Despite being the most progressive populist of our top 3 candidates, Edwards does best in Red states

[Stop Cornyn]

From the most recent Rasmussen head-to-head numbers:

Senator John Edwards (D) leads Senator John McCain (R) 47% to 40%. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also shows that Edwards has a more intimidating margin over former Governor Mitt Romney (R), 52% to 35%.

A month ago, Edwards held a four point edge over McCain and an eleven point lead over Romney. Even before these latest results, Edwards was the strongest Democratic candidate in general election match-ups.

Contrast Rasmussen's head-to-head numbers for Edwards with the most recent head-to-head Rasmussen numbers for Hillary:

Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton nominally leads Republican Senator John McCain 46% to 45% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But, the Democratic frontrunner easily outpaces former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney 49% to 40%.
...
Hillary Clinton is viewed favorably by 49%, unfavorably by 50%. Those numbers have moved little throughout the year. In the Democratic nomination race, Clinton's lead is holding firm as she routinely draws support in the 40% range.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll of the frontrunners shows that Clinton is neck-and-neck with Giuliani, and enjoys a moderate lead over Thompson.

... and Rasmussen's most recent Obama numbers:

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Election 2008 shows Senator Barack Obama now leading Senator John McCain 46% to 41%, and leading former Governor Mitt Romney just 46% to 43%.

Obama has been in a tougher struggle with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani than with such other top GOP contenders as McCain and former Senator Fred Thompson. And until now Obama has enjoyed double-digit advantages over former Governor Mitt Romney in almost every Rasmussen Reports survey of the match-up (see history).

Here's some SurveyUSA numbers from Kentucky:

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican {name} and Democrat {name}, who would you vote for?

50% Fred Thompson
45% Clinton

54% Fred Thompson
37% Obama

44% Fred Thompson
45% Edwards

46% Romney
46% Clinton

45% Romney
43% Obama

38% Romney
48% Edwards

All our candidates lose to Giuliani in Kentucky, but Edwards is the most competitive with him, and Edwards is the only one who beats both Romney and Thompson.

SurveyUSA numbers from Oklahoma:

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican {name} and Democrat {name}, who would you vote for?

47% Giuliani
44% Clinton

54% Giuliani
33% Obama

40% Giuliani
49% Edwards

50% Fred Thompson
44% Clinton

55% Fred Thompson
35% Obama

41% Fred Thompson
47% Edwards

44% Romney
47% Clinton

46% Romney
40% Obama

32% Romney
53% Edwards

In Oklahoma, Edwards is our only candidate who beats Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney.

Quinnipiac national numbers (with the responses divided among Red, Blue, and swing Purple states):

If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were {name} the Democrat and {name} the Republican, for whom would you vote? (asked of Red state voters, Blue state voters, and Purple swing state voters)

Red - Blue - Purple
44% - 52% - 43% --- Clinton
46% - 40% - 43% --- Giuliani

39% - 47% - 42% --- Obama
45% - 40% - 41% --- Giuliani

42% - 45% - 42% --- Edwards
42% - 43% - 40% --- Giuliani

44% - 52% - 45% --- Clinton
45% - 39% - 40% --- McCain

38% - 49% - 42% --- Obama
44% - 34% - 39% --- McCain

43% - 47% - 45% --- Edwards
40% - 36% - 36% --- McCain

45% - 58% - 47% --- Clinton
42% - 32% - 39% --- Thompson

41% - 56% - 44% --- Obama
38% - 28% - 36% --- Thompson

44% - 55% - 48% --- Edwards
36% - 27% - 33% --- Thompson

Among Red state voters, Hillary loses to Giuliani and McCain and beats Thompson by only 3%. Even among Purple state voters, Hillary doesn't beat Giuliani.

Obama does the same as Hillary in Red states, but at least he beats Giuliani in Purple states.

In Red states, Edwards ties Giuliani and beats both McCain and Thompson with more than twice the margin over Thompson. Edwards also wins in the Purple states by the biggest margins.

