Should the Dems nominate a SURE THING against the GOP?

[jcrew2001]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

I look at the General Election matchups and in every poll John Edwards defeats all GOP nominees by the widest margin. He beats Rudy by far more than Hillary.

I just think that if Democrats really want to win in 2008, they should nominate John Edwards as a SURE THING against the GOP.

The country is yearning for change and someone who can unite all Americans, north and south, democrats, independents and republicans.

Swing voters and ex-republicans need a reason to not vote for the GOP in 2008, and Hillary will not be able to win these voters.

[goodgd_yall]

1. Yes

But it may be too early now to say who the "sure thing" is.

[Chulanowa]

2. All of them

Really, what's so hard here? We could paint a blue "D" on a head of lettuce and it would poll ten points ahead of the Republican contenders.

[goodgd_yall]

6. I would have agreed with you 6 months ago

But I'm not feeling that confident now.

[iconocrastic]

69. He only looks strong because they're not attacking him

... because they don't feel he's much of a threat.

Sorry.

[skipos]

7. No.

After all of the scandals with the GOP in the 70s (Nixon, Agnew, etc) Carter still only beat Ford by 2%.
Bush isn't running in 2008, and there is no reason to assume any Dem is going to win.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. If Not For 30,000 Votes In Hawaii and Ohio Carter Would Have Lost

eom

[Milo_Bloom]

57. So?

Not sure I get the point of that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. The Point Was There Is Usually No Such Thing As A Sure Thing In Electoral Politics

eom

[jcrew2001]

67. Gore lost because he was Unlikeable

just like Hillary, she is the new Al Gore of 2000.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Gore Lost Because He Ran A Poor Campaign

eom

[Auntie Bush]

90. Gore lost because he didn't use Bill Clinton's excellent economy in his campaign.

After all..he wasn't responsible for Clinton's behavior. He didn't have to have him up on stage with him but he could have used his record...big mistake!

Gore also lost the election because it was stolen from him by the GOP and the present Bush administration and the Robert's court. Robert's sure was paid well for his loyalty! Bastard!

[surfermaw]

111. You got it, and his choice of VP made me cry when he was picked

If only he had gone with Edwards, he would have gotten so many votes, the dumb son couldn't have stolen the election.

[robinlynne]

97. Gore won.

[robinlynne]

96. Gore didn't lose. He won.

[Apollo11]

116. Gore got the most votes

and would be President today were it not for widespread vote-stealing in Florida and the intervention of the right-wing partisan majority on the US Supreme Court.

Gore won in 2000 - despite the smears and the innuendo and the bull$hit lies and misquotes.

Bill Clinton's misbehavior in the Oval Office and subsequent misleading statements HELPED Bu$h to start out in the lead, get sympathetic media coverage and keep the election within stealing distance.

Bu$h's best line in the 2000 campaign was his promise to restore integrity to the office of President.

That was code for "I don't cheat on my wife, and I won't mess around with the interns."

I'm not saying shrub never looks at Rice or Perino. But he knows that Laura is boss.

[jcrew2001]

24. Sadly the ex-GOP will take the lettuce instead of Hillary

which is why Edwards and Obama do better against GOP candidates

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Oh. No .They Don't

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[slick8790]

37. Don't trust those polls.

Or any polls, really, that use registered voters instead of likely voters. I don't know how rass does it, so I won't comment on those. Really, I don't trust any polls right now. We'll see in december when everyone's finally paying attention.

[jcrew2001]

48. But Hillary has the highest unlikeable ratings in every poll

that I have seen.

For me, that is disturbing.

[slick8790]

51. It is disturbing for me too.

What i meant is I don't trust head-to-heads, and even some primary polls, this far way from the GE and the first primary.

[sniffa]

120. wrong - that was the sentiment in 2004

[Chulanowa]

121. And it was correct then, too

Of course, it didn't take into account vote-stealing in Ohio...

[rinsd]

3. If the polling is going to be set in stone, how come "sure thing" has been stagnant in 3rd?

[jcrew2001]

25. If you choose to ignore General Election polls

you will see that Edwards wins by a far greater margin than Hillary.

