Edwards - only Dem that leads McCain (WSJ/NBC Poll)

[nickshepDEM]

2-way:

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 41%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

McCain - 47%
Clinton - 43%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 10%

McCain - 43%
Obama - 38%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 19%

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 37%
Other/Not sure/Neither - 16%

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ061213_DEC-2006-poll.pdf

[nickshepDEM]

1. Overall, McCain is a lot weaker than I thought.

Looks like Giuliani is the best they got for the general election.

[Pirate Smile]

33. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination (which I don't think he can)

I would bet a RW third party candidate would pop up because I just can't see RW social conservatives voting for him.

[Tom Joad]

2. JE supported the Iraq war. Fatal judgment call, game over.

[Ninja Jordan]

4. I guess you'd disqualify Feingold too?

[Tom Joad]

5. Sounds good to me.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Ward Churchill or bust, hey?

[Tom Joad]

31. There were millions on the streets opposing the war. Before it started.

i don't recall Ward there. But I'm sure from that remarkable display of humanity in 2002, that *preceded* this disaster, there would be many wonderful options. These people had courage, foresight, and a refusal to go along with this warmonger that sits in the white house... before he became unpopular.

Man, i just realized what i was talkin to.
No expletive in your post, so of course i didn't immediately recognize you jim.

[Jim Sagle]

44. The question I have to ask myself, is

what am I talking to? And why?

[Clarkie1]

49. What you are talking to was put on my "ignore" list at some point in the past.

I assure you, whoever it is....they were put there for good reason. I don't put many on my ignore list, but those I do are there for good reason.

[Bjorn Against]

24. Feingold voted against the war n/t

[nickshepDEM]

10. Only Obama and Kucinich didnt.

I have no problem with Obama in 2008.

[Inspired]

17. Didn't Obama join the senate after this vote? n/t

[Bjorn Against]

26. Yes, but he spoke out against the war before he was in the Senate

If you look at some of the speeches he gave before the war began it is clear that he would have voted no if given the opportunity.

[BlueCaliDem]

72. Yep. And it's on record since he was REAL vocal about it too! eom

[ruggerson]

25. Not for people who have a brain stem

n/t

[unlawflcombatnt]

36. Edwards also admitted it was a mistake

Edwards has also admitted it was a mistake to have voted for the war. Few others have been willing to make such an admission.

[Gloria]

40. Admitted he was wrong before anyone else....game not over.

[jazzjunkysue]

56. He's since apologized for it. He's owning it. That's different.

He wouldn't have lead us into it. At the time, the GOP had everyone by the small hairs. There were only a handful of nay votes for that war. It was political suicide at the time.

[Ninja Jordan]

3. My thesis: if Obama stays out, Edwards is the nominee.

He has played it well so far.

[nickshepDEM]

11. I agree.

Said this in the past too.

[Mass]

6. Two years before an election - Who knows who will be able to beat who

in November 2008. What matters if where somebody stands on the issues and whether he/she would make a good president. The rest at this point is largely reading tea leaves.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Edwards' populist economic message hits a nerve

He was right about the "haves" and the "have nots" in 2004, and it has only gotten worse. Pensions gone, wealth redistributed upward, millions of workers (not just unemployed) without health insurance, and Goldman Sachs giving out billions in bonuses to the top guys - Edwards got in front on this issue.

[The Count]

13. Sponsoring the IWR hits a nerve that's far more row. Each death - blood on his hands

Sorry, but did the poor benefit in any way from the war? The Patriot Act Edwards wrote?

[1932]

21. Primary voters rejected anti-war candidates. General election voters would have

too in 2004.

The poor benefitted from having Democrats in the general election who had a legitimate chance of winning.

JFK did the same thing in '60. He ran to the right of Nixon on communism. However, look at their presidencies: Kennedy sowed the seeds for the liberal leaders in the developing world Nixon later murdered because he thought they were communists.

[The Count]

64. Which primary voters? NH and Iowa? because the rest of us weren't consulted.

The party machines (both)+ MSM worked over time to slime/obscure anti-war voices. They weren't rejected. They simply weren't heard.

[1932]

69. Dean got more press than anyone in 2003 and he didn't do well

in Iowa. His voice was definitely heard.