[angstlessk]

1. Perhaps the keyword is 'populist'..how that became a bad word I have no idea

it means the population is in favor of it...as opposed to the corporatists...THE MSN HAS MADE POPULIST=STALINIST??

[goodgd_yall]

2. 'cause he speaks for the working person and poor

Being a southerner himself doesn't hurt.

[RiverStone]

3. I believe Edwards could catch up and surprise folks

Of all the candidates, I believe Edwards has the most potential to show improvement in the polls.

A strong Iowa showing could do wonders to increase the perception that he CAN BEAT HRC; if that attitude starts to catch on, I see that Edwards could have broad-based appeal in ALL regions of the country.

Of course, DK represents my views better than any other candidate; though I'm willing to credit John with shifting his message to include more aggressive attacks against BushCo's war machine. I like that.

[ChiciB1]

7. I Said This Last Year... Edwards Isn't Getting ANY Credit & It's Been

stated publicly that the D.C. Elite actually hate him! I presume they are working extremely hard to make sure he doesn't make any headway!

THEY like what's going on in D.C. because actually it's in "their" best interest! To them Edwards signifies there will be some shake-up and it just might hurt their wallets. So sticking with Clinton is a natural progression of the status quo!

I'm still ready to fight back even as I see a wall of Wall Streeters coming straight at me! Those of us who support another candidate may lose in the end, but it WON'T BE FOR NOT TRYING!!

ABC!

[rinsd]

4. 3rd link is nearly two months old.

But even then Edwards just edges Guiliani in Blue/Purple states (reflective of Rudy beating him in the NE).

Hillary beats Rudy in blue states that are in play (if not outright Rudy wins) with Edwards in the race like NY, NJ & PA.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1317.xml

[Stop Cornyn]

6. Quinnipiac is the only pollster doing Red/Blue/Purple national polling and this is Quinnipiac's most

recent Red/Blue/Purple national poll. How much do you think Hillary has moved (and in which direction?) over the past 6 weeks in head-to-head match ups against the top Republican candidates in Red and swing Purple states?

[rinsd]

9. 2 months is a long time especially since Thompson has officially entered the race

I am unsure what the numbers will be.

However Hillary has done better in some national heat head to heads in the last 2 months

Her vs Rudy - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html

In mid august Hillary was tied or had a slight lead (according to composite avg by RCP). now she leads by an average of over 5.

Cliton;s Thompson numbers are all over the place - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_clinton-266.html

But she is beating him handily.

Her McCain numbers are fairly stable with her having a slight edge - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html

Same with Romney stable but she has a large edge there -

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html

[Stop Cornyn]

13. The Rasmussen polling is fro last week and it confirms that the late August Quinnipiac poll is still

valid.

[rinsd]

15. Diiffent polling firms polling at different times do not butress one another.

[Stop Cornyn]

22. If that idea helps you sleep at night, I won't try to take it away from you. Agree to disagree?

[rinsd]

28. Sleep at night?

I'll agree to disagree but I still don't see how two different polling firms conducting polls in different time periods confirm one another.

[rudy23]

5. Red-state politics is about IDENTITY, not issues.

They could give a flip about progressive policies.

Do you think all these freepers are experts on supply side economics, or do you think they just don't want the government taking their money and giving it to black people>

[saracat]

8. So you think we can win without those states? Sheesh.And your contempt

for those states is exactly the reason some don't vote for Dems. I doesn't matter "why" they vote but that they vote and we "need" them to vote for us. Edwards is our most progressive (viable0 candidate and I don't give a flip why they would vote for him but that they would is not anything to be dismissed.

[Clark2008]

17. I'm a "red stater." What's my identity?

It's certainly more liberal than you since I don't make prejudgments based on regional biases.

[rudy23]

20. I am too, and usually I'm the first one defending "red-staters" to the prejudiced

I took a lot of liberties in my post, and I ended up sounding like the people I'm usually fighting with.

I should have specified that I was talking about red *voters* in red states.