But I trust that you have seen those polls and are choosing to ignore them. Its simply a FACT that Edwards polls better against the GOP than Hillary.

But somehow, that logic will not transfer over to the primaries, which to me is irrational.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. Why Do You Keep Flogging The Rasmussen Poll Like He's The Only Guy With A Tabulator?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[jcrew2001]

34. Its more reliable than other polls, but Hillary still does worse of the 3

but I don't trust my lying eyes either

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. How Is It More Reliable?*

And HRC does better against Rudy than any of the other candidates...


* Their final 00 poll had Bush* beating Gore 49% -40%...He was so off he literally blew up his website and started another one...He's also FOX's favorite pollster because his polls are always "friendliest" to Bush*

[jcrew2001]

49. Do you think that Hillary polls better than Edwards against the GOP?

Tell me that you think Hillary polls better than Edwards against all the GOP in the general election.

[rinsd]

124. Because the other polls are a little older and show a much smaller lead.

[jcrew2001]

126. Do you think Hillary will do better than Edwards against the GOP in the

general election?

or Do you think it will be too close to call?

If you like Hillary, fine, but I sincerely doubt that she would do better against the GOP than Edwards.

But I do think she can win by ramming it down our throats, at least she's got tenacity.

[rinsd]

127. I think Hillary is able to beat any GOPer.

I think any of the Big 3 can beat any of the GOpers.

"Do you think it will be too close to call?"

We do not have enough of a polling sample for Edwards(at least in comparison to Hillary) to make a real judgement on it. Only Ras has updated his polling.

[jcrew2001]

129. But Edwards has higher Likeability than Hillary

and Hillary has higher Un-likeability in most polls.

If their polling against the GOP is close, then Edwards will likely do better if it comes down to Likeability against the GOP candidate.

[slick8790]

39. There's a large disconnect between GE polling and Primary polling, obviously.

Aside from the vast more media time Hillary and Obama have been getting.

[FreakinDJ]

4. FINALY Some one I can agree with

Anyone thinks this is going to be a cakewalk is sadly mistaken.

Edwards is the best shot we have to overpower the RATpublican slur machine, Blackbox Voting, and Fear Mongering rightwing talk show host

The Country, the Constitution, and OUR Children are depending on us to do the RIGHT thing. NOT serve our own personal interest and self serving agenda.

[jcrew2001]

26. Finally, I thought this site would be all Hillary all the time

nt

[robinlynne]

105. I agree. Otherwise I would vote for kucinich. I think Edwards is the "centrist"

candidate. Kucinich would be spectacular, but I'm afraid this country will not put him into power. HIllary< obama are now playing the dlc game, thinking that every move to the right will add numbers to their votes. Edwards is way to the left of HRc and Obama, but not so far that mainstream people won't get it. He is, I think,a president who will end the war pronto, but his healthcare plan isn't really good enough. I think ending the war and ending neocon rule is, right now, more important. We can work on healthcare, once we get basic human rights restored!
(just my opinion, not trying to say this is fact.)

[MethuenProgressive]

5. Every time this same post is made I look at the link to see if it's changed

:eyes:
Same post, made several times in the few days or so, same link, showing very little difference in the match-ups vs the GOP candidates.
Still the same link, still no change, but re-re-re-posted anyway.
Start the clock for the next re-edition of this same post....

[jcrew2001]

27. Why do you think the General Election polls don't matter?

If primary voters want to ignore general election polls, then they can be happy losing another election that matters.

[sampsonblk]

115. Primary voters should vote for who they want to win

Strategic voting got us John Kerry in 2004 - the most electable Democrat in the crowd. How did that work out?

[Cameron27]

8. John Edwards is the farthest thing from a sure thing

now that he's taking public financing. I won't count him out, but it's not going to be easy. As far as your post, none of them are a sure thing, and we'd better remember that. I never under-estimate the stupidity of American voters.

