Clinton will cut deals with the PTB. Unpleasant, but they won't walk all over her, and that's half a loaf. Edwards is the only one who'd actually go toe to toe with them.

I don't see how any GOP candidate, even McCain, would be formidable against any Dem candidate. There's a path to victory, yes, but it requires a brilliant campaign on their side, an awful campaign on ours, and a huge amount of luck. It happened just that way in '00, but I think times have changed since then.


by epenthesis on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's Obama's campaign theme, yes. (none / 0)

Although he's suddenly becoming more of a populist in the final few days before Iowa in apparent realization that Democrats are looking for a fighter and are finding one in Edwards. In fairness, we don't know for sure how Obama would act as president, but his naive attitude about being some kind of post-partisan president is discouragaing.

As for Clinton, well, we've all seen how a Clinton presidency operates, and she points to that constantly as her ideal so there we have it. She would throw a progressive agenda overboard for a couple of approval points as soon as a focus group told her to do so.

If the Democrats nominate one of these milque toast candidates and the Republicans nominate McCain, you might be surprised.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Clinton can't win she'd choose Edwards. (none / 0)

He's a one state shot. Obama has a bit of traction in a couple of other states. If he loses IA he's done, if he comes third he's doubly done.


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton can't win she'd choose Edwards. (none / 0)

Well I agree with that, but I'm more interested in whether Edwards would cut a deal with Obama to squeeze out Clinton. (hoping not).


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:44:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Cut a deal" is fantasy. (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama both think they are going to win or come close. Basically their support is much softer than Clintons. I think she's going to win in the end because when the moment of truth comes Democrats are going to go with who they think can win and who they can see walking onto the stage to the opening bars of Hail to the Chief because at the end of the day there is not a fat lot of difference between the candidates on policy issues except in the minds of the most devoted Edwards and Obama acolytes. The Clinto crowd are against them not on policy but on experience and electability.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Cut a deal" is fantasy. (none / 0)

um.. I support HRC, but here I disagree with you.  Edwards and Obama could easily agree to shave off Clinton votes, and this strategy does not hurh either of them. Edwards and Obama would simply agree, where possible (meaning neither Obama and Edwards would not lose out), that they would shift support in each precinct in order to block Clinton from picking up extra delegates.

The potential for two frontrunners to employ such a strategy has been explained in previous postings here.


by StrongDem08 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:26:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a fantasy. (none / 0)

There's a potential for Mikey Bloomberg to run with Chuck Hagel as his vp. It aint going to happen though unless Democrats and Republicans loose their minds. In reality although the potential may exist it aint going to happen. I also stand by my comment that Clinton's level of support will prove stronger than expected at the momento of truth.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:40:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure Edwards should want to knock out Obama if it were up to him, as he's the only one who presents a glimmer of a Dean-like flameout scenario.  Clinton has too much establishment support to be the victim of an early knockout.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Clinton second, Obama distant third is best case scenario. Also, helpful if Biden beats out Richardson for fourth, since Richardson has more support in NV that would come up for grabs if he can't raise the money to stay in another 2 weeks.


by desmoulins on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

You know what's truly ironic? The "I don't trust Zogby" attitude has evaporated now that they're showing what Edwards supporters want to see.

The RCP average now stands at Clinton 28.2 (29.3) - Obama 26.2 (27.0) - Edwards 26.2 (27.3).

Edwards and Obama are tied while Clinton maintains a narrow lead over both. In other words, things are the same as they were a few days ago, except that Clinton may have stopped her decline. And with polls showing a 3-way tie in Iowa, it's turnout that we should be looking at to try and figure out who -- if anyone -- is going to win.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:22:56 AM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

The last six polls out of Iowa--including today's Zogby--have shown increases by Edwards.

He's clearly the candidate who's moving up.


by david mizner on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:28:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Again, the "I don't trust Zogby" attitude is mysteriously absent now that they're showing Edwards supporters what they want to see.

And again, these new polls have shown nothing new in the last few days. If anything, it can be pointed out that Edwards went from a +0.3 lead over Obama to being tied with him.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:33:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

again peo ae using multiple polls - not just zogby. if you want to pretend that tehy aren't that's your issue


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:45:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Again, when Zogby shows what Edwards supporters want to see, the "Zogby is unreliable" attitude mysteriously vanishes.