I think the red state/blue state thing is mostly bullshit, but I was talking about the freeper mentality, rather than any regional mentality.

[derby378]

87. Well, if it's any consolation, Texas is looking a little more violet these days...

We need to keep up the pressure on my home state. Just take a look at the number of electors we'll be sending to DC in 2008.

[ShortnFiery]

10. I'm hoping that Obama throws all his support behind Edwards BEFORE the primary.

That way we stand a half-way decent chance of beating HRC. IMO, any other scenario will not work out for anyone but The Clintonian DLC taking over the Democratic Party. :(

[robinlynne]

14. That would be fantastic.

[Clark2008]

18. The other way around would be better.

I will NOT vote for Edwards in the GE. He's too smarmy. I'm not a huge HRC or Obama fan, either, for the record, but I know what they are. Edwards changes daily.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

25. Smarmy? Do you know what he's done all his life?

He's been a plaintiff's lawyer, suing giant corporations to compensate SERIOUSLY INJURED victims, or families of DEAD victims, for the corporation's negligence, when they didn't want to pay a crying dime. Evil corporations don't care who they injure or kill, because to them, peoples' lives don't matter. The only thing that matters to them is profit.

Did you read about the little girl in the hot tub whose intestines were literally violently sucked out through her anus because the maker of the cover of the intake opening did NOT design it so that it was screwed down, and unable to be removed easily? That little girl is permanently disabled and just barely alive. Edwards sued the maker of the cover which admitted that it did not design the cover properly.

What happened when these plaintiffs whose lives were ruined, got the money they deserved?

Many people were kept off of public welfare. These plaintiffs were not a burden to the taxpayer, because a jury of twelve people decided the defendant corporation was responsible for the injury, NOT the injured person themselves.

People who think that ALL plaintiffs are frauds and that ALL personal injury cases filed are frivolous are merely increasing the burden on the taxpayers, if they serve on a jury and vote in favor of the corporation.

I am NOT saying that ALL plaintiffs have a good case. A good lawyer will NOT file a "dog" case. A dog case is one where the facts are bad--the plaintiff has a pre-existing condition, or there is no clear-cut fact situation showing that the defendant was proximately responsible for the plaintiff's injury.

Any case filed may be dismissed by a motion for summary judgment by the defendant, if the judge agrees the case is frivolous. The meaning of a summary judgment is that there are no issues of law to be decided. There is NO "tort crisis".

I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. I have seen many trials up close and took down EVERY SINGLE WORD of the trials.

I worked at the courthouse for many years and saw, heard and took down in shorthand many hundreds or thousands of trials. The bad cases generally got the fate they deserved -- the jury gave the plaintiffs nothing. However, in some cases (One very memorable case) of total disability, the plaintiff was held liable, thus putting the total burden of a paraplegic on the taxpayers instead of the defendant hospital and doctors.

[Ninga]

11. Think about what the map would look like on the day after the GE if Edwards won

the south.

It's about giving our next President a mandate for gods sake.

It's about getting back to big ideas.....

Winning is NOT enough if the new President does not have a mandate.

[Stop Cornyn]

12. I live in Texas, and even though I'd prefer Kucinich over Edwards, I know Edwards' downballot effect

will give our Democratic Senatorial nominee a real chance against Cornyn and give us a huge boost in our Statehouse and local races.

With Hillary at the top of the ticket, we won't even see the presidential campaign in Texas (unless we hitch a ride to Arkansas) and our downballot candidates will suffer for it (and forget even the slightest chance of defeating Cornyn if our candidate has to run on a ticket with Hillary).

I am NOT ideologically opposed to Hillary. She's not my first choice, but she's not my last choice either, and she's a damn stretch better than any Repub, but the extent to which she will unite and motivate the Texas Repub party and get out their vote in Texas is something that Giuliani, Romney, or even Karl Rove could never pull off.

I think Hillary can win nationally; in fact, if she's the nominee, I expect that she has a 55% to 60% chance of winning. I just think Edwards (and Obama, too, for that matter) has a better chance of winning in the general election, and I have genuine concerns that she would be a drag on the whole ticket in Red states like Texas.