[Sparkly]

11. I just read your post

after posting mine. "None of them are a sure thing!" I always seem to agree with you, and now it seems we post the same things!! :hi:

[Cameron27]

13. That's indeed a compliment!

thank you. :-)

[Sparkly]

18. Aw, shucks!

:blush:

[Sparkly]

9. NONE are an automatic "sure thing," including Edwards.

The task will be to MAKE our nominee as sure a thing as possible!

[nradisic]

10. Amen to that

IMO Edwards is by far the best overall candidate.

[ileus]

12. Anyone is a sure thing...n/t

It's just that Hillary will carry all 50 states. Most of the others would lose 3-5.

[jcrew2001]

29. What???

that would be impossible. No candidate has ever won all 50 states.

[liberal N proud]

14. The Democrats need to nominate the right person for the job

And that person will become the sure thing against the GOP

Who that nominee is will be decided through the democratic process hopefully and all the media influence will not have an effect.

[Milo_Bloom]

15. No.

Putting in a capitulator will just lead to a more radical GOP in 2012 who will have problem defeating a weak willed democratic president. If you don't want to see the rise of Ronald Raygun Part II, you will not put in a candidate who cares more about being politically pleasing than his principles.

[jcrew2001]

30. I do understand your perspective but I'm going to worry about 2008

and trust that the Dems won't be carter-ized again in 2012 by JEB Bush.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. The question is also goals.

Is the goal just to win and put a D in office? If that is it, lets get Lieberman back and run him, I have no doubt there will be TONS of Crossover votes for him.

Putting in the WRONG D gets none of our goals met and worse sets up the GOP for 2012.

[jcrew2001]

85. I think the Goal is to put a Dem in the WH

Now that may not be everyone's goal.

Lieberman is a northeast jewish man, he will not have any votes anywhere in the south or swing states. Lieberman is a liberal on all issues except Iraq.

[Milo_Bloom]

94. That is a very GOP goal.

All the GOP cared about was "winning" in 2000 and look what it got us and them. They found the candidate who could best "win" without any thought about what he actually stood for.

I know many people who are against just about everything bush is for but STILL voted for him just because he was the "republican" and thus, "must stand for lower taxes". They liked him because "he was the kinda guy you could hang out with" and he was a "winner".

It sounds as if you are suggesting a similar strategy for the democrats.

Let's just find the guy who can have the widest appeal, not worry about his voting record, whether he is honest or not and just get someone into office with a D next to their name no matter how much long term damage they will do to the country and the party.

Reminds me of why I quit practicing criminal law after only 6 months. It was never about actually finding the truth and whether the person was innocent or guilty, but WINNING or LOSING.

[jcrew2001]

99. What do you think Kerry stood for?

was he a compromise of GOP values?

Will the GOP pick the supreme court?

[Milo_Bloom]

106. I HATED voting for Kerry and still regret it.

It was exactly the problem I am talking about. Kerry didn't have principles... he had political positions.

If Kerry had been elected, it is very unlikely that the Democrats would have taken the Senate and Congress in 2006. Since we would have had 2 years of ineffective rule from the White House and people wouldn't have been as willing to vote Democratic in some desperate attempt to stop what was going on.

The GOP has learned that they can stand up to the democrats no matter what and the media will continue to support them, so if you think that Kerry could have gotten a liberal onto the court, you are fooling youself. Just like his IWR vote, he would have offered some type of compromise candidate who would have turned out not to be what he thought he was and everyone would have forgiven him because he couldn't have known what everyone else knew.

In short, I don't trust a compromise candidate to choose the court anymore than I trust the current democratic congress to stop things like illegal wiretapping.

[jcrew2001]

108. Many people have the same thoughts about Hillary

that they would not want to vote for her.

[Milo_Bloom]

110. I wouldn't vote for Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd...

and would work my tail off in the primary or general election to make sure they aren't elected.

[Lerkfish]

16. you know, I don't give the Clinton supporters a thumbs up for using polls as an argument

so to be fair, I'm going to have to tell you the same thing.
Electability and poll results are pisspoor substitutes for policy discussions.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Yes, especially because he has the best policies

There's no downside here.

