In New Memo, Edwards Campaign Makes Most Extensive Case Yet For Electability

Comments (31)

AJ wrote on October 18, 2007 11:00 AM:

I think his case is particularly strong against Giuliani. Rudy would probably help the Republicans in NJ, CT and PA (though not NY), Edwards is the only candidate that has the potential to counter that by putting other states into play on our side, in the west and border south particularly.

audit the polls wrote on October 18, 2007 11:16 AM:

Yay Edwards. He's in it to win it. Not hand it over to the Republicans, like Gore and Kerry. And his policies are great. Clinton's big money=big corruption.

I really favor Kucinich, but big media would have him shot; a la Dean. BTW, when I search Kucinich on TPM nothing comes up.

elrapierwit wrote on October 18, 2007 11:19 AM:

"Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani. Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is identical to or better than that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin."

So, if we believe Guiliani is the nominee our best candidate, according to this data, is Edwards, but if any other GOP is the candidate...Obama or Edwards will be far better than Hillary. I agree with that assesment.

"last four months shows Clinton losing to every Republican challenger, even Romney and Thompson, who neither defeat nor tie either Obama or Edwards, confirming Clinton as the weakest major Democrat in the general election"

I've always beleive that Clinton is the weakest candidate for the general, not only will she increase the GOP turnout...but she also will depress the Democratic turnout as there are a significant number who will not vote for Hillary even among those who go to the polls that are Democratic, they also will vote for everyone else Democratic EXCEPT the top of the ticket. Bottomline folks either really like her or hate her, neither side is budging.

"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."

Obama brings new states into play as well...Mississippi, Georgia and S.Carolina as well as Virginia.

" In a poll conducted in August by Biden pollster Celinda Lake, an initial 19 point lead for the Democratic House member in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008 is slashed to only 6 when they are linked to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and their "liberal" policies."

Interesting. Does this mean that Edwards 'populist' message does not have the same impact?

"Finally, Edwards at this point demonstrates the greatest appeal to Independents beating Guiliani by 13%. Obama wins Independents by 5% and Clinton wins them by 3% against Guiliani.”

Once again this is only if the candidate is Guiliani, otherwise Obama has far and away the most appeal to Independents AND republicans vs. Edwards and Hillary.

American wrote on October 18, 2007 11:33 AM:

I want to puke after reading this "memo".

JRE failed to even provide a narrow victory to Kerry in any one of those red states, even a narrow loss would have proved his points.

Once red America, i.e. TN, KY, MO and VA get to know his $400 haircut, his war on terror "bumper sticker" saga and his socialist programs, they will flock us.

Iowan wrote on October 18, 2007 11:40 AM:

One explanation for the fact that fewer voters perceive Edwards as liberal than they do either Obama or Clinton and more view him as conservative--and thus more electable--is not that his message isn't getting through, but that the voters view him as more like themselves.

If the voter considers him-or herself to be conservative, that's the glass through which they see John Edwards because they like/support him.

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 18, 2007 11:46 AM:

If Edwards is such a rock star in the South, why is Hillary beating him in North Carolina?

Why is he in SINGLE DIGITS in South Carolina, his birth state and a state he carried last time?

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

If polls based on hypothetical match-ups are as authoritative as Edwards claims, than how much weight should be give the polls that show him as an afterthought in the Democratic primary?

Dan wrote on October 18, 2007 12:24 PM:

Wait, is this true? Are Hillary and Obama really LOSING to the GOP in these polls?

ExBrit wrote on October 18, 2007 12:50 PM:

Edwards is the one who can beat the Republicans in November. I have no doubt, however, that Democrats will nominate another loser (i.e., Hillary or Obama), whose negatives, nationally, are so obvious that it begs the question - do Democrats like to lose? As a lifelong Democrat I'm completely frustrated with my fellow Dems.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 1:10 PM:

Obama's negatives aren't high nationally. I think they are actually the lowest.

I think Iowan is exactly right.