If people were using multiple polls, then maybe they actually should. Look at Jerome Armstrong's original post - he mentions Zogby results alone and concludes Edwards is rising, without even looking at how the trendline/RCP average is affected by the results of this one poll, which would provide a more accurate view of what's going on.

If you think that counts as using multiple polls -- as opposed to looking at individual polls and forcing them to fit your worldview -- then that's your issue.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Dude--when Zogby shows a result that contradicts other polls (as it often does), you bet we're going with the other polls.

When Zogby is telling us what everybody else is telling us? We're not going to look askance at the entirety of the polling data available; we're going to conclude that in this case Zogby got it right.

Let's not be silly here. If you don't think Edwards has bounced a little despite literally every poll showing it, just say so. Otherwise, what's your point here other than "Edwards voters are desperate and disingenuous?"


by epenthesis on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

I am trying to interpret the polls as accurately as possible and try and see ahead of time who will win Iowa.

I see these "take two polls and claim Edwards is rising" when they should be compared to how (if at all) they change the actual trend. It IS disingenuous to cherrypick two polls at a time when there are enough to make a trendline. It's even more disingenuous if you're willing to use Zogby polls to do it, without so much as a "yeah it's Zogby but their results seem reasonable" disclaimer, and without even trying to compare it to the overall trend (which was at least partially done in the last such poll comparison).

Yes, Edwards has risen compared to a few weeks ago, but the trend shows both Edwards and Obama holding dead even over the past few days. "Edwards rising" suggests he's getting above Clinton and Obama, which he hasn't yet.

However, it is not "desperate" -- I've never claimed such a thing, please don't put such words into my mouth. They're both obviously in very good positions to win Iowa, so unless some major scandal occurs in the next few hours, maybe at this point we should be paying more attention at who is going to turn out on Jan 3rd.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

DesMoines Register out w/ poll tonight (none / 0)

We'll have to see how it looks.


by dpANDREWS on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:30 AM EST

Edwards/Polling (2.00 / 1)

Actually, if you look at Edwards' FEC filings, he's polling plenty.  From the third quarter, here's the payments to "Global Strategy Group, LLC" for "Consulting/Polling" or "Polling":

7-2-07: $13250
7-2-07: $41000
7-2-07: $50000
8-8-07: $15000
8-8-07: $13250
8-8-07: $16000

There's also plenty of "consulting/political strategy" which might involve polling -- payees there include Global Strategy Group, LLC, Palmetto Political Consulting and W.G.G. Consulting Firm


by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:30:29 AM EST

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

there is a difference between polling to see how you are doing in the polls and testing your message against it. you seem to be claiming they are one and the same.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bruh:adam is not saying that. (none / 0)

He's saying Edwards has spent a lot on polling. The type of polling we know not what. That said, the notion that Edwards and his spear carriers have not poll tested a single theme in his campaign is absurd. You can claim they haven't but it doesn't really seem likely does it otherwise he'd be a total idiot. And he's not.


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:52:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bruh:adam is not saying that. (none / 0)

I know what he's doing. He's engaging in inuendo. Because he can't prove his point in actual fact he does as you have done throughout this thread and now with me. Take some bit of information and then fill in the blanks with shit you've made up. Once you've made up shit, you then proceed to come to conclusions about others and what that then means. That's why you are fantasy rather than reality based. When you can prove the statements you are making up get back to me. Otherwise stop fooling yourself into believing you are making factual arguments.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

You don't need to run your own polls to see how you're doing -- that's what Zogby/DMR/ARG/etc are there for, and they do it all the time.


by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

and why pray tell in your omniscient view of reality is that the case? i mean since you know why he did the polling without actually knowing much more than he did the polling


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

Sure, but then don't you have to live with their proprietary likely voter screens, and all the rest?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

Sure.  But if you're trying to save money, you can.

