Eric Alterman: Most electable is Edwards

[scheming daemons]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

He agrees with me that Kerry might make a great President, but is not the most electable against Bush.

Edwards is.


Discuss...



EDIT: Fixed typo

[Edge]

1. I agree.

[David Dunham]

2. Most Democratic Primary Voters Like Kerry. Are they stupid?

[scheming daemons]

3. Historically, yes.... sometimes

Dukakis
Mondale
McGovern
Stevenson


Not stupid, misguided.

[DjTj]

4. No. Kerry is most popular among Democratic voters.

Edwards is more popular among independents and wavering Republicans, especially in the South.

That's what makes him more electable.

[Edge]

8. They're sheep.

They're listening to everyone else because they say he's "electable."

I'm willing to bet that's why most of the people who voted in the primaries thus far voted for him because he's the "most electable".

[scheming daemons]

11. Right...

...and not just because they think Kerry's the most electable.


But because they've been told he's the most electable over and over and over.


We're letting a bunch of white senior citizens in Iowa determine who our most electable candidate is. Think about it, the big story out of Iowa was that the voters had buyers remorse about Dean. And who are the voters in the Iowa caucuses?

99% are white

a disproportionate amount are retired

a disproportionate amount are union

These people set Kerry on the "electability" pedestal and the media ran with it. He then won in his home region and the momentum carried from there.

I believe very few people, deep down, had Kerry as the candidate they most agreed with. They just want to make sure Bush loses, so they think they've got to jump on the bandwagon.

But they're jumping on the wrong one. Edwards is the bandwagon they should be jumping on if they want to beat Bush.


As usual, we Democrats are aiming for the enemy and shooting ourselves in the tush instead.

[Edge]

12. Much agreed, bud.

It's sad, really.

[AP]

16. From personal experience: they're not thinking about the compare

and contrast with Bush and the ideas.

They're looking at who's in first place today, and they're thinking, well, that must be the guy who can beat Bush.

I think things will change in the next few weeks.

[Tweed]

19. Change in a few weeks?!

Edwards doesn't have the time and that won't happen. Sorry

[AP]

27. Yeah. Politics works slowly, right? It took forever for Dean to crumble.

Right.

(I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just saying it can happen.)

[girl gone mad]

5. I don't agree.

Edwards would get killed on foreign policy eperience, lack of service, etc. It may not seem like a hot issue now, but the GOP will spend hundreds of millions (and god knows what else they will do) to make it the issue by November.

[scheming daemons]

7. Instead, with Kerry...

...they'll spend hundreds of millions making Gay Marriage in Massachusetts the issue.

And that will make Willie Horton look like child's play.


Kerry will be lucky to win half the states Gore did after that...

[AP]

17. Like Clinton and Reagan? And, let's face it, JFK was seen as a playboy

and not a foreign policy expert. How 'bout FDR? Dos the governor of NY have foreign policy expertise?

[Tweed]

20. They weren't elected going into a situtation.

How many times do we have to go over this?

[AP]

21. And who was elected "going into a situation"? Eisenhower when we went

into the situation of Leave it to Beaver? Grant went we went into the situation of shooting Indians like they were fish in a barrel?

[Tweed]

22. Way to beat a dead horse

Clark is out of the race, no need to make General arguments any more. Hahaha, now you have to defend your candidate on his own merits. It is so easy to explain why Edwards shouldn't be president just yet.

[AP]

23. Just asking for an example of whom we elected "going into a situation."

You know, so you can complete the thought.

[Tweed]

24. Best example of the American people not electing someone like Edwards

Thomas Edmund Dewey, (1902-1971), American lawyer and political leader. He was born on March 24, 1902, in Owosso, Mich., the son of the local newspaper publisher. He received his B.A. degree from the University of Michigan in 1923 and graduated from Columbia University Law School in 1925. From 1931 to 1933 he served as chief assistant to the U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York and then as U.S. attorney.

Dewey ran agaisnt FDR in 1944
So let's see Dewey was a YOUNG LAWYER going up against a war time president... and who did the American people pick?! :D

[AP]

25. Some think it's war time. I think it's the eve of Great Depression II.

Some are looking for the liberal warrior. I'm looking for the president who cares as much about the working person as FDR cared.

Some think it doesn't matter if they can move hearts and hinds -- giving orders is enough. I think the next president will need rhetorical skills greater than Lincoln's.

I think, historicially, we're at a moment in American history when CLASS and middle class opportunity are the most important issues. I think Edwards is exactly right for this historical moment.