American, people don't vote for the vice-president. How many states did Dick Cheney or Al Gore or Dan Quayle add?

brianr wrote on October 18, 2007 1:30 PM:

Laughable. Almost as laughable as Kos supporting Chris Dodd.

csense wrote on October 18, 2007 1:46 PM:

This memo confirms what political observers who aren't tainted by their dreams already know. It's obvious that Edwards would do better in the general than either Clinton or Obama.

Hillary can win among Democrats, but it is unlikely she could win the general election. The polls that show her as weak put the election at this point in the definitely within reach range for the GOP. Does anyone really want that result just to satisfy Hillary's ego and ambition? The negative impact of her candidacy on the rest of the ticket is obvious.

Obama, as likeable and smart as he is, is obviously not a very good candidate as the past 6 months have proven. He comes across as a black version of centrism---better than Harold Ford but not as good as a real Democrat who favors real liberalism. He has listened to the smart guys in DC advising him and so his message of change is blunted if not nuetered by the fact that he is mouthing almost exactly the same stuff as Hillary who doesn't even pretend to represent anything other than business as usual. The only real differences between Obama and Clinton are personal differences, not policy differences. His weakness as a candidate is apparent by this slippage in the polls vs Hillary.

If Democrats want to win in November 08 and win big enough to secure a Democratic majority that will not cowtow to the Republicans as this Congress has, then Edwards needs to be the candidate at the top of the ticket.

There are two dreams obfuscating this reality for lots of Dems. The first is the dream of those who want a woman in the White House. The other is the dream of those who want to see a black President. Both are good things, but the general electorate doesn't share the same level of desire for seeing those dreams come true.

The "elect the woman" mentality that propels Hillary's candidacy is suicidal for Dems in the general. The elect a black President urge is less a problem because Obama has nothing like the baggage Hillary does to weaken his effort, but it still is problematic in terms of winning in November and winning big.

The vital question is whether we can afford the luxury of these dreams when the Republicans AND Democrats are selling us, our consitution and our future down the river? Personally, I think not.

IWW wrote on October 18, 2007 1:47 PM:

Yes, about that Kos interview...

Is there anywhere on the TPM site(s) that we can comment about TPM-TV episodes? I'm sure a lot of us have something to say about the Kos interview, and it seems a bit unfair just to post it without any forum for feedback.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 18, 2007 2:23 PM:

I will NOT vote for Bush-Lite!

kjoe wrote on October 18, 2007 3:02 PM:

I am an Obama supporter.

I think there is something wrong with the lack of coverage being given to Edwards. Marginal and joke candidates are being given more attention, and marginal, frivolous non-issues are being covered while the worthwhile efforts of Edwards, (and, of course, Obama) are being shortchanged.

dcshungu wrote on October 18, 2007 3:13 PM:

This memo confirms what political observers who aren't tainted by their dreams already know. It's obvious that Edwards would do better in the general than either Clinton or Obama.

LOL. What is Edwards smoking? The way to make the case for electability is to show your strength in attracting support. Although he has practically lived in IA since losing the last GE with Kerry, Edwards is tied with Obama there and trailing Clinton. The kiss of death, however, is that this guy has had such a hard time stirring emotions that his fund-raising dried up. With no option left but one, he did the unthinkable and went, pan-in-hand, to the public trough to get support for his moribund campaign. So, what we now have is the spectacle this "dead man walking", who has unilaterally disarmed against the eventual GOP nominee, claiming that he is the most electable Dem candidate? If you believe that then I have a great piece of lush and green land just south of Morocco to sell for a great price - public financing available for qualified individuals... Liberal Larry wrote on October 18, 2007 3:28 PM:

Save the Democratic Party.
End the culture of corruption.
Stop Bush-Lite!