Regardless, Jerome's claim is false.


by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:17:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

you haven't proven the claim false.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Adam's comment (none / 0)

is simply ridiculous. He is a joke now.
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:00:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thisw comment personfies (none / 0)

why you are simply a joke now Adam. You are not THAT stupid.
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Scandal! (none / 0)

OMG - Edwards does polling!?!!

Jerome said that HRC and Obama have spent millions "poll-testing and focus-grouping their message" and Edwards has not. I'm not inside the Edwards campaign so I don't know if that's true, but from the outside, it looks spot-on.


by Shawn on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

The thing is, focus groups could wind up under all sorts of line items in a campaign expense report -- one of the political consultants could be spending the money itself and passing the costs along, etc.

I don't know what Jerome's source is; I just looked at the numbers.


by Adam B on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

No what you did is called inuendo. You can't argue your position with facts so you made up your own based on some pretty flimsy information. For example above y ou argue "well he could have just got polling from DMR" etc. Thats your insiuation. You don't know that. In fact, yo udon't know anything beyond the fact that Edwards paid for polling, but you certainly act as if you know more than that.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

What proof do you have that Obama spent "millions "poll-testing and focus-grouping their message"?


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

the question was about edwards. if you want to claim that armstrong is wrong about obama- do so. but thats not what these posters are doing. luckily after a couple of weeks several of you will hopefully be gone


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:47:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

I have no idea if he's right or wrong.  My question wasn't rhetorical. You seem to believe Edwards is somehow different, but based on what?  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:57:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

My belief is irrelevant. The posters made the claim that because Edwards paid for polling they could then prove that he polled for messaging. My only statement is that paying for polling doesn't prove for what purpose he did so or that he was following it. Indeed, the argument can be made that he wasn't since I can't imagine poverty was at the top of any voters agenda. But before I would make such an argument, I would need more proof than the posters claiming foul have made.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:00:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

This is was fairness comes in, or should come in.  The Edwards polling figures were offered as a rebuttal to Jerome's argument that Edwards is somehow different.  Obama's message has stayed consistent throughout the campaign so I doubt very much he's been polling for messaging, and I doubt Edwards has been as well.  I have no doubt that both have used polling for other things but they are true to their core beliefs.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

a rebuttal requires you prove your point


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:38:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

"luckily after a couple of weeks several of you will hopefully be gone."

...and you KNOW why I find that comment very humorous, right?   Remember how terrible you found this place to be?  Worst of them all, if I recall.  Yet, here you are with this statement.  Don't you think it is time you make amends for the dismissive comments you made about this place most of us seem to favor over other spots in the sphere?


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

what i find horrible about this place is exemplified by both you and otehr poters. here for example inuendo masqerading as substance. or with you for example polls as everything. and finally, yeah, in a few weeks this conversation will be at and end one way or the other i expect many of you to vanish from the site because your reason for being here will be gone.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

What I find hypocritical is how you chide other posters, but are no iota better, in fact, with your diaries and past behavior ('Iam taking my ball and am going away forever') I would argue, worse.  It struck me as funny that the same poster who bid this site goodbye forever is here telling others that they'll be gone shortly.    


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:12:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

and no i've been in along time before you people showed up and i hopefully will be here long after. i've not been banned like several of your fellow supporters who have had to come back as multiple other screen names. that should tell you that my discourse isn't on their level, but i fully expect you can't see that.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:06:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

If I recall, you were warned several times, as you resorted to cheap name calling against fellow posters on several occasions.  To your credit, you have stopped using such rule-breaking vernacular, but I would imagine at the time you might have been close to being canned (had it continued on that track.)  I recall a few diaries in which you actually fully expected to be banned, after all.

  Now, why "fellow supporters" have any bearing on anything in this exchange is probably known only to yourself. Are you trying to slam me by "association"?  So, my follow-up should be that I have not been banned like several of your fellow supporters?  Come on, you can do better than that.    


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. Your recollection is wrong. I've been warned precisely once when I troll rated someone who called a diarist a tin foiled conspiracy theorist.

