"John Edwards is a devastatingly effective VP"
by wade norris, Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:35:51 PM EDT
EDWARDS WINS ON THE ROAD
We are now closer to the general, and we must win the election this fall. Time to rally behind the best ticket, and who the people already know and can get behind...
because Edwards said at one point he was not interested in VP, let me put this up, which basically reversed that statment
Mr. Edwards has carefully played down his aspirations for an administration role. In an interview in January, he said he would not accept a vice-presidential spot or Cabinet position. "No, absolutely not," he said, shaking his head emphatically when asked.
But privately, he told aides that he would consider the role of vice president, and favored the position of attorney general, which would appeal to his experience of decades spent in courtrooms as a trial lawyer in North Carolina; and his desire to follow in the footsteps of Robert F. Kennedy, one of his heroes.
EDWARDS WINS ON THE ROAD....SurveyUSA has been putting out an interesting series of Obama-McCain polls where they test possible VP choices. In some ways, the polls were badly done -- what's the point of asking people if they prefer Obama-Sebelius to McCain-Pawlenty in Virginia, where nobody knows who Sebelius or Pawlenty are? It might've been better to test, say, Mark Warner there. (You wanted Jim Webb? He's a good Senator and all, but you really need to read Kathy Geier on this.)
The one thing that the polls do show, though, is that John Edwards is a devastatingly effective VP choice for Obama. He performs equal or better than the other Democrats in their home states and helps Obama beat McCain's VP picks in their home states.
Take Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell is a popular governor. But against any Republican pairing, an Obama/Edwards ticket does better than Obama/Rendell by 3 to 5 points, and leaves every other pairing far behind. There's no reason to consider Rendell for VP against numbers like this -- John Edwards can beat him in the state he's supposed to secure.
Or take Kansas, where Kathleen Sebelius is popular. An Obama/Edwards ticket does better than Obama/Sebelius against two opponents, while Obama/Sebelius does better than Obama/Edwards against two. There still is good reason to consider Sebelius, in part because her history of converting Republicans would reinforce Obama's message of national unity (which I find annoying, but whatever). But it's pretty impressive that Edwards is neck-and-neck with her on her home turf.
Now some will accuse me of beating the drums on this one, but let's face it, it is not going to be HRC, and the next most popular democratic candidate nationally and especially in red state blue collar states where Obama needs a boost, is John Edwards- heck he even got 7% in West Virginia.
He basically tied Wes Clark in Oklahoma in 2004 (whom I think the Clintons talked into running to blunt John Edwards appeal) and he can pull in more southern voters in states like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Mississippi.
As Mudcat Saunders said:
The Reagan Democrats want to come home, they are just dying to come home," he said. "All we just got to get a tent big enough to let them in."
Indeed, with Obama pulling in 95% of the Black vote in the south, and Edwards adding the white working class Reagan democrats, we could bring back into the fold the south, whom Lyndon Johnson knew the Democrats would lose for a generation with the voting rights act.
Well that generation has come today.