[dajoki]

19. All that poll shows me...

is what I already know. There is NO sure thing. There are way to many variables including favorables and unfavorables, not to mention we haven't even had the primaries yet. I am leaning Edwards so far, but whoever wins the nomination will have my vote in the general.

[avrdream]

20. I will never feel comfortable that we Dems have a "sure thing" running.

Not with electronic voting the way it has been.

[jcrew2001]

38. It seems many Hillraisers expect a sure thing in the GE

nt

[cobalt1999]

21. All three are sure things.

2008 is an easy win with any of the three.

[jcrew2001]

32. but Hillary is the weakest of all 3 in the general election

But why would that matter...

[cobalt1999]

35. actually, head to head polls against the potential republicans are useless now.

They'll gain some meaning when the two parties actually start campaigning against each other, so there isn't any relevant data to say Hillary is the weakest of the three.

[jcrew2001]

41. She also has the highest Unfavorable and Unlikeable polls

if you're going to stick by the most unlikeable candidate, thats your choice, but I don't see many undecided voters jumping on her bandwagon.

[cobalt1999]

54. Like I said, polls against republicans are meanless this early

It's also a lot of worrying over nothing, Hillary, Obama, or Edwards will win easily in 2008. It's like worrying about winning 40 or 41 or 42 states.

The fact is we win easily because this war will still be going on, patience and frustration will be enormous, the dollar will continue to tank, the economy may be in full recession by then, and Bush will continue to alienate other countries. No way a republican wins.

[jcrew2001]

58. Have you heard of ABC - "Anyone But Clinton"

Just as voters may be "Anyone but Bush" or anti-GOP, I believe there will be in 2008 a very strong issue of ABC - Anyone but Clinton.

It will be Iraq, the Economy, and Hillary.

[cobalt1999]

65. You know they'll do the same thing to Edwards and Obama

Each candidate will be subject to the Gore/Kerry smear campaign no matter who we nominate. There isn't a lot new they can throw at Hillary that people haven't heard before anyway.

Why let the republican hate determine our candidate, you give them too much power and influence over your vote.

[jcrew2001]

71. Since when did the GOP tell us to nominate Gore or Kerry?

and those 2 still lost, so why not give common sense and unity a chance?

[cobalt1999]

78. That's my point

Those two lost for many reasons, NOT because we chose the one republicans hated the least.

You are either worrying way too much or trying to build support for your candiadate using a fear Hillary campaign. Either way I think you are off-base.

[jcrew2001]

83. Gore and Kerry would beat Hillary

in many ways. Hillary's only leg to stand on is that she is still married to Bill Clinton (who has the experience).

She has not shown the Leadership experience of Gore or Kerry.

If Kerry ran in 2008, he would beat Hillary in the primaries.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

No ...She Isn't ...

Respectfully, making stuff up doesn't help your case...


I think Edwards, Obama, and Clinton can beat any GOOPER in 08... I think Edwards is the safest choice but only by a hair...

[jcrew2001]

46. Hillary has always been the weakest of the 3 Dems

She has never done better than Edwards or Obama against the GOP.

If you think that Hillary does better against the GOP than Edwards, you are really ignoring all the data and polls.

She has the highest Unlikeable ratings amongst the 3 Dems. Now you can support her, but there is a reason why the 46% or so people dislike her and will work to convince the other 54% not to vote for her either.

You're just ignoring rationality, but that is your decision.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. You're Manipulating The Data To Get The Conclusion You Desire

"She has the highest Unlikeable ratings amongst the 3 Dems. Now you can support her, but there is a reason why the 46% or so people dislike her and will work to convince the other 54% not to vote for her either. "

The assertion embodied in your premise is she won't get one vote...That's ridiculous...

[jcrew2001]

59. Tell me that you think Hillary does better than Edwards against the GOP

and I will go over to the dark side.