Here are my prior diaries just to  name a few:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/28/123 024/11#commenttop

A diary about Pakistan, and asking people's views without regard to candidates because others were politicizing it.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/27/112 8/3660#commenttop

A diary about candidate likeability as a factor without regard to candidates

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/24/132 910/49#commenttop

A diary about healthcare in which I agree with both Clinton and Edwards against Obama regarding healthcare, and explain why until the primaries are over it will  be difficult to discuss the economics

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/21/223 417/37#commenttop

A diary about the impact of identity politics both good and bad after book girl pointed out that I focused too much on Clinton. One which was universality lauded by various supporters regardless of whom they supported.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/12/1202 1/6123#commenttop

A diary about polling data and when voters make their decisions as based on an article by Mystery Pollster. One which you attacked, and Fla Dem agreed with. Indeed, one which has proven to be factually correct in terms of what we are seeing now.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/9/12933 /99112#commenttop

Discussing presidential coattails and whether they still exist by examinging prior election and data. Something you kept arguing you debunked, but didn't.  Curiously something you are  doing here.

You really don't want me to do a cross comparison to your own because it would embarrass you.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:26:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

If I recall correctly, you also got entangled with J. Singer over why it would not be appropriate to call someone an "idiot" on here when you felt that person WAS an idiot.  He stated that it was simply against the rules to do so and would lead to a ban.

And, you embarass me?  Laughable.  The guy who had the whiniest diaries I have seen all year and vowed to never return to this 'cesspool'?  Funny stuff, I must say.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

can't respond to my post? change the subject. nice.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Scandal! (none / 0)

to be clear, you made a number of allegations about me here, and i responded to you specifically with diaries i have actually written here to demonstrate that unlike yourself i've not been just a shill for my candidate or even anti clinton. indeed  the healthcare diary was about how clinton and edwards were right about obama's plan.

your response? singer and i disagreed because i called you an idiot regarding my first healthcare diary in which your response to it was to call the diary substanceless and cite a poll about how clinton was leading. before you talk I can of course provide a link to demonstrate what i was saying at the time and why. the gist of the diary you called substanceless was about how americans view healthcare and whether the candidates were stepping up to the base to reflect those trends. it discussed the costs of rising healthcare, etc.  you called this a substanceless discussion, but  your throwing out national poll numbers apparently was not.

singer didn't warn me or ban me- he simply disagreed and said i shouldn't call people idiot. they have however banned several of your fellow supporters. of that, there is no question.

considering the level of discourse here has since included a front pager like hwc saying edwards was either using his wife's cancer, or in the alternate, that his wife's cancer meant edwards is unelectable- you've got to be fucking kidding  me with your need to post this crap. now stop hijacking the diary.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:45:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bruh:you are in no position to deny (none / 0)

Absolutely that Edwards and his campaign has absolutely never poll tested a single campaign theme. Because you don't know. Jerome may have some inside info. It just seems very unlikely given how political campaigns work. So unlikely in fact that Edwards would be crazy if he didn't do it. It's politics 101.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bruh:you are in no position to deny (none / 0)

and honesty 101 is to admit when you don't have proof for something you claim


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bruh:you are in no position to deny (none / 0)

Edwards made the claim that he isn't doing it this round; and the filings back him up, all he's got is a horserace pollster. Obama's filings show 3-4 different polling groups, which are renown for their message testing. They spent over 500K in the first couple of q's testing.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

Global Strategy Group is their horserace pollster.


by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards/Polling (none / 0)

No message testing at all, ever?


by Adam B on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 0)

Its all about statistics! No one is either winning or losing out of the top 3 in the Democratic race. People failed to understand that this is a dead heat and only turn out will decide this race.
 I took statistics in College and I think it should be required for everyone(especially some so called bloggers)to understand what's going on instead of making some ridiculous statement like: Hillary/Obama/Edward is toasted. There are other reasons to make these statements but to give polls  within the MOE as evidence reflected on anyone who does badly.
"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:34:41 AM EST

Jr: you're essentially correct. (none / 0)

Statistically they are tied. The toast comments, no marmalade?, are mainly directed to the consequences of loosing except in the case of a few true believers. Turn out and organization will indeed decide this race which in any case has been completely overhyped by the press given the compact electoral primary calendar this year. In the toast department it's probably fair to say either of the Obama or Edwards campaigns will remain stuck in the toaster if they lose.    