There were a lot of problems with the media representation of the candidates and of the war, however, I think one thing is beyond question and that is that there was a clear anti-war candidate in the primaries who got a lot of publicity and he didn't do well in Iowa and there's little reason to believe that Iowa was an anomaly in that regard.

[Faygo Kid]

29. Didn't say they did. He was wrong about the war.

He also admitted he was wrong without qualifiers. He's not my candidate, but my point was that he hit a nerve with his economic message, and that at least was a good thing.

[venable]

70. that is unfair and not very smart

'blood on his hands' indeed.

you know better than that excessive and cruel indictment. I hope.

such language removes your opinion from serious consideration.

If you don't recall the CIA top level intel given to Intelligence comittee members, than you should take a hard look back, and revise your bloody language.

[unlawflcombatnt]

37. Yes

And he opposed unrestricted free trade also.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Edwards has come out swinging.

We have some heavy-hitters on deck for 2008.

[kirbyenthusiasm]

9. ugh

these polls aren't worth the bandwidth they take up on the internets. :argh:

[The Count]

14. Well, they give us a hint of the games MSM play with us, not reporting relevant news

Such as: war is raging, Lil' Boots is partying....

[citizen snips]

15. I guess this is proof that Edwards is not a lightweight.

[nickshepDEM]

16. People just seem to like Edwards. If you weed out the diehard

Democrats and diehard Republicans and talk to typical Presidential election voters, they all seem to like Edwards. He's good looking, speaks well, gives of a sense of compassion, hope, and always looking out for the little guy. People like that.

If we hit a recession, Edwards could be our best possible candidate in 2008. His economic populist message resonates with just about everyone.

[citizen snips]

19. I agree

and in the end Edwards message and optimism will outshine the muckraking.

[Catchawave]

35. Ditto :) n/t

[Quantess]

67. I'd vote for Edwards.

I'd rather have Edwards than H. Clinton or Kerry. Those two got on my nerves too many times.
Edwards has a presidential look, which is important for voters.

[spooky3]

41. had a cocktail party conversation with a Repub

who said she just wanted a candidate who could articulate a reasonable argument, didn't lecture to us, and seemed to have a good grasp of what the country needed, or something general like that. Gee, I wonder who she is disillusioned with??? I think she thought the others there were fellow Reps (we weren't) and was about to talk about McCain, etc. I told her "Edwards is your man, then" and was surprised when she said, "you know, I do like him. I could vote for him."

There are a lot of voters out there that really don't focus on issues but make their judgments based on who is off-putting to them and who is likable and respectable. It's not the way DUers would like for it to be, but there are a lot of them. Edwards does appeal to a lot of these people.

[Inspired]

51. Edwards' appeal crosses party lines

and that is a good thing if we want to win in '08. My husband, a registered Republican, supports John Edwards.

[spooky3]

59. glad to hear it!

[Skwmom]

52. Sure most people like Edwards upon first impression - good looks,

etc. however, the real test comes when people find out more about Edwards. I too thought Edwards looked like a great candidate in 04 until a took a deeper look. I have yet to meet ONE person who learning more about Edwards continued to support his candidacy. As I've said before, Edwards is the ONE the Republicans want because they know once they introduce Edwards to the public in the general election they will trounce him (and if for some reason Edwards would squeak by they will have a "corporate" populist in the whitehouse). They really can't lose with Edwards, unfortunately the American public can. Edwards is the Democratic version of George Bush - all manufactured image and candidacy.

[Inspired]

66. Disagree

You are very wrong in your assumptions. You've never met me but I have continued to support his candidacy for the past 3 years. I did not support John Edwards at first...mainly because of his looks. I didn't know who he was and I thought he seemed too 'pretty' to be taken seriously. Seriously, who does he think he is?

I was wrong. I wish I had thrown my support his way a long time before I did. My views on him changed once I read his campaign handout called Real Solutions...and they were. Real solutions. I was very impressed. I heard him speak before the '04 Iowa caucus prior to making up my mind on who to support. I have seen many candidates in my life, I have heard all of them speak. I have never seen anyone who could inspire an audience the way that John Edwards can.

I would like you to back up one statement you made, if you would please. "...and if for some reason Edwards would squeak by they will have a "corporate" populist in the whitehouse". Please tell me what it is in Edwards background, as a trial attorney or as a Senator, that caused you to say this. This is not a 'corporate' man. John Edwards is for the working man.

Oh, and by the way....I am married to a Republican who will vote for Edwards if he wins the nomination. He doesn't want Edwards to win so he can get trounced. He wants him to win because he thinks Edwards is the one candidate who can unite us and bring respect back the the White House.

[Clark2008]

54. That's because the media keeps the average American stupid.

eom

[nickshepDEM]

55. Awwww...

Why so negative today? The other day it was Obama, now Edwards. Must be those damn elite in the media again. Never giving the right guy the media attention he deserves.

[paulk]

65. if we hit a recession (and there's a good chance of that)

Edward's stack will go up... but, there's every chance that we'll still be in Iraq, and with Bush in office for two more years, who knows what else he'll fuck up ... and that's Edward's weak point - foreign policy.

This far out, it's impossible to say who's going to be the nominee - too much depends on events. Polls this far out aren't much more than popularity contests.

[bigdarryl]

23. My prediction Edwards wins the nomination NH voter's hate to be...

told who to vote for. Hillary and Obama are PEAKING to soon and the damn media is in a love fest over these two.

[HeeBGBz]

18. Edwards is supposed to announce he's running

He's supposedly going to make the announcement from New Orleans between Christmas and New Years according to the article in today's Sun-Herald.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blue neen]

22. So, who would you support?

I think it's great that we have so many quality Democratic candidates to choose from. :)

[flyarm]

27. where would gore be????????

i think sky high!!

fly

[byronius]

47. Where Indeed? Perhaps the Ionosphere. He's the Anti-McCain Heavy-Duty.

Though I like Edwards a lot, and am glad to hear this.

[Roland99]

28. Let's see...we have over a year before primary season kicks into full gear...

Give Obama time.

Don't let the M$M dictate who the American public will consider.

[jcrew2001]

30. Rudy

If you read Wonkette, they always talk about Rudy rooming with his gay NYC friends after the divorce. There is no way he will ever get the GOP nomination. There's just way too much anti-yankee sentiment.

Bloomberg will def be interesting as a Ross Peret spoiler independent candidate. But he shouldn't run because when Hillary wins, he'll just run for her Senate spot. Too bad he'll lose to RFK jr.

I like Edwards and i think that if he can beat Hillary, he will definately be President. However, he still has that in-experience stigma. Maybe he should consider the VP slot again, haha.

[thethinker]

32. Edwards would be a good candidate

Even ditto heads and soccer moms could get behind Edwards message. He has a message with broad support. Besides having the right message at the right time, he is very likable.

I really think that Americans are not only fed up with Iraq, I think they are worried about what is happening with jobs and the economy.

[wisteria]

34. Well, good luck to all who enter the race. Edwards isn't even close

to my first choice, but when the time to the 08 election gets closer and polls more accurate, I will certainly take a closer look at him. Until then, polls reflect no true accuracy right now.

[Infinite Hope]

38. McCain will be very weak because he's become...

embedded in his own hypocrisy which will come out in the media and debates. Further, there are other skeletons in his closet that will come out. Some have been heard, but the public at large is unaware of them right now.

[goclark]

46. We're all ears about the skeletons

Enquiring Minds Want to Know. :)

[durtee librul]

63. For starters,

his wife was a junkie who stole drugs from not only the hospital she worked at, but some patients as well. Yes, she went into rehab and was 'cured' but Kerry was a war vet and we saw what happened to him.

McCain was close to Fife (what mother names her kid FIFE?) Symington, former guv of AZ who if I remember correctly was married to Charley Keatons daughter (Keaton of the S&L fiasco) and Fife was found guilty of a bunch of corruption charges.

As my momma says...."Birds of a feather flock together."

[ripple]

39. A lot of that is name recognition

and that poll should be taken with a huge grain of salt. By about this time next year, we'll be able to take results from similar polls much more seriously.

[Skwmom]

53. And a PR created image. n/t

[Tom Joad]

42. Edwards was another of Bush's eager poodles in the run-up to the Iraq

invasion. I would suggest folks keep him away from fire hydrants to prevent embarrassing incidents.

He does not deserve the nomination. Even though he said "I'm sorry".

