Edwards says Southern victory possible if he is nominee

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==ROCHESTER, NH (AP) - Presidential hopeful John Edwards says he'll win much of the South and help Democrats win more US House and Senate seats in the Midwest as well if he's the party nominee in 2008.

The former North Carolina senator says he could upset any of the leading Republican candidates in the South. He also said he looks forward to debating the eventual Republican nominee.

Edwards says if the party picks up 15 to 20 seats in the House, some additional seats in the Senate because the presidential candidate appeals to much of America, Democrats have the power to move their agenda.==

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6633897

[elizm]

1. Here in SOUTH Carolina....

Edwards is in 3rd place in the Democratic Primaries. I don't think he would do any better in the general.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. The polls consistently show him doing the best in GE matchups

Plus, let's face it, the last three Democratic presidents have been southerners. Since the South switched parties in the late 1960's, only southern Democrats have won (Carter, Clinton) while McGovern (SD), Mondale (MN), Dukakis (MA), Gore (the only southerner to "lose"), and Kerry (MA) have lost. Being from the South has proven to be a significant advantage to a Democrat.

[venable]

46. Edwards is right.

Look at SC.

In 04, these were his favorability ratings:

Dems - 70
Independents - 68
Republicans -66

The other candidates had high favorability among Dems, but abysmal ratings with state independents and Republicans. I suspect the same holds true today.

So the real measure is not where he stands among dems (the nominee will get those votes anyway), but instead where he stands among independents and republicans.


Edwards will carry the south, and he is the only one (unless Richardson or Clark gets the nom) who would be taken seriously.

[saracat]

2. Yes he would3rd among the Dems confirms it.First Among Dems is the one who will have a difficult

in the General

[venable]

47. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but you are right

he would do much better than the two above him, given his high favorability across the sprectrum (see my post above).

The dems will vote for whoever gets the nom.

The independents and republicans are the key to the general election. that's where Edwards shines.

[JI7]

3. Obama can win the South

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Why?

If there is anywhere a Harvard-educated Chicago progressive would have trouble you would think it would be in the South.

[JI7]

8. Bush went to Yale and Harvard, Clinton went to Yale

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Bush is a Republican, Clinton is a southerner

Obama is a progressive (at least socially. we don't really know his economic views yet) Harvard-educated former professor from Chicago. That automatically puts him behind the 8 ball in parts of the South. If Kerry, a war hero and former prosecutor, couldn't sell in the South, it is hard to see Obama doing so.

[JI7]

14. Al Gore couldn't win the South either, including his own home state

so it's not as simpel as just being Southern.

Clinton also did things like support DOMA and his sista souljah moments to win over white voters.

Obama might be able to make the turn out among african AMericans higher.

[1932]

42. Rather than moving his HQ to Tennessee from DC (!!!) when he was doing poorly

he should have had it there in the first place.

And don't you see that the thing Bush spent the most time on in 2000 was convincing people that Gore wasn't a southerner, but a rich guy who grew up in DC.

[snowbear]

55. Actually, you'd think TN would have known him well...

He was in the House of Representatives for a long time representing Tennessee.

It's still mind-boggling all these years later to think that they would choose an outside and idiot like Bush than a homegrown Tennessean.

[Czolgosz]

6. I think it is tricky for a pro-gun control, anti-death penalty candidate to win down South

[JI7]

9. Gore was from the South and supported Death Penalty

nothing is gauranteed.

the south has a large african american population which may turn out in higher numbers and offset the racists.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. The southern African-American population already votes 90-95% Democratic nt

[JI7]

15. but the turnout among them might be larger with Obama

and Obama has shown he can appeal to others also.

[Czolgosz]

12. I think he can win nationally without the South and can win (slim possibility) in the South but it's

tricky.

[LBJDemocrat]

44. Obama is the epitome of the "liberal elite"

Why do you think the GOP candidates don't tear him down yet? Because there's very little work that needs to be done there. He's a candidate whose privileged background is completely plain.

[NYCGirl]

51. Thanks for the right wing meme! We could use more of them around here.

:eyes:

[LBJDemocrat]

52. Thanks for your thought-provoking argument n/t

[NYCGirl]

53. You're welcome.

"Liberal elite" indeed.
:eyes:

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

54. Obama can win the South? Excuse me...

:rofl:


Sorry but I do not believe this will happen. Edwards can win the South. Imagine if Mittens or Ghouliani get the puke nom.

[SaveElmer]

7. He might as well make the claim...

Nothing else is workin for him!!!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Why does he lead in Iowa and do well in NH?

Edwards does much better where people actually see the candidates for themselves, the candidates receive more equal coverage, than he does where the candidates never campaign. Once he begins campaigning there we should see similar increases in support for him, along with a decline in support for the one candidate who does poorest where they campaign and best where they don't...

[William769]

16. " run close in NH?"

