Poll: Edwards Ahead Of Republicans ... In Oklahoma!

Comments (28)

daniel155 wrote on October 3, 2007 11:01 AM:

Perhaps they are confusing him with former Representative Mickey Edwards (R-OK) I don't look for the Democratic presidential candidate to win in Oklahoma unless he or she is winning everywhere else except Idaho and Utah.

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 11:07 AM:

Democratic presidential candidate to win in Oklahoma unless he or she is winning everywhere else except Idaho and Utah.

They have not voted Democrattic since 1964 and they prefer Edwards,hey? Strange, since AR, just next door, will vote overwhelmingly for HRC...

Translation: The Oklahomans believe that Edwards is the most beatable Democrat.

Dave wrote on October 3, 2007 11:15 AM:

Except for Obama, all the numbers look significantly closer than one would expect. We'll have to wait and see, but I suspect Edwards or Clinton could both pick up some surprise states. Obama could lock CA and NY, but I think the other 48 would be a real battle for him.

Dan wrote on October 3, 2007 11:23 AM:

First, I don't believe the Dems have a shot in OK.

Second...GO ROMNEY GO!!!!!!!

demwinger wrote on October 3, 2007 11:28 AM:

if Romney is the nominee we most definately have a shot at many red states. especially considering there will likely be a right wing christian running 3rd party cause Romney the Mormon is unacceptable.

eric wrote on October 3, 2007 11:37 AM:

Translation: The Oklahomans believe that Edwards is the most beatable Democrat.

What?

Are you saying that they picked him in the poll not because they really like him but instead want to pretend that they like him so that the democrats endorse him and then they will not choose Edwards in the election?

Give me a break.

gqmartinez wrote on October 3, 2007 11:42 AM:

I'm not supporting Obama, but I'm pretty sure he'd win more than just NY and CA.

JustOneGuy wrote on October 3, 2007 11:46 AM:

To dcshungu:

I grew up in Arkansas. Hillary spoke at my high school while I was a student and she was first lady of Arkansas. Later, I worked in Washington as a political appointee during her husband's administration. I know lots of people in Arkansas, and in a lot of other places for that matter. Most of the people I know and hang out with are democrats. Yet, I don't know one person, not one, who wants Hillary to be president. That is why all these polls confound me. Perhaps the media and the pollsters are pretending that Hillary is so popular because they are conspiring to hand the election to the Republicans when the real voting takes place. Yeah, that's far fetched, but not as far fetched as the voters of Oklahoma conspiring to pretend to prefer Edwards to Republicans.

Madorsky wrote on October 3, 2007 11:58 AM:

These polls are pretty shocking, but having been to Oklahoma, I think I can safely say there is no way a Dem will carry the state in 2008.

Mike Bakunin wrote on October 3, 2007 12:04 PM:

Tsunami Alert! Tsunami Alert!!!

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 12:08 PM:

Are you saying that they picked him in the poll not because they really like him but instead want to pretend that they like him so that the democrats endorse him and then they will not choose Edwards in the election?

Yes, that is what I am saying. They have not voted for a Dem since 1964, why would they vote for one now? If Oklahoma goes Democratic, it would be nationally a landslide seismic proportions.

I wonder what a poll of Dem Candidates-only would show...

nogo war wrote on October 3, 2007 12:13 PM:

I dunno....Oklahoma Republicans would be hard pressed to support Rudi (guns/abortion)or Mitt (flip-flop/Mormon)if Clinton is not the nominee...

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 12:17 PM:

Yet, I don't know one person, not one, who wants Hillary to be president. That is why all these polls confound me. Perhaps the media and the pollsters are pretending that Hillary is so popular because they are conspiring to hand the election to the Republicans when the real voting takes place. Yeah, that's far fetched, but not as far fetched as the voters of Oklahoma conspiring to pretend to prefer Edwards to Republicans.

Pure conjecture that is not supported by a single piece of data. HRC would easily win all the blue states (including CA and NY where she is troucing everybody, while Obama and Edwards would make those two Dem bastions competitive if Rudy is the nominee...every poll shows that), many purple states, and some red sates. The electoral college vote calculus is on her side if she can accomplish that, as it looks like she would. The polling orgnizations have been bought by HRC? And the media that keeps telling us how 'polarizing' she is and how high her 'negatives' are wants her to win? Come on, man! The MSSM loves a winner and now they are flocking to her because she is doing so well, and doing so, in spite of them...

marklanegan wrote on October 3, 2007 12:18 PM:

Who cares...most Americans don't care how Edwards polls in OK...they only want to relive the 90s.

IWW wrote on October 3, 2007 12:37 PM:

MOEs please!

Anonymous wrote on October 3, 2007 12:42 PM:

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 12:17 PM:
Pure conjecture that is not supported by a single piece of data. HRC would easily win all the blue states (including CA and NY where she is troucing everybody, while Obama and Edwards would make those two Dem bastions competitive if Rudy is the nominee...every poll shows that), many purple states, and some red sates. The electoral college vote calculus is on her side if she can accomplish that, as it looks like she would. The polling orgnizations have been bought by HRC? And the media that keeps telling us how 'polarizing' she is and how high her 'negatives' are wants her to win? Come on, man! The MSSM loves a winner and now they are flocking to her because she is doing so well, and doing so, in spite of them...

Me: It appears you're a big Hilary fan, I am not, but this is an excellent post, you've hit some very valid points right on the head. There is an awful lot of denial amongst the left.

DaveW wrote on October 3, 2007 1:03 PM:

As long as we keep harping on this "electability" bullshit instead of on what kind of president we want, the left side of the political spectrum will remain in its self-created purgatory. Nobody knows who is "electable" at this point: not pollsters, not pundits, not political junkies.

The campaign hasn't started. Trying to predict the outcome of the general should be left to the idiot pundits, whose sole accomplishment is being wrong more often than random probability.

Anony says there's an awful lot of denial amongst the left. That's for sure: the left keeps sticking its fingers in its ears and, ignoring the pathetic performance of the Dem congressional majority so far, ignoring hubby Bill's record, just keeps on believing that having just any Dem in power will advance the left's causes. Been there, done that. It's a sad thing to realize that the main obstacle to peace, justice, and equality in America is the eternally frightened majority that calls itself "progressive".

mikeel wrote on October 3, 2007 1:19 PM:

Some of these state polls are screwy.
I think we ought to wait until March to
detect any potential surprises. No way HRC is within three of Giuliani in Oklahoma.

I think what were seeing is that Edwards' populism does well in many of these red states, and Thompson has more appeal in certain states, less in others.

Let's get some trends first before leaping to any conclusions.

phil james wrote on October 3, 2007 1:43 PM:

Agree with DaveW on all points.

When you have taken the wrong turn at a fork in the road and find yourself on the way to hell, the natural urge would be to turn around, go back to that fork, and take the other route. That's what the Billary candidacy promises. A return to the 1990's. Problem is it can't be done. We are nowhere near where we were then and we can't reverse time. What we should be looking for in a president is a leader who has a vision of how the country can stick together through the current hell and come out on the other side with the American dream intact. Billary certainly has not articulated that vision. Edwards and Obama have.

dcshungu wrote on October 3, 2007 2:03 PM:

That's what the Billary candidacy promises. A return to the 1990's. Problem is it can't be done. We are nowhere near where we were then and we can't reverse time

You posed a problem and provided a valid answer: there is no science/engineering known that allows a movement backward in time. So, do you think that you are the only person who is blessed with knowledge of the imposibility? Everyone is aware it of, which proves that your premise about going back in time with 'Billary' is total nonsense. People have looked at the future with HRC, Obama and Edwards, and for the moment, they seem to prefer to travel the land of the ever receding barrier (no one ever lives in the future, y'know...) with HRC. You have a problem with it, but it seems to me the train to the future will leave the station and you behind, regardless...

annefrank wrote on October 3, 2007 5:20 PM:

But the blogosfear can't support Edwards because - {gasp!} he's a populist - and won't cultivate more Blue Dogs and Centrists.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 3, 2007 7:38 PM:

Why didn't Bush-Cheney Lite run for office in Arkansas?

colonpowwow wrote on October 3, 2007 8:54 PM:

I feel really sorry for the Edwards supporters today. They spent all morning pooh-poohing polling data because one showed Hillary leaving them all way behind, and now they'd love to jump all over this one, but they can't.

Too bad it didn't come out early tomorrow. Here, I'll say it. Good news for Edwards and Dems in general if this is reliable in any way. Sorta breathes a little life in his fading claim of being the most electable Dem.

zoom wrote on October 4, 2007 1:19 AM:

well, he's a white southern male. it sort of makes him the 'generic democrat' in that part of the country. If the data're correct, that means that even the oakies want to change course, but that they won't go so far as to support a uh 'non traditional' candidate.

ace wrote on October 7, 2007 12:01 AM:

I don't know if this would hold but I hope it bodes well for Andrew Rice against Inhofe.

evatt in sc wrote on October 24, 2007 9:05 AM:

John Edwards has four votes in our home in the SC Primary because he is the right man for the job and the only Democrat we feel can win. The most racist or sexest thing I can imagine is another 4 years of GOP rule. Run John Run, we are praying for you and Elizabeth here in the Palmetto State!

homegrowndem wrote on October 24, 2007 9:07 AM:

John Edwards has four votes in our home in the SC Primary because he is the right man for the job and the only Democrat we feel can win. The most racist or sexest thing I can imagine is another 4 years of GOP rule. Run John Run, we are praying for you and Elizabeth here in the Palmetto State!

melee wrote on October 30, 2007 9:55 AM:

Those of you writing off Edwards in Oklahoma aren't paying attention. The state re-elected its Democratic governor with 70% of the vote against a well-known and very well-funded Republican congressman. Edwards certainly could win in Oklahoma where I know few people who don't at minimum like him. He swooped into the state last election cycle and helped many local Democrats gain re-election or pull off upsets to win election. He has friends in this state because he doesn't write people and places off before the votes are counted. Oklahoma voted for Wesley Clark in 2004. I think the world would look different today if more Democrats had done the same. I fear while we give our delegates to Edwards, the rest of the party will take us down the road to defeat with Senator Clinton. Sigh.

Post a comment

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