[jcrew2001]

45. anti-war

There were lots of anti-war sentiments before the launch, but the reality was that Bush was going to Iraq regardless of what any person on the street thought, what any democrat thought, or even what colin powell thought. The Iraq war decision was made by Bush and Cheney before Nov 2000.

Everyone else in America was a helpless bystander. Its good to be an idealist, but in life there are battles you can win and those you can't. You have to pick the ones you can win and any Senate Democrat was helpless to change Bush's mind or plans, as the minority party. Bush bamboozled the Dems and the American public with all his fuzzy evidence.

Iraq is Bushes war, his mistake, and his failure. Its not accurate to blame the Democrats when it was not possible to stop in the first place.

If there was a draft, I think there will be larger protests, calls for withdrawel, but I knew that once we started this war, that an occupation would take place similar to the Japanese occupation. We have a volunteer military and I'm not going to tell the soldiers that they are doing a right or wrong thing, I think most of them just want to carry out their missions.

Until a Democrat, any Dem, can beat a Republican and take over the WH, then there will be change in the Iraq war troop level.

[usregimechange]

43. He could beat him.

[Clarkie1]

48. Edwards is a popular choice, no doubt about it.

I have doubts he's ready to manage a major international crises, but he has a good anti-poverty message.

The other most popular at the moment seems to be Obama, who I would definitely vote for over Edwards because of Edwards IWR vote.

[w4rma]

50. Sen. Edwards is one of my favorite choices.

General Clark
Vice President Gore
Governor Brian Schweitzer

are my other favorite picks.

[jazzjunkysue]

57. K&R. John can win. He's cute. He's smart. He's southern. He's our man.

He'll make a great candidate and a wonderful president.

He has no weaknesses like Hilary and Obama. Maybe he'll pick up Obama as a VP. I'd love that.
That would be a tough ticket to beat.

I don't think any GOP has a chance in '08. No more GOP. We woke the sleeping giant, and it's decided it's no longer a republican.

[ripple]

71. Edwards has his weaknesses, too

There is virtually no candidate who doesn't have something that can be used to attack them (or at least invoke a negative image in voters' minds). With Edwards, the other side will attack his work as a high dollar trial attorney, as they did when he ran last time. He'll also be associated with losing in 2004- people don't like to back someone they perceive to be a loser (whether their perception is valid or not). Also, as much as I like him, he often comes across as too slick and polished to seem genuine. I think that's just the trial lawyer in him, but he comes across as too much of a salesman at times.

With that said, he definitely has his attributes, too. You mentioned some of them, but I also think that Elizabeth is a wonderful asset to Edwards and to the cause in general. She doesn't have the same problem as her husband when it comes to seeming sincere and genuine.

Personally, I like Obama at the top of the ticket, with Clark as VP. I could get behind Edwards, too, but I think Clark has the necessary foreign policy experience to balance out the ticket a little bit better.

[SCDem]

58. Of course Gore isn't a name they are asking about though

Everyone I talk to who are either super-political or apolitical keep asking me how can we get Al Gore to run.

[Realist2008]

60. ha

anyone who thinks hilary stands a chance in the general election is fooling themselves big time. neither will al gore so don't get your hopes up.

[Zodiak]

61. because?

Explanations contribute to intelligent discussion.

[Zodiak]

62. Edwards has his plusses and minuses

I sincerely think that the "tort reform" memes the pukes have been spewing for the last election will take hold any more. So the trial lawyer label will not be so difficult to field, especially when it is revealed just what kind of anti-corporate lawyer Edwards can demonstrate himself to be. That will make the populists feel good.

Edwards (God, I can't believe I am saying this) also got rid of that mole on his lip and his annoying habit of licking it. I know that is a really silly thing to point out, but it made him look subconscoiusly "snaky"...one should take all the advantages one can get.

His inexperience, as touted last time, will not be so much of a factor when the field is inhabited by Obama and Clinton, both freshmen and young.

He is charismatic, Southern, populist, direct, optimistic, and palatable to most of the party and independents. He has a lot of what it takes.

Still, I believe that Al Gore has more of a chance, but at least this one is a good choice. Better than Hillary and Obama, I believe.

[Imagevision]

68. Giulianni currently is ahead of McCain, evangelicals don't support McCain this time around