If you think that Hillary can do better against the GOP in the general election matchups; with her 46% unlikeable ratings; she can pull out a victory out of her bum.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. She's Had Fifteen Years To Build Those Negatives

And according to Gallup her negatives are 39%...

[jcrew2001]

74. Are her Negatives higher than Edwards?

according the Gallup poll then. It would surprise me if Edwards had higher negatives than her.

if you like Hillary that is okay, but don't tell me that She doesn't have the Highest Unlikeable ratings in the Dems and does the best against the GOP.

[polichick]

44. 2008 will be far from an easy win...

Dems who think so haven't learn a thing from the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.

This isn't Kansas anymore ~ or Democracy either!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Silly To Hang Your Hat On One Poll When There Are Dozens Of Polls Out There

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[jcrew2001]

33. RCP is better

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Yeah, And The Difference Between The Three Is Rather Small

eom

[jcrew2001]

42. But Edwards still wins by greater margins against the GOP

that has always been the case. Its really a fantasy to believe that Hillary does better against the GOP than Edwards.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Hillary Does Better Than Rudy And Right Now Rudy Is The Most Likely Candidate

eom

[jcrew2001]

53. But Hillary is also the most Unlikeable candidate in all the polls

but Rudy seems to be climbing slightly. I just don't see how all the voters who disliked Hillary in the 1990's will come around and "like" her enough to vote for her.

You think that the ex-GOP voters will choose a head of Lettuce instead of Hillary, that is correct.

The swing voters will be made up of anti-Bush voters and anti-Hillary voters.

Do you honestly think that Hillary does better than Edwards in the matchup of GOP candidates?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. No Significant Difference

She does the best against Rudy... A bit worse against Mitt...A bit worse against Freddy... But she's beating all of them by nice margins...

If Mitt, Rudy, and Freddy were spanking her in the polls you would have an argument but they're not and you don't...

What part of that don't you understand?

[jcrew2001]

63. Do you think Hillary is a Sure Winner in the 2008 general election?

against Rudy, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. If The Election Was Held Today...Yes...

eom

[jcrew2001]

76. Edwards would be a Sure Winner if the election were held today

imo

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. As Would Hillary And Probably Obama

But the election is thirteen months away...

This is getting ridiculous...

Your entire argument rests on several polls ,about an election over a year away, that show John Edwards doing better than Hillary Clinton against some candidates and not others with the difference between the two of them being fairly negligble...

[jcrew2001]

87. My point is that Hillary needs to overcome both her Unlikeability and

her weakness against the GOP.

Edwards has higher Like-ability and does better against the GOP than Hillary.

I am saying that I want A Democrat to win in 2008, and I believe that Hillary is the weakest of the 3 Dems.

I believe that polls and common sense give me that conclusion.

But the election is a year away and Hillary might improve in Like-ability, I'll give you that.

[polichick]

40. Yep, I agree that Edwards makes sense because...

He can win and the changes he'd make would amount to more than window dressing.

[jcrew2001]

55. But all voters care about is ABB and ABC

Anyone But Bush and "Anyone but Clinton"

[polichick]

66. And we need to pay more attention to the ABB side of that!

Reps are watching our do-nothing Congress and it's definitely NOT going to inspire them to switch parties. "Anybody but Bush" will just amount to voting for a non-Bush Republican. We need a candidate who will carry both Dems and Indies.

[jcrew2001]

109. I believe the Anyone But Clinton side

will come out way more than the Anyone But Bush side in 2008.

[GreenArrow]

45. there is no "sure thing"

.

[FreakinDJ]

50. Edwards is as close as it gets

Hilary with her 54% Neg Polling would prove to be yet another disaster for the Dems

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Where Are Her Negatives 54%

A link is in order...

[jcrew2001]

62. Her unlikeability is around 46% give or take in most polls

nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Gallup Has Her Negatives At 39%

I'll take their poll over a pollster who is Sean Hannity's favorite pollster guest...

[jcrew2001]

77. What are Edwards' negatives in the Gallup?

Does he do better than Hillary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. You're Taking A Statistic Here And A Statistic There Without Any Context

That's sloppy social science... It would get you a failing grade in any social research course...