[Clark2008]

19. Bahahahahahaha

Edwards has NO CHANCE in the South or mid-West. He's too "pretty."

Geez..

I wish people here would step outside the blue bubble for a bit.

Do you guys ever talk to your neighbors? Clients? Co-workers?

They like him, but don't find him to be a particularly strong person. They find him to Ken-doll-like: nice, but not presidential.

And those are Dems. Republicans think he's a joke.

[saracat]

21. We must not be talking to the same people! I live in a red state and a VERY

red district and at my last Dem district meeting we had a straw poll and Edwards won by a huge margin.I talk to my GOP friends and neighbors all the time and Edwards is the ONLY Dem they will vote for. I make it a point to know what the GOP is thinking as they are really important to our elections.We can't win without them in my state.And they do indeed like Edwards in my red state and district. So I see that in my state, where he isn't even campaigning, he has support from Dems and the GOP!

[Stop Cornyn]

24. Too pretty? Yeah, I guess that you're right, and Texans would never elect a guy with good hair:

The president we inflicted on you, our senior Senator, and our governor (pictured above) were all CHEERLEADERS in college for godsake! You think we won't elect a progressive populist because you find him too pretty?

[GreenArrow]

60. he's the most "progressive".

yet somehow, he's also the most likely to catch swing voters and disaffected Republicans.

Wait'll all 'em pubs learn how he's shifted his moderate to conservative positions to more "liberal" ones. At the end of the day, Hillary is going to catch those moderate voters, because the positions she espouses will prove to be more in line with their own. Edwards would have done better to just held his ground; instead, he has opened himself in spades to the dread "flip flopper" charge. As a pretend liberal, he's going nowhere.

[Clark2008]

16. ...because he's actually not all that progressive.

His Senate record is much louder in my ears than his campaign rhetoric.

[William769]

23. Got the numbers for North Carolina?

[Stop Cornyn]

26. No, but I bet they don't show Hillary winning a head-to-head with a Repub candidate, do they?

There is no mistaking that Hillary is has hit her peak and she is the candidate to beat. I got the "inevitability memo." I'm just pointing out that it might perhaps be a good strategy to elect a candidate who will run a campaign in all 50 states.

[William769]

27. I bet they do.

:)

[Stop Cornyn]

33. Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link? Link?

[William769]

34. Don't have one.

Was just responding to your bet.

[Stop Cornyn]

38. Then what head-to-head North Carolina poll are you talking about?

[William769]

39. Same one you are.

[Stop Cornyn]

44. I was referring to head-to-head polling and you asked if I'd seen the North Carolina numbers.

I haven't seen North Carolina head-to-head numbers. Were you just making up a head-to-head poll in North Carolina? If there is a real head-to-head poll, I'd be surprised to see Hillary leading the Repub candidates, but I'D CERTAINLY BE GLAD IF SHE WAS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Here

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/10/08/clinton_edges_edwards_in_north_carolina_thompson_leads_republicans.html

That's embarrassing... I have never seen a serious candidate that is having such a hard time putting away his own state...It seems those that know him the best like him the least...

[Stop Cornyn]

43. Yeah? How's Hillary doing on putting away her home state of Illinois?

[William769]

45. Since you asked.

Barack Obama 37%
Hillary Clinton 33%
John Edwards 10%
Bill Richardson 4%
Joe Biden 1%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Wesley Clark 1%
Unsure 12%

Of course Obama is a Senator there. You want to see How Obama stacks up against Hillary in the State where she is Senator?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. She Hasn't Lived In Illinois In Thirty Years...

Last I checked John Edwards calls North Carolina home...

[Stop Cornyn]

49. I'm not the one who started asking questions about home states. Is Illinois Hillary's home state or

or not?

Is she a Cubs fan or a Yankees fan?

[William769]

57. Who did?

[Stop Cornyn]

59. Looks like

post #40.

