New Hampshire Primary - Democrats agree with John Edwards on the Issues

[stevenleser]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_080105_new_hampshire_primar.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 5, 2008

By Steven Leser


Whenever I see a big surprise happen in politics like Obama’s win in Iowa, I start researching to find out why it happened and what are some of the characteristics of the event. With only a few days until the New Hampshire primary, it doesn’t make as much sense to look backward. Instead, I want to know why people are supporting each of the top three candidates in New Hampshire. What is it about each candidate that is gaining a person’s vote?


I found something interesting from the cross tabs of the latest Zogby poll. When we see polls on television or online or in the print media, we usually only get to see one small part of the poll results. Of course it is interesting to find out the overall support at a particular point in time, but not getting to see the rest is a shame because the rest of the responses tell us a lot more about what is really happening that leads to that support.


The latest Zogby poll has an interesting question. It has a question that asks, “Which of the following reasons best explains why you plan to vote for…” And offers the responder five choices plus Other and None Selected. Of the top three Democratic Candidates, only Edwards has a majority who are voting for him because they “Agree with him/her on the issues”. 55.3% of Edwards supporters are voting for him because they agree with him on the issues compared to 38% for Obama and 35% for Clinton. The only other question that received a lot of percentage response for any of the top three was “He/She is the best person for the job”. As expected, Clinton won that response handily (over 50%) as she has been pushing the idea that she has the most experience. Obama and Edwards both trailed her considerably within 10 points of each other.


Its not just ‘Change’ it’s ‘What KIND of Change’


The “Agree with him/her on the issues” is an important question that is particularly critical to Edwards and Obama because they are both running to be the candidates of change. If you are going to be the candidate of change and expect to have people vote for you on that basis, wouldn’t you think that would mean that people who are voting for you are doing so because they agree with you on the issues? If not, might it not be a strong indication that they are voting out of response to hype instead of because of the facts?


For what sort of change are you voting if you are not voting with a candidate with whom you agree on the issues?


This Zogby poll tells me that people in New Hampshire who are voting for someone because they agree with what a candidate will do on the issues are voting for John Edwards. There are a lot of political orators throughout history who have excited people. Some of them have been good politicians, some bad and everything in between. Where people got in trouble is when they voted for someone who was exciting without carefully examining the policy positions behind that excitement. When people in this election examine these detailed policy positions, the person that gets their support is John Edwards.

[iamjoy]

1. That Means Nothing

Poll Americans on where they stand on issues, they like Democratic ideals. Ask which candidate they like in a head to head match up, they go for the Republican.

[stevenleser]

2. Your response has nothing to do with my article...

... it is an interesting point of view, but it belongs somewhere else.

[maxanne]

3. how many candidate choices

were those polled given?

[stevenleser]

4. All of them, I think...

They were given Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama and Richardson

Edwards was the only of the top three over 50%.

[maxanne]

5. just curious

I live in NH - and I've been polled numerous times. Some of the polls are quite selective in the choices offered - and it can be difficult to tell sometimes who is doing the polling.

Last night it was Rasmussen - and they were upfront about who they were. Refreshing.

[stevenleser]

6. It must be crazy to live in Iowa or NH when an election year rolls around

I can only imagine what it is like.

[maxanne]

7. it's even crazier than you think

A lot of folks hate us - and envy us for our access to candidates. I understand that. We have a level of access to candidates that is remarkable - but it is only possible in a small state. It's also a little different this time -with the advent of the big rock star campaigns of Obama and Clinton. Neither of them have done much hanging out at the corner diner.


The mailings. The robocalls. The phone calls. The polls. The canvassers.

NH voters are involved, and aware, in ways that may differ from other states. We also have incredible access to our own state elected officials. There are 400 members in the NH House of Representatives. It's damned hard not to know at least one of them! Heck, you trip over 'em at the supermarket. It is not unusual to know a state senator or two, or even the governor. Our state is small enough that it's also not bizarre to know one of our Congresscritters.

One of the aspects that isn't ever discussed is what it does to us - NH political activists. The 2003-2004 primary caused incredible divisiveness - people who were friends, even relatives had rifts that aren't healed to this day. This election has some of that taking place again. We all peel off to support the candidate of our choice - and then things can get really ugly as time goes on. I'm hoping that we'll all find a way to come back together - because we have important NH elections coming up, and we need to find a way to reunite.
With the length of the whole process, every 2 years now, as soon as the scab is healed, we rip it off again. It's really difficult to deal with being pitted against one another in this way.

[balantz]

8. Wondering if New Hampshire uses diebold machines, or some such thing?

Thanks :)

[maxanne]

9. no we don't

NH law says we have to use paper ballots in all our elections. We don't have any electronic voting machines. The cities use optical scan machines. I live in a small town where we actually use pencils to mark paper ballots that are later counted by hand.

[balantz]

10. Thanks for responding.

And that is one great relief for me!

So, who's gonna win? :+

But seriously, as an Edwards supporter I'm wondering, does he appear to have a chance to attract a good number of voters in your opinion?

[maxanne]

11. anything can happen

I'd call it a three way tie at this point.

The supporters of candidates who dropped out are going to be finding their way to other campaigns.
NH is a primary, so we vote on secret ballots - we don't have rules about viability, and we don't trade our support to the highest bidder.

The power brokers in the NHDP and their acolytes are supporting Hillary. That's big.
Our 2 Congresspersons are supporting Obama. That's also big.
Edwards has a lot of grassroots support, and has been endorsed by a lot of state legislators. Also big.

Richardson will do better in NH. Kucinich will be a factor in NH

Ron Paul will probably do better in NH than he does anywhere else in the country - including his own state.

Huckabee isn't going to do so well. NH is not full of evangelical Christians. Romney has a lot of support.

It's too close for me to call.

FYI - I'm thinking of putting my support behind Vermin Supreme http://www.zerohits.com/vermin/supreme2.htm

Vermin's platform of mandatory toothbrushing, funding time travel research, and zombie preparedness are just what this country needs. }(

[balantz]

12. Ha ha! That's great! That lightened my day!

I think I'm with you, "VERMIN SUPREME FOR PRESIDENT!" I know my ten year old will like him, especially after watching all of this "adult" nonsense, and he likes to brush his teeth!

Thanks!

[stevenleser]

13. Hillarious! (n/t)