[jcrew2001]

81. What does Gallup say about Edwards' Likeability?

is it better than Hillary?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. It Means Nothing Without Context

The context being the Republicans have had fifteen years to define Hillary Clinton...

[jcrew2001]

89. Democrats have had 15 years to define Hillary also

maybe its time for someone new. It seems the country is anti-Bush and wants Change.

But do Americans want to change Back to 1992? is that really change at all?

I don't believe so.

Is it possible to change, by going back 15 years ago.

Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. That Has Nothing To Do With Nothing

We are arguing in circles...

Your whole argument is based on a Rasmussen Poll, thirteen months from the election that shows Edwards running marginally better than Hillary Clinton... But when you look at all the polls you get a better picture and that picture suggests Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are all running fairly well against their GOP opponents with Obama pulling up the rear...

Your problem is you are trying to draw global conclusions from data from which global conclusions can not be drawn...

All we really know at this point is that Edwards , Clinton, and to a lesser extent Obama seem to do well when matched up against likely Republican opponents...

[jcrew2001]

98. From a year of polls, Edwards has always done better than Hillary

against the GOP, even though Hillary has been well known for 15 years. Her 15 years of experience has brought many people to dislike her. She cannot separate her 15 years of so called experience without the baggage of 15 years of negativity.

Hillary needs to over come the last 15 years of Negativity to someone get the other 54% of voters to vote for her instead of the GOP.

If you want to start with a new Candidate, then Edwards or Obama is your choice.

Hillary's negatives are likely higher than Bill's negatives, but Bill can't run again for President. I would be surprised if Bill had a 46% negativity rating.

It simply NOT TRUE that Hillary would do better against the GOP than Edwards.

You can say otherwise at your own peril to future polling evidence and trends.

By your own argument, I am justified in supporting Edwards because he does Better or just as well as Hillary against the GOP. He's more like-able and has more chance with swing voters.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. He Beats Thompson By Twelve Points...Hillary Beats Him By Ten....So On And So On...

If you want to base your whole argument on a set of nebulous numbers there is nothing I can to disabuse you of that notion...

[jcrew2001]

102. Edwards is also more Like-able

and more attractive to swing voters. I just believe that with the empirical data and personality that he will win the general election by a greater margin, particularly with the Anyone but Bush/Anyone but Clinton crowd.

I know Hillary from 15 years of experience, so I've made up my mind about her candidacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. Edwards is also more Like-able

Why don't his fellow Carolinians like him?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3559898&mesg_id=3559898

[jcrew2001]

107. They only asked 600 people

But I do trust that the 37% who like Hillary are the Only 37% who will stick by her.

After 15 years, either people like you or don't, and for Hillary only 37% like her.

I believe there is more upside to Edwards, that his Like-ability will only grow. But Hillary's like-ability has plateaued.

If Hillary is the nominee, the Dems have Zero chance of getting the swing voters in Ohio.

You are saying polls don't matter, but the most important poll is the General Election polling; and I believe that Hillary has flatlined and plateaued. She has no upside.

Name recognition can only get her so far.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. I Am Saying No Such Thing

I'm just saying you only cite polls that are favorable to your candidate...It's intellectually dishonest and unpersuasive...

Carry on...

[jcrew2001]

125. You can believe that Hillary does better than Edwards against the GOP

but in my view of the vast polling and Hillary's high unlike-able ratings, I cannot draw that same conclusion.

My conclusion based on data up to the present day is that Edwards does better against the GOP across the board, and will likely do better with indepedents.

I believe that Hillary will have a far more difficult time getting votes from independents and ex-GOP. But with her name recognition, she might be able to overwhelm the media and public.

Her only talking point is that she is married to Bill Clinton and has experience through osmosis of being co-president in the white house. She has never stood up as a person in her own right and have others lives and livelihoods determined by her decisions.

[jcrew2001]

64. Many Hillraisers would disagree with you

they think Hillary is a sure thing

[polichick]

That's called "having a strong intention"

It can be self-fulfilling ~ smart on their part.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. No Such Thing Is A Sure Thing

President Dewey ring a bell...

[GreenArrow]

80. Gore and Kerry should have been sure things

and we all know what happened to them.

[jcrew2001]

91. Is Hillary not a sure thing then

how unsure will she be in beating the GOP candidates.

[GreenArrow]

93. lots of time left, lots of variables/unknowns

Hillary IMO, is pretty nearly a "sure thing" at least so far as being the nominee is concerned, but who knows? Maybe Gore still decides to get in? As far as the general election, regardless of the Democratic candidate, I'm not viewing it as certain or sure that the Democrats are even going to win. I'm taking almost nothing as a given.

[bpeale]

123. as for Kerry...

I voted for Kerry BECAUSE of John Edwards, not because I liked Kerry.

[GreenArrow]

128. I voted for Kerry as well, in spite of John Edwards

and not because I especially liked Kerry either. I was under the belief that Bush and his lot and all that they brought with them needed to be repudiated at the ballot box, and that by the greatest possible numbers. Anybody but Bush. For whatever reason -- vote theft, bad campaign, Bush simply more popular -- it didn't work, and this time around the philosophy is ABR: anybody but the Republican, and there is no guarantee that it'll work this time either.

[jcrew2001]

131. I think it should be a Edwards/Kerry ticket this time

haha, that would be wild.

or Edwards/Gore

[MasonJar]

86. Gore lost because he was cheated and because of the Felonious

Five. The alleged dem, running the Miami district who also just happened to design the ballot that was so faulty that it gave untold numbers of Gore votes to Buchanan, actually had until very recently been a Pug. (No doubt a Jeb/Katherine appointee) Between 79,000 and 90,000, mostly democratic voters, were purged from Florida's voter rolls and Pug voting armed forces ballots, without a date and with a date after the election, were counted. The GOP nutcases and Brooks Brothers continguencies raced to Florida to frighten the citizens doing a legal recount. Katherine Harris would not wait two hours until an important Gore-leaning area had completed its recount. Even so, Gore was only behind 500 votes when the Supreme Court (against their jurisdiction) halted the vote count, at the same time declaring that their decision could never be considered a precedent.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

95. There Were Over 100,000 Spoiled Ballots In Heavily African American Duval County Precincts

Don't get me started...

[OwnedByFerrets]

101. Didnt you hear, the preliminaries are already over....nt

[Pachamama]

103. I completely agree - I think an Edwards/Obama '08 ticket would be the way to go!

:kick:

[surfermaw]

112. Edwards & Biden is the way to go.

[Stevepol]

113. You can't speak of a sure thing when you don't have a democracy.

When the votes are counted in total secrecy without verification it's impossible to have a democracy.

There's absolutely no reason whatever to have the slightest confidence in the results of any election in the US. This will continue to be so until there are robust audits for the elections where the votes are counted (or centrally tabulated) by electronic voting machines, which count 80-85% of all votes.

[Perry Logan]

114. Edwards can't win. He'd energize the big bad Republican base, and we'd get SLAUGHTERED.

[Apollo11]

117. Sorry, but most polls show Hillary has the highest negatives

Still - you're entitled to your (wrong) opinion.

[Vinca]

118. There is no "sure thing" when they've got control over the

voting machine software, are experts at vote caging and will resort to any kind of smear or dirty trick. Democratic candidates should assume the vote is going to be stolen and plan accordingly.

[ihelpu2see]

119. Definitely! Edwards and Obama both have lower negatives in the "POLLS" that

are heavily touted and they both beat all GOP.... Plus I like Edwards because of his more progressive platforms...

[jcrew2001]

130. I think Hillary will be burned by the past

and most elections are about Turning the Page and having a Fresh start. We can't go Back to the Past. I'm also worried that the GOP will nominate a Hispanic as VP - imagine if all the hispanic voters go to the GOP next year, that would destroy the Dem party.