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:46:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr: you're essentially correct. (none / 0)

I agree with almost everything you said excerpt I would contend  hypothetically if John wins and Obama comes out a close 2nd, Hillary would be in big trouble with the story coming out of the media( the aura of inevitability over?).If Obama wins, John 2nd and Hillary 3rd the race is not over between the three. John would not drop out and the race would head to NH. If Hillary wins, it's all hers.


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

"I took statistics in College and I think it should be required for everyone(especially some so called bloggers)to understand what's going on instead of making some ridiculous statement like: Hillary/Obama/Edward is toasted."

I have trouble believing what I am reading here from the VERY SAME POSTER who stated THIS:

http://jr1886.mydd.com/comments/2007/12/ 30/64934/882/31#31


Re: McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa (+Zogby) (none / 0)

She's toasted to put it bluntly

by Jr1886 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:46 PM EST

and, in another rendition of "he is toast" theme:

http://jr1886.mydd.com/comments/2007/12/ 30/64934/882/30#30


Re: McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa (+Zogby) (none / 0)

I won't be surprised to learn thats it's all over for Edwards on Friday(ironically) considering he has lived in Iowa since 2004.

by Jr1886 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:05 PM EST

Looks to me that YOU were the one who actually was at the forefront of "making ridiculous statements like: Hillary/Obama/Edward is toasted."


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Yes, i did make these statements but you failed to give the full context when I made them. I was responding to relentless attacks from Hillary and John supportes that Obama is toasted. That was a shouting match and anything goes but you don't see me relying just on polls within the MOE to make a serious argument that anyone of three is toasted.

I welcome your investigative flair but I still stand by my statement that anyone who relies on these polls to conclude that either one of three is toasted should take some statistic class or buy one of those self-help dummies books.


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jr:stop digging! (none / 0)


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ottovbvs Is tand by my comments (none / 0)

in a shouting match anything goes


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bruh: here's another spade. (none / 0)


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Here is the entire diary/thread:

http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/30/64934/8 82

Your comments did in no way come in the middle of a heated "shouting match."   I really don't mind these over the top comments, personally, they give me lots to work with, after all.  However, it was then amazing to see that you, of all people, wrote the above.  I had to look twice, as I remembered my exchange with you in regards to the toasted comment from just yesterday.   I just found the chutzpah interesting, that's all.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:19:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you just prove my point (none / 0)

Here's what I said from the thread you posted above:

Re: McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa (+Zogby) (none / 0)

I disagree. Polls are more or less meaningless at this point and ground game is key now. And Obama has arguably the best organization. Hillary will not win as of today based on her 2nd choice placement.


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

The Obama and Edwards second choices are irrelevant because they are both going to top 15%. Their voters second choices unless they jump ship in the first pass are not in play. This leaves Biden, Dodd, etc. On balance I'd say most of their support would gravitate to Clinton.  


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

John Kerry was not viable in a few places last time I checked.The 2nd choices I am refering to are precisely that of Dodd,Richardson, and Biden. They will not gravitate to Clinton, she's a known figure and as the polls shows- outside of MOE- she's trailing badly


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

Aand, once again, you are wrong.  I have shown the findings regarding second choicers from Zogby just yesterday.  When they are calculated into the findings, Clinton is still ahead of the pack.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:43:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

Polls are everything to you. What polls you are referring to Zogby? How ironic??


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

I forgot:  Polls are only good if they show what you want to highlight.  If they don't, then they are to be dismissed.  It is the Obama fan mantra in the waning moments of a campaign in which he appears to lose major steam.  

It was YOU who made this false statement:

"The 2nd choices I am refering to are precisely that of Dodd,Richardson, and Biden. They will not gravitate to Clinton, she's a known figure and as the polls shows- outside of MOE- she's trailing badly."

That is neither shown in the ARG polling data, nor in the Zogby nor LATimes Bloomberg poll.  You are carelessly confusing "second choices" from Biden, Richardson and Dodd with the entire "second choice" realm, which includes also Obama and Edwards.  The two latter numbers are obviously less important than where Biden's and Richardson's support is headed (as the second choice,) as the top-3 should be viable in most precincts.  