13%, thats close? compared to 36%? :rofl:

You can't even stay on topic in you own thread! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. 8 points behind the establishment candidate and 3 points behind Obama is not close? nt

[SaveElmer]

23. Adding this last poll...

Which appears to be an outlier...

And taking the running average...see Chris Bowers

Edwards is 18 behind Hillary and 4 behind Obama...

http://chris_bowers.mydd.com/story/2007/6/5/12506/97105

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. 4 points behind media darling Obama is a poor performance?

Even if we accept the pro-HRC spun numbers, can you really say being only four points behind media darling Obama is a poor performance? If Obama does not increase his margin in NH and Edwards wins Iowa guess who will fare better in NH when it matters?

[SaveElmer]

27. Absolutely...

If he polls 14% in NH on primary day...he will drop out the next day!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. He got 12-13% in NH last time

I think he can sustain a loss in NH so long as he keeps it within 10 points and the loss is to HRC. Edwards needs it to become a HRC vs. Edwards race as soon as possible. Even if Edwards wins Iowa, if Obama wins NH the media will continue to portray this as a HRC vs. Obama race. Of course, if Edwards wins Iowa he is almost guaranteed to at least finish a solid second if not win NH... ;)

[tkmorris]

36. You piss on every Edwards thread

If you are online and the thread title says Edwards, you're there. Furthermore you do it with such malice and such derision that there is no doubting your intentions.

You are a detriment to DU. You, personally, degrade the level of discussion on this site in your single-minded determination to tear down a Democratic presidential candidate. We would all benefit greatly if a strange force field descended upon your house that caused all your keyboards to cease working.

Please. Stop.

[William769]

37. Why thank you.

Now if only you would defend Hillary Clinton with the same vigor you might have a point.

[SaveElmer]

17. Do well in NH...?

He is consistently in third there...mired in the mid teens...and he can't even get above the MoE over Hillary in his own state...

He doesn't even lead in every poll in Iowa, where he has practically lived for 2 years...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. As far NH goes, see my reply to William. In Iowa...

Here is the RCP average for the last five polls in Iowa:

Edwards 27%
HRC 24%
Obama 20%
Richardson 8%

The "he has lived there for two years" meme is a lame excuse. HRC has universal name ID and has been in the national spotlight for 15 years, while Obama is from the neighboring state and benefits from media market overlap in part of Iowa. They are known quantities in Iowa, as is Edwards. Iowa is where the special advantages HRC has are mitigated the most and this is why you have talk of HRC skipping Iowa...

[SaveElmer]

20. Nice spin...

Edwards is the last Vice Presidential nominee...Hillary has never run for national office...

Edwards should be way ahead in a state he has poured so much time and money in....

And why so weak in his home state....? Only 4 pts ahead of Hillary

It's gonna be Hillary, Obama, and Richardson by January,,,

[William769]

22. The way things are going

I don't think Edwards will even still be in the race by the Iowa Caucus.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. Another brilliant prognosticator

My god, I wish the Nevada linesmakers were the same caliber of some of the handicappers in this thread.

Sure, Edwards will bow out before the first event. Do you realize how ignorant that is? You basically forfeit all threat of credibility. Go back to any open primary with a large field and name one person who was a solid 3rd place after months/years of campaigning, and then pulled out before the opening primary.

[William769]

38. At least you acknowledge, he is a solid third.

[QC]

50. "You basically forfeit all threat of credibility."

Too late for him to start worrying about credibility.

[venable]

48. good grief...

your heart is obscuring your thinking

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. I thought HRC was president twice?

==Edwards is the last Vice Presidential nominee...==

Ordinarily that would be a huge advantage but that is more than offset this year. As far as exposure to Iowans is concerned, HRC--being a national figure for a decade and a half and having the highest name ID of any candidate for president (even more than Rudy "Did-you-know-I-was-mayor-of-NYC-on-9/11?" Giuliani) and Obama, who is from neighboring Iowa and benefits from some media market overlap, are essentially as well known in Iowa as Edwards is. If there was no popular, nationally known senator from a neigbhoring state and a former first lady running for president Edwards would have begun with a huge advantage in this area.

When it comes to establishment support, being the VP nominee in 2004 means nothing as the establishment has lined up behind the last Democratic president's wife.

==Edwards should be way ahead in a state he has poured so much time and money in....==

Ordinarily, yes, but the aforementioned factors changed the dynamic in Iowa.

==And why so weak in his home state....? Only 4 pts ahead of Hillary==

That is a good question. He is showing weakness in NC. However, the fact remains that he is the only Dem not married to a former president who leads outside of his home state (Iowa, Oklahoma, Florida in one poll, as well as leading his home state).

The home state meme against Edwards also needs to be put in context. Obama is not dominating in his home state either. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel all are losing by double digits in their home states. Vilsack was 3rd in Iowa before dropping out--although he was ahead of HRC...

==It's gonna be Hillary, Obama, and Richardson by January,,==

What evidence is there to suggest that? Edwards has consistently led in Iowa and stayed solid in NH. There is nothing to suggest him suddenly evaporating. Richardson? He has yet to crack double digits anywhere outside his home state.