Some think war is the historical moment. I think war is the thing Bush is using to achieve his class goals -- the shift of as much wealth and power to the top as possible. Some think it's enough to talk about war. I think you have to go to the heart of the matter -- the wealth transfer.

Those are our differences.

No?

[AP]

26. FDR never acted like a war time president. He did the opposite. He acted

like there was nothing to fear. He never tried to scare American into giving up their rights and accepting less. That's why Republicans couldn't beat him.

Edwards IS FDR -- a bulwark against fascism by appealing to America's best instincts -- lifiting up the least among us, and spreading wealth as broadly as possible.

[AP]

28. By the way, it isn't a deal breaker not to have frgn. policy experience

and it's not a dead horse either.

Again: Reagan beat Carter by making it look like an experienced president, and graduate of the Naval Academy (valedictorian?) was weaker than a Republican actor and governor with no frgn policy experience. How'd they do that?

In 1992, we elected a small state governor (who talked ONLY about the economy) over the Gulf War C-i-C, and ex-CIA chief.

Voters are willing to accept that their presidents generally don't have experience being presidents.

In fact, just when the get in a groove, we kick them out of office.

With the president, voters value new ideas and frequent turnover.

[scheming daemons]

6. In case you didn't want to go to the link....

Alterman's take:

"So it’s Kerry in just about any scenario one can credibly imagine. For the record, I’ll say it again. While I think Kerry would probably make the best president of the bunch, and maybe even the most talented president since Kennedy, I’m far from convinced he’s the most electable. Deep down I think that’s probably Edwards; southerner, working-class hero, and personal/campaign skills from another planet. Kerry is sure more electable than Dean and a more skilled candidate than Clark, but I worry that primary voters may be fooling themselves if they are choosing him as a strategic decision.

The words “Massachusetts liberal”—which are quite accurate, by the way-- when combined with a patrician upbringing, a somewhat stiff manner and a Bush war chest that will likely approach a half-billion dollars scares the heck out of me. But as I also keep saying, it just don’t matter what I think. The process has (just about) spoken. Now is (almost) the time for all good men and women to rally to the cause of their country; and for the Kerry people to figure out, in as tough-minded a manner as possible, how they are going to counteract all that money attached to so few principles about using it."

[King of New Orleans]

9. I agree with Alterman

I think Kerry would make the best President. Edwards might be the most electable (certainly the most dynamic), though his neophyte status is a drawback.

I however, would be most likely to vote for the one that I think would make the best President than the most electable.

[AP]

18. You'd do that even if it meant you'd probably end up with Bush?

[BootinUp]

10. Why'd he wait till now to start spillin the truth?

Guess he doesn't care about 4 more years of Bush, because Edwards will lose the nomination, and the best bet was the guy they just kicked out.

[NV1962]

13. Who cares about "electability"

I have a highly electable General who sleepwalks circles around Edwards...

It's not about positions on issues...

It's not about topping polls either (Kerry tanked badly last fall remember)

It's first of all name recognition (let's pray on our bare knees that there won't be a serial killer with "Bush" as last name making headlines this summer and fall...)

That, and making a strong initial show at the first primaries.

The rest isn't "electability" but "inevitability."

[BootinUp]

14. My, thats kinda cynical

is that just in the last 5 months that this happened to you, or did I assume wrongly?

:hi:

[NV1962]

15. Too many years in advertising & marketing

Then again, that didn't keep me from falling badly for the General's charm either.

;)

[Awsi Dooger]

29. This should have been obvious years ago

To plenty of us, it was.

Five incumbents have faced reelection in my lifetime, 3 winning and 2 losing. The two challengers who prevailed were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, failures were George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Bob Dole.

John Kerry obviously blends well into the second crop, admirable but unspectacular. John Edwards has the media skills and populist message to comfortably burst into the first category, if only we hadn't been blinded by national security fears.

In our position, the Republican brass would have nominated John Edwards and evicted virtually everyone else, including John Kerry. I GUARANTEE IT. They are astutely handicapping from the top, while our clueless leader thinks money is the one and only answer.

With Rove & Ço., Republicans now handpick ideal candidates in every state and region, while forcing out the weaklings, even incumbents. Consider Illinois senate, Montana gov, Florida senate and countless others from 2002. The CA recall probably would have been unnecessary if the White House selection of Riordan had prevailed, and not inept Simon.

Meanwhile, we're stuck with old school idiocy that let's the process play it's course, as scheming daemons addressed perfectly early in this thread, in regard to Iowa and the makeup of its voters. It's a marvelous recipe for ongoing minority status, no matter what the hispanic trends supposedly forecast.

[spooky3]

I believe Edwards will be as good a president, or better, than Kerry.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.