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

that's precisely what you doing. Cherry picking polls that have no credibility to prove your insane argument. Everyone knows-except you- that Hillary is doing badly among 2nd choices but you keep referring to Zogby and ARG as proof that Hillary is doing well. Give me a break! maybe this should enlighten you a bit  :http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_po llsters_rating_the_i.php

These polling firm you are refering to have the worst rating , the worrst in the business.


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (none / 0)

I think you are the one who are talks himself into a frenzy.  We have seen 6 polls come out recently.  I list 3 of them as showing that Clinton's second choice performance, according to those polls, don't take away from her overall small lead, once parsed into the overall result.  How is it ok to dismiss 50% of the entire polling we have seen as garbage?  I submit it is you who does not make a lot of sense here.  

Remember that I was responding to this comment of yours, which is obviously false:

"They will not gravitate to Clinton, she's a known figure and as the polls shows- outside of MOE- she's trailing badly."

That is NOT what the polls show.  Just because you don't like the one or the other poll does not make your absolute points more valid.  You defeat your own arguments here.  For instance, Research 2000 and Strategic Vision are both ALSO lowly rated, so is Rasmussen.  (Research 2000 is the Quad City Times poll, btw.)   So, if you cherry pick just the polls YOU like and dismiss polls that you dislike, then these 3 lowly rated polls should be dismissed as well.   There goes the other 50% of the polls we have seen.    

A bit less superlatives and absolutes would help.  I think Hillary Clinton will win Iowa in the end, but it will be close and hardly a slam-dunk.  Nobody is "toasted," nobody is clearly out of it in any measure "as everybody knows."  Relax a bit with that stuff.  I am showing you evidence that your absolute assertions are simply wrong (conflicting evidence) and nobody knows for sure which poll has it really right.  For instance, ARG insist that they have the superior LV model this time around, the tightest, and the way they make absolutely sure that respondents are really also caucus goers (rather than just having the best intentions of going) by asking follow-up question to narrow it down further, they may just be right.

 We shall see by Thursday, but going by historical standards, we may see a polling firm that is lowly rated come out as the best this time around, as happened in every cycle, where Rasmussen went from first to worst, Gallup from worst to first, ARG and Zogby were right on in one cycle, not so good the next, etc.


by georgep on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jr what second choices would they be? (2.00 / 1)

Second choices of Obama, Edwards and Clinton are still important no matter if all three are viable in the precinct.  Remember it's all about getting as high a percentage of delegates for that precinct that you can.  Most of the three camps are going to have enough to get at least 1 delegate from a precinct, but not enough for 2 or 3 delegates after the first round.  The experienced precinct captains will know how many they will need to get an extra delegate or two and they will not only go to the non-viable candidates but also to the other 2 major candidates' supporters to see who they can peel off and join their group.

It just seems to me that both Clinton and Obama don't want to see the other one win so the biggest beneficiary will probably be Edwards.  That is how I see him having a wider victory margin than the actual number of his supporters in raw numbers.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 1)

I don't pretend know what's going to happen, but judging by all the fear and resentment spewing forth one can tell that a few people here are shaken in their boots. Politics is a blood sport, and I think that's starting to come home. However, don't fool yourselves into believing it won't get nasty if Edwards does pull off a win.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:37:09 AM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (2.00 / 2)

The approved script of the media in this race has been build up Obama, tear down Hillary, and scornfully ignore Edwards as a nonentity.  It's pretty obvious to anyone paying attention.  

I'm a Hillary supporter, but would be happier with Edwards as president than with Obama.  I agree that JE is being underestimated, especially in Iowa.  If he wins it, he is suddenly viable again (though he has been all along, they will just be pressured to actually report it then.)


by WMCB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 12:32:45 PM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

Never underestimates the media's ability to stick with what they have decided is the narrative.


by bruh21 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

ABO-Anybody but Obama. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


by lonnette33 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 01:44:07 PM EST

Re: Edwards Rising (none / 0)

On POTUS this am, Zobgy said Sunday night's sample had Clinton below 30 (I presume that means 29) and Edwards at 28.


by desmoulins on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:01:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: