MyDD :: Edwards and the electability question

Edwards and the electability question

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:14:39 AM EST

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)

Permalink :: 212 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:18:47 AM EST

It's the first time since (3.00 / 5)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the first time since (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What rural voters want. (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

it's the center for rural strategies (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:01:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's the center for rural strategies (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's the center for rural strategies (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What rural voters want. (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:06:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but it might be that (none / 0)

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.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, but it might be that (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There hasn't been a real shortage of press (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rich People (none / 0)

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

by Adam B on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In all fairness, (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "middle class"? (none / 0)

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

by Adam B on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The "middle class"? (3.00 / 1)

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

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The "middle class"? (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The "middle class"? (none / 0)

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

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rich People (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yr Wrong (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yr Wrong (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yr Wrong (none / 0)

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

by Adam B on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 05:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rich People (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 07:08:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

Yea, I was referring to official word.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:25:46 AM EST

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.33 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:27:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice insinuation (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice insinuation (2.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice insinuation (1.00 / 2)

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

by DrFrankLives on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:41:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice insinuation (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:43:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ok - thanks (2.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:49:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok - thanks (3.00 / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:58:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok - thanks (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok - thanks (none / 0)

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

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:15:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ok - thanks (none / 0)

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

by dansac on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your true colors revealed (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: your true colors revealed (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he wants more than that (none / 0)

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

by DrFrankLives on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he wants more than that (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice insinuation (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice insinuation (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

"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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls are cerainly indicators of facts (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:58:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (2.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:28:28 AM EST

Re: I agree (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:50:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

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.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:09:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:18:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:36:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:01:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree (none / 0)

>>>>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!

Hillary/Obama08

by annefrank on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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.

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:29:22 AM EST

Re: Edwards was unable to carry his own state (3.00 / 2)

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.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you need to update your GOP script (3.00 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

guess Edwards' (1.00 / 3)

campaigning wasn't getting too much traction down there.

Excuses.

by jforshaw on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:55:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: guess Edwards' (3.00 / 2)

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.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: guess Edwards' (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: guess Edwards' (none / 0)

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

by bruh21 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you need to update your GOP script (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you need to update your GOP script (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:55:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kerry and Clinton (3.00 / 1)

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.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kerry and Clinton (none / 0)

"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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:39:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

coming from gop-land (3.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:30:26 AM EST

Re: coming from gop-land (none / 0)

<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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: coming from gop-land (3.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:59:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: coming from gop-land (3.00 / 2)

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.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: coming from gop-land (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:43:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that was the implication (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Believe it or not (none / 0)

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.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:31:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (1.20 / 5)

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.

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.
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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:31:47 AM EST

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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

by GraniteMan on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're an idiot (2.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:44:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're an idiot (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:49:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

two posts - no blog entries (2.33 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:46:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.33 / 3)

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.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:50:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.00 / 2)

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.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:57:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.33 / 3)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.00 / 2)

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."

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:11:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (1.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 02:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (3.00 / 1)

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.

Hoosiers for Hill -- Barack Obama

by BWasikIUgrad on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 04:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (2.00 / 2)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards and the electability question (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 03:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I share your views on Edwards (3.00 / 1)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:53:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wash your mouth out with soap. (none / 0)

by mrobinsong on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh NOOOOOOEZ!!!!!11!!! (none / 0)

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.

Support Regina Thomas, GA-12

by Drew on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN (none / 0)

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

by dansac on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:41:44 AM EST

Re: CNN (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 11:46:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN (none / 0)

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 on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CNN (none / 0)

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 a