HRC supporters should be careful what they wish for with Richardson. Yes, he is a DLC'er, but his resume dwarfs that of anyone--on either side--running for president. This poses a unique threat to HRC since her campaign is largely based on her "experience." If people want an experienced DLC'er, the logical thing would be to vote for Richardson.

[SaveElmer]

26. Not only was Edwards the last VP nominee...

He campaigned for President in 2004...so he criss crossed Iowa as a Presidential nominee, criss crossed Iowa as a VP nominee, and has spent his time since the last election criss crossing Iowa again...

There is no evidence that Iowans are so star struck that they are simply hypnotized by Hillary now that she is in the race...

Fact is Edwards has run a poor campaign up to now, and is obviously not connecting with the base! He is barely ahead in Iowa, in a consistent third in New Hampshire, barely ahead in his own home state, and polls in first nowhere else...

Richardson could be an excellent candidate and is my current second choice...

[William769]

30. My last comment for the evening will be to you sir.

notice since the original op cannot defend his candidate even in the thread he started, he tries to throw Hillary in the mix? And to back up my assertion I offer another thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3308306&mesg_id=3308306

Good night SaveElmer.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Some fair points

You made valid points about him running last time. That advantage, though, vanishes against someone universally known like HRC and is mitigated against an Illinois senator.

==There is no evidence that Iowans are so star struck that they are simply hypnotized by Hillary now that she is in the race...==

Some of them are hyptonized by her last name. Before anyone even knew anything about her record she was solidly (far more than she is now ;) ) ahead in hypothetical Democratic primary polls in 2003.

==in a consistent third in New Hampshire==

He occassionally polls ahead of Obama in NH. At any rate, he is always within a couple points of Obama. Unless one catches fire in NH, whoever does better in Iowa will do better when it counts in NH. Momentum from Iowa would give Edwards the boost he needs to overtake Obama in NH, if he does not do it anyway over the next 7 months. We also don't know if HRC will retain her single digit lead in NH by next year, particularly after a presumably weak showing in Iowa.

==barely ahead in his own home state==

That meme was debunked earlier. The same can be said about Obama. The other candidates, aside from HRC and Richardson, are solidly behind even in their home states.

==and polls in first nowhere else...==

That is false. He leads in Iowa, Oklahoma, and, according to one poll, in Florida as well. That is more than anyone else aside from HRC.

==Richardson could be an excellent candidate and is my current second choice...==

That isn't surprising since DLC'ers will naturally gravitate to HRC and Richardson. The threat Richardson could pose to HRC if he joins the top-tier is that he undercuts HRC's biggest perceived advantage as well as takes away some DLC-type support.

[William769]

28. In Florida, Edwards is trailing Hillary by 21%

Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye

[LBJDemocrat]

43. "==It's gonna be Hillary, Obama, and Richardson by January,,=="

Richardson? The guy who went on Meet the Press and said he doesn't know much about the immigration bill because he was out campaigning? LMFAO. His campaign's dead, and he's only continuing so that his endorsement will be more valuable.

[Awsi Dooger]

33. You are very fortunate you're not a gambler

Projections like that equal poor house in a hurry.

[William769]

39. I am a gambler, a lucrative one.

Someone once said "know when to hold them & know when to fold them".

[William769]

21. Since you want to talk about polls, any questions?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[Tejanocrat]

29. Success in Iowa is a boost in later primaries; failure in Iowa kills momentum. HRC need to work Iowa

but I think she's up to it.

[Yukari Yakumo]

35. The most recent primary outlook, state by state...

A lot of green we see here.

In most states, Edwards is getting clobbered by Hil or Obama, sometimes by both of them. Ed has a mere 4 point lead over Hil in his home state in the most recent poll. And polls in Iowa are so inconsistent no one can tell just who is really leading there.

[Dawgs]

40. Curious? Do you have a map like that from June 2002?

Because, at this point in 2002, Lieberman was the front runner and Kerry was in fourth.

I'm not saying things are equal. I'm just saying that it's way too early for some of these Hillary supporters to this giddy and childish.

[Zodiak]

41. Edwards is correct

at least for North Texas....he is the ONLY Democrat that my circle of machinists, hunters, fishers, and farmers are considering. The rest have no appeal at all to the good ole' boys in my hometown.

I keep an ear to these kinds of things because we have GOT to get my hometowners off of the Republican bandwagon.

[geek tragedy]

45. John Kerry kicked Edwards's ass up one side of the South

and down the other.

[venable]

49. wrong wrong wrong

the one state that had a primary before Kerry was 'inevitable' and everyone got in line behind him, was South Carolina.

that vote:

Edwards 35%

Kerry 20%

On a level playing field (Edwards was born there, but raised in NC), Kerry announced his candidacy there), ie before the inevitability factor - Edwards thumped him.