Reference Librarian wrote on October 18, 2007 3:35 PM:

This is the most nonsensical crap I’ve read in a long while, which is saying a great deal.
1. As everyone says early polling—13 months before the election for God’s sake—is hardly a reliable indicator of political viability. The fact the Edwards is relying only on public funding makes this even more salient. He will be unable to respond effectively to Republican attacks for months next year. After they’re finished with him he’ll be lucky to be in the low forties by election day.
2. Among the battleground states not included in this so called analysis are New Mexico and Florida, both states where Clinton decisively out performs Edwards. Florida’s importance and battleground status can hardly be overestimated, but New Mexico is also significant. It after all a stat with one of the highest proportions of Latino voters, so a strong performance there is evidence of appeal to an extremely important swing group. Including Kansas, Alabama and Oklahoma as battleground states is drunken absurdity; Kansas and Oklahoma haven’t gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson and Alabama
3. The notion that Edwards’ southern roots makes him competitive in the South and West is balderdash. Southerners, like most people, vote more on the basis of ideology and economic self interest than on cultural affinity. Jimmy Carter lost every state but Georgia in 1980, and Al Gore only managed to come close in Florida, not culturally a Southern state, twenty years later. Had Ross Perot not run Bill Clinton would have also lost every Southern state except for Arkansas in 1992 and Arkansas and Louisiana in 1996
4. Edwards’ very weak showing in New York and California is symptomatic of a campaign ready for intensive care, if not the morgue. These are two of the biggest and most expensive media markets in the country. How does the Edwards campaign propose to compete there when they’ve given up private financing? Furthermore, between them New York and California have 86 electoral votes. If Edwards looses them, but wins all the battleground states listed on page 3 of the memo plus Florida, New Mexico and the rest of the Kerry states, he still looses the electoral college 272-266. Indeed, if Edwards really is doing poorly in New York and California he may well be in trouble in other blue states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington.
5. The Edwards campaign does not appear to understand to concept of margin of error. In nearly every case his advantage over Clinton versus leading Republican candidates is not statistically significant. In others words in reality Clinton and Edwards are basically tied in battleground states like Iowa, Oregon, and Ohio.
6. Campaigns matter. All things being equal effective candidates beat ineffective ones nine times out day. The classical example is Harry Truman in 1948 and the recent cases of Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, Bush senior in 1992 and Carter in 1980. Carter, believe it or not, was leading Reagan by 20 points early in 1980. He also nearly lost to Jerry Ford, perhaps the one presidential candidate more inept than he was. Being largely intangible, judging electoral competence is pretty subjective. One measure, not always available, is how well the candidate has done in other competitive elections. Edwards has won exactly two elections in his life, his senate race in 1998 and the South Carolina primary in 2004. Hillary, on the other hand, has been a participant/observer in over a dozen winning state and national elections. Another metric goes back to Machiavelli: “ A matter of no small importance to a prince is the selection of ministers, for their competence or incompetence will depend upon his capacity to judge; the first estimate of his intelligence will be based upon the character of the men he keeps about him.” The delusional stupidity set forth in this memorandum is ample evidence—as if more were needed—that John Edwards is totally out of his depth in American politics.

Reference Librarian wrote on October 18, 2007 3:40 PM:

I really ought to proof read before posting. Sigh
This is the most nonsensical crap I’ve read in a long while, which is saying a great deal.
1. As everyone says early polling—13 months before the election for God’s sake—is hardly a reliable indicator of political viability. The fact the Edwards is relying only on public funding makes this even more salient. He will be unable to respond effectively to Republican attacks for months next year. After they’re finished with him he’ll be lucky to be in the low forties by election day.
2. Among the battleground states not included in this so called analysis are New Mexico and Florida, both states where Clinton decisively out performs Edwards. Florida’s importance and battleground status can hardly be overestimated, but New Mexico is also significant. It after all a state with one of the highest proportions of Latino voters, so a strong performance there is evidence of appeal to an extremely important swing group. Including Kansas, Alabama and Oklahoma as battleground states is drunken absurdity; Kansas and Oklahoma haven’t gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson and Alabama last went Democratic in Jimmy Carter’s Southern Sweep in 1976
3. The notion that Edwards’ southern roots makes him competitive in the South and West is balderdash. Southerners, like most people, vote more on the basis of ideology and economic self interest than on cultural affinity. Jimmy Carter lost every state but Georgia in 1980, and Al Gore only managed to come close in Florida, not culturally a Southern state, twenty years later. Had Ross Perot not run Bill Clinton would have also lost every Southern state except for Arkansas in 1992 and Arkansas and Louisiana in 1996
4. Edwards’ very weak showing in New York and California is symptomatic of a campaign ready for intensive care, if not the morgue. These are two of the biggest and most expensive media markets in the country. How does the Edwards campaign propose to compete there when they’ve given up private financing? Furthermore, between them New York and California have 86 electoral votes. If Edwards looses them, but wins all the battleground states listed on page 3 of the memo plus Florida, New Mexico and the rest of the Kerry states, he still looses the electoral college 272-266. Indeed, if Edwards really is doing poorly in New York and California he may well be in trouble in other blue states like New Jersey, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington.
5. The Edwards campaign does not appear to understand to concept of margin of error. In nearly every case his advantage over Clinton versus leading Republican candidates is not statistically significant. In others words in reality Clinton and Edwards are basically tied in battleground states like Iowa, Oregon, and Ohio.
6. Campaigns matter. All things being equal effective candidates beat ineffective ones nine times out day. The classical example is Harry Truman in 1948 and the recent cases of Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, Bush senior in 1992 and Carter in 1980. Carter, believe it or not, was leading Reagan by 20 points early in 1980. He also nearly lost to Jerry Ford, perhaps the one presidential candidate more inept than he was. Being largely intangible, judging electoral competence is pretty subjective. One measure, not always available, is how well the candidate has done in other competitive elections. Edwards has won exactly two elections in his life, his senate race in 1998 and the South Carolina primary in 2004. Hillary, on the other hand, has been a participant/observer in over a dozen winning state and national elections. Another metric goes back to Machiavelli: “ A matter of no small importance to a prince is the selection of ministers, for their competence or incompetence will depend upon his capacity to judge; the first estimate of his intelligence will be based upon the character of the men he keeps about him.” The delusional stupidity set forth in this memorandum is ample evidence—as if more were needed—that John Edwards is totally out of his depth in American politics.

DTM wrote on October 18, 2007 3:47 PM:

The best way to show electability is to attract the most support within your own party?

How does either party ever lose?

Liberal Larry wrote on October 18, 2007 3:55 PM:

Bush-Lite and her followers are "agnostic" about the Democratic culture of corruption.

Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 4:34 PM:

The best way to show electability is to attract the most support within your own party?

If you cannot attract or fire up your own, what makes you think that they'll turn out for you on ED or that the other side would cross the line for you?

DTM wrote on October 18, 2007 5:46 PM:

Anonymous,

On the turnout point: just because a member of your party supports someone else in the primary does not mean they don't like you at all. Moreover, primary support is a complicated thing: some people might not actually prefer the other person over you on the merits, but they may be voting for that other candidate for any number of strategic reasons. But if you do happen to get the nomination, it is possible they would actually be more "fired up" about you being the candidate.

As for crossovers (and independents, although you did not mention them): well, obviously the most popular person in one party is not necessarily going to be the most popular person in the other party (or among independents). Again, though, this is complicated: some politicians tend to have relatively high ratings in their own party but relatively low ratings in the other party (and perhaps among independents). These are sometimes called "polarizing" candidates. Other politicians manage to be popular in their own party while also attracting crossover and independent support. These are sometimes called candidates with "broad appeal". The candidates with broad appeal, by the way, are the ones who tend to win big (assuming they win), although polarizing candidates can of course win (they just tend to be close elections).

But in any event, my original point was that it is obviously wrong that whoever gets the most support in the primaries is necessarily the most electable.

Anne wrote on October 18, 2007 6:04 PM:

Actually, this theory about Edwards being the most electable in a general election are borne out by three recent polls, not conducted by Edwards' pollsters: SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and Quinnipiac. Edwards leads the majority of Dem vs. Repub contests, in the majority of states.

The disconnect here is that Democrats seem to want to believe that Hillary is the best against the Republicans, and are being sold a bill of goods by her camp and by the media. however, real-life data is not proving that to be true.

Edwards may not be the perfect candidate (but, then again, who is?), but he indeed gives the Dem party the best chance against any of the Republicans. If we want to see another Democrat in the White House, Edwards must be the nominee.

Reference Librarian wrote on October 18, 2007 8:59 PM:

Anne, could you provide links to those polls, because honestly I’m not seeing the same results. Here are two tables from the last Quinnipiac national poll I found (dated August 15, 2008 link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1091)
3. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates
were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom
would you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Clinton 46% 7% 82% 43% 42% 49%
Giuliani 43 84 13 40 48 39
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 1 5 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 1 5 3 2
DK/NA 6 5 3 7 4 7

Red Blue Purple

Clinton 44% 52% 43%
Giuliani 46 40 43
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 2 3 3
DK/NA 5 4 8

TREND: If the 2008 election for president were being held today, and the candidates were Hillary Clinton the Democrat and Rudolph Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Aug 15 Jun 13 May 3 Feb 21 Mar 10 Feb 2 Dec 16
2007 2007 2007 2007 2005 2005 2004

Clinton 46 45 40 43 43 43 43
Giuliani 43 44 49 48 44 45 45
SMONE ELSE 3 2 1 1 2 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE 3 3 2 2 1 2 2
DK/NA 6 6 7 5 10 7 6

5. If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates
were John Edwards the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would
you vote?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Edwards 43% 9% 71% 43% 39% 46%
Giuliani 42 79 17 38 49 36
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2 1 4 3 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 2 2 5 2 4
DK/NA 10 8 9 9 7 12

Red Blue Purple

Edwards 42% 45% 42%
Giuliani 42 43 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 3 2 3
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3 4
DK/NA 10 7 12

TREND: If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were John Edwards the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?

Aug 15 Feb 21
2007 2007

Edwards 43 40
Giuliani 42 48
SMONE ELSE(VOL) 2 2
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) 3 3
DK/NA 10 8

As you can see Clinton is doing slightly better than Edwards in the Red and Purple states (44 to 42 and 43 to 42 respectively) and is decisively stronger in the Blue States (52 to 45)
Furthermore in polls released just last week (October 10) Quinnipiac shows Clinton leading the Republican candidates in three major swing states, Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, while Edwards lead Giuliani only in Ohio and trailing him slightly in Pennsylvania and Florida.
FLORIDA: Clinton 46 – Giuliani 43; Edwards 41 – Giuliani 43
OHIO: Clinton 46 – Giuliani 40; Edwards 46 - Giuliani 36
PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 – Giuliani 42 Edwards 43- Giuliani 44
(link: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109)
I haven’t seen any national Survey USA polls, but there are a number of state match ups, which I posted earlier which generally show Clinton running stronger than Edwards (all right, I didn’t include Oklahoma, but I can’t believe any Democrat is going to take that state ) As for Rasmussen, the data is a little uncertain since the polls were taken on different dates. Clinton has a seven point lead over Giuliani in a poll taken October 8-9, Edwards had a nine point lead in a poll taken September 26 and 27. Given the typical margin of error this two point differential is basically meaningless. (source Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)
As are these early polls. Based on over 40 years observing presidential elections I’d say what will count next November will be the general sense of the country, the basic political and communication skills of the candidates, the effectiveness of their organizations and their financial capability. As Grantland Rice said, “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

Reference Librarian wrote on October 18, 2007 9:05 PM:

Oops, I must have posted the Survey USA data on another site:
Current Survey USA head to head ratings selected states:
Purple Red States
Florida 10/04/2007 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 49% Giuliani 43%
Clinton 50% Thompson 42%
Clinton 51% Romney 41%
Obama 41% Giuliani 50%
Obama 42% Thompson 48%
Obama 44% Romney 46%
Edwards 43% Giuliani 48%
Edwards 46% Thompson 43%
Edwards 50% Romney 37%
Virginia 9/25/2007 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 50% Giuliani 44%
Clinton 50% Thompson 43%
Clinton 53% Romney 38%
Obama 46% Giuliani 46%
Obama 45% Thompson 47%
Obama 55% Romney 36%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 43%
Edwards 54% Thompson 37%
Edwards 52% Romney 33%
New Mexico 9/24/07 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 51% Giuliani 43%
Clinton 53% Thompson 42%
Clinton 54% Romney 39%
Obama 46% Giuliani 46%
Obama 52% Thompson 41%
Obama 55% Romney 36%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 52% Thompson 37%
Edwards 54% Romney 34%
Bright Blue States 10/02/07 Margin of error +/-4 .3%
Massachusetts
Clinton 59% Giuliani 34%
Clinton 61% Thompson 32%
Clinton 65% Romney 31%
Obama 48% Giuliani 43%
Obama 53% Thompson 36%
Obama 57% Romney 35%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 40%
Edwards 56% Thompson 31%
Edwards 57% Romney 32%
New York 10/01/07 Margin of error +/-4.3%
Clinton 59% Giuliani 35%
Clinton 64% Thompson 30%
Clinton 67% Romney 27%
Obama 49% Giuliani 44%
Obama 53% Thompson 38%
Obama 58% Romney 30%
Edwards 45% Giuliani 46%
Edwards 54% Thompson 32%
Edwards 58% Romney 24%
California 9/30/07 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 57% Giuliani 37%
Clinton 60% Thompson 34%
Clinton 63% Romney 30%
Obama 48% Giuliani 44%
Obama 53% Thompson 37%
Obama 51% Romney 36%
Edwards 46% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 53% Thompson 32%
Edwards 58% Romney 27%

Washington State 9/29/07 Margin of error +/-4.5%
Clinton 47% Giuliani 47%
Edwards 45% Giuliani 44%
Oregon 9/29/07 Margin of error +/-4.3%
Clinton 46% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 47% Giuliani 43%
Minnesota 9/27/07 Margin of error +/-4.3%
Clinton 52% Giuliani 41%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 40%
Wisconsin 9/26/07 Margin of error +/-4.4%
Clinton 48% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 44% Giuliani 45%
Ohio 9/21/07 Margin of Error +/- 4.3%
Clinton 50% Giuliani 42%
Edwards 53% Giuliani 39%
Iowa 9/23/07 Margin of Error +/- 4.3%
Clinton 50% Giuliani 42%
Edwards 53% Giuliani 39%
Missouri 9/22/07 Margin of error +/- 4.3%
Clinton 45% Giuliani 48%
Edwards 47% Giuliani 42%

Liberal Larry wrote on October 18, 2007 10:01 PM:

The Democratic culture of corruption must be destroyed!

daniel155 wrote on October 19, 2007 12:09 AM:

The Edwards folks have been pushing the electibility argument based on state polls and there is a whole bunch of them a few posts up. Most of them show him doing one to three points better than Clinton--well within the margin of error.

But these polls are a snapshot of the way people answer now. A lot can change by next November. I am not sure if Edwards will hold up under a long campaign where the focus is on him.

When Edwards was the vice-presidential nominee, he was in the shadows. Kerry gave him little responsibility He campaigned in the backwaters in 2004 and did not really turn those areas towards the Kerry-Edwards ticket. His performance in the debate against Cheney was poor. He made Cheney look like a statesman while he looked like a men's suit salesman.

Undoubtedly, he would do better now because he has more experience, but I don't think he has the political instincts of Hilary Clinton.

While polls may show him doing slightlybetter than Clinton in many states, Clinton is less likely to make mistakes than Edwards is. Mistakes and gaffes bring down poll numbers and Edwards seems more likely to make them than Clinton.

I think that Edwards would be a gamble as a nominee.

DTM wrote on October 19, 2007 12:38 AM:

Of course anyone but a popular incumbent is something of a gamble as a nominee. The crucial question in my view is who is most vulnerable to the same personal attack playbook the Republicans have been using in every recent election. I personally think the key to beating that playbook is to nominate someone who the voters actually like, because then the Republicans tend to experience a backlash for their typical tactics.

Is that person Edwards? Maybe--I am not personally sold, but a decent number of people do seem to like the guy.

daniel155 wrote on October 19, 2007 2:00 AM:

DTM: I am not sure if people like Edwards that much. He has stayed in the low teens in polls beginning in late spring, during the summer and now into the fall. You can't say it is because he is unknown because he was the Democratic VP nominee in 2004.

I don't see why Edwards would be any more immune to personal attacks than any other candidate Democrat or Republican. I have also heard that Edwards does make a good first impression but does not have a second act when he is exposed to the same people.

There is a small core constituency who likes and believes in Edwards but, fairly or unfairly, there is another group who views him as somewhat of a phoney.

Regardless of what you think of Edwards, his flatline numbers in preference polls for the Democratic nomination have to be disturbing. He has spent a lot of effort and money up to this point with no apparent effect.

DTM wrote on October 19, 2007 10:08 AM:

daniell55,

Support in horse race polls is not really indicative of a candidate's appeal on a personal level, because obviously people could support someone else for a host of different ideological or strategic reasons. And obviously there is a general problem with using primary polls to speculate about what would happen in a general election.

On this specific question (personal appeal), the better data tends to come from favorability polls (and variations like Gallup's "thermometer" poll). Interestingly, among the Democrats, Edwards tends to do relatively well with Republicans and Independents, but is sometimes lagging a bit among Democrats (which would help explain part of his problem in the primary polls). This is speculative, but that is broadly consistent with the well-known trend that Democrats tend not to like to give candidates a second chance.

Anyway, as I noted I do think it is an open question whether Edwards really is a particularly likeable candidate.

Nick wrote on October 19, 2007 5:27 PM:

Having met John many times I can tell you that each time I hear him speak he has yet more good, well thought out ideas which appeal to all but the most right of the populace. His wife Elizabeth is also a joy to know and would be a tremendous counterpoint to Giuliani's third.(wife that is) He has, as far as I can tell, no skeletons lurking which might pop out and kill a campaign. The best people can go for is the "kill all the lawyers" line or go after some personal stuff like haircuts etc. That gets old fairly quickly and wouldn't carry much weight in a general election.

As a doctor I can tell you he has by far the best health plan. Hilary was burned in 92 and now has week knees. Edwards has taken down insurance companies for a living and can do it again given the current will of the people. It will only happen if we get enough Dems in the house/senate in 2008 and I just don't see it happening with Hilary.

Those of us who live in the south will tell you - aint nobody here in NC gonna vote for Hilary. Every Radical Right winger will come out of the woodwork to vote against her, unfortunately, and then Jim Neal (currently the only Dem with enough guts to get out there) won't be able to throw that carpetbagger Libby Dole back to Kansas. Edwards threw out Lauch Faircloth who was a Jesse Helms clone in a Red State. He at least has a chance here in the southland. We're talking TN, AK, Kentucky, etc. Places that immediately go out of play if Hilary is the candidate.

Edwards isn't the consummate politician. He's an avg guy who went to a state school and did good by himself and his family. We wants that opportunity to still be there for our kids.

The vice presidential candidate can only hurt you (think of McGovern - or Ross Perot). People vote for the top of the ticket. I can't think of a single election that was swung by the VP candidate. I can tell you some of the mistakes in JRE's campaign this time around (like the campaign paying for his haircut instead of him paying it out of personal funds) have occurred BECAUSE he threw out the "handlers." This was in direct response to the dislike he had during the Kerry Campaign of using Kid Gloves and Botox. The Swift Boat thing REALLY pissed him off. I can guarantee you if they start to play dirty pool like that with JRE he'll take the gloves off and give them a lickin.

I'm with most Dems in that I DESPERATELY want a winner. I think Hilary might could (sic) win the North, CA and NY but she COULD lose Ohio, FL etc. Or win but barely. We need a change in the Clinton/Bush dynasty. Much as I loved Bill, Hilary has accumulated too much baggage.

www.nicksartor.com

P.S. Librarian are you "loosing" your touch?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)