[illinoisprogressive]

52. Last Illinois poll: Obama was around 60, Hillary around 25. 2 weeks ago.

[rinsd]

54. Since its only two weeks old it should be easy to provide a link.

But knowing your posting habits I doubt we will see one.

[William769]

55. And I thought I was the only one that had her number.

[rinsd]

58. Hey Willy!

:hi:

[waiting for hope]

86. I take offense to that - I live in NC

and about 98% of the people I know love Edwards and I'm constantly getting thumbs up on my JRE '08 bumper sticker. And if you took time to read some of the posts from Edwards supporters, those who like him best, know the most about him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Quinnipiac: Hillary only Dem to beat Guiliani an all three top Swing states...support is deep...

http://quinnipiac.edu/x2882.xml?ReleaseID=1109

If Hillary carries all the Kerry states and OH and FL she will have over 300 EC Votes...

[Stop Cornyn]

31. When you say "Hillary carries all the Kerry states and OH and FL she will" win, that confirms the

impression that the rest of the states will be hung out to dry. Was Dean's 50-State strategy so successful in 2006 that you have come to FEAR electoral success?

By the way, which one of those "three top Swing states" is North Carolina? I thought someone was making promised about a North Carolina poll which showed Hillary beating Republicans head-to-head. I certainly haven't seen that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Hmmm

I rememember Edwards being on the ticket in 04 and the Dems being 0-13 in Dixie...


In fact Kerry-Edwards did worse in North Carolina in 04 than Gore-Lieberman did in 00...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. North Carolina Is Not A Swing State

It hasn't gone blue since 1976...

[Stop Cornyn]

41. Exactly. Someone referenced polling in North Carolina but you responded with swing state polling

for PA, FL, and OH.

[rinsd]

42. So what about Edwards losing Kerry states vs Rudy like NJ, PA & NY?

"By the way, which one of those "three top Swing states" is North Carolina? I thought someone was making promised about a North Carolina poll which showed Hillary beating Republicans head-to-head. I certainly haven't seen that."

The only poll I see for NC that is current is Elon which only polls eligible voters(anyone 18+) vs registered or likely voters. Also this does not have head to head numbers.

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/elonpoll/092807data.pdf

On edit: I found this PPI NC poll from this week but it also does not have head to heads

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/surveys/PPP_Release_100807.pdf

[Stop Cornyn]

47. We both know that Edwards would campaign in NJ, PA, & NY. Hillary won't even campaign in many states

including mine.

If you doubt that Edwards is a stronger head-to-head candidate against Republicans than Hillary, your beef is with the polling, not with me.

Take it up with Quinnipiac and Rassmussen -- I'm only reporting the poll numbers which correspond with what I see here in Texas.

I will 100% support Hillary is she's the nominee, and I further agree that any person laying a bet on the nomination would be making a risky investment to bet on anyone other than Hillary.

I just think she's not our strongest candidate and will hurt the candidates downballot in many states where she won't even likely campaign. Is that a thoughtcrime?

[rinsd]

48. Exactly, he would have to waste time and money defending home turf vs making inroads down South

"If you doubt that Edwards is a stronger head-to-head candidate against Republicans than Hillary, your beef is with the polling, not with me."

Why would I have a beef with the polling when it shows Hillary kicking GOP ass?

Unfortunately we are limited to just Ras and the Q poll for Edwards because he doesn't get included in head to heads as much.

Some good poll resources for a fellow poll junkie

Real Clear politics - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Mystery Pollster - http://www.pollster.com/

And Polling Report - http://www.pollingreport.com/2008.htm

"I just think she's not our strongest candidate and will hurt the candidates downballot in many states where she won't even likely campaign. Is that a thoughtcrime?"

No, and neither is disagreeing with you and arguing so in a civil fashion...at least I hope this has been civil.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. TX Hasn't Gone Blue Since 1976

No Dem is going to waste money seriously contesting it...

Gawd, we had a Texan on the ticket in 88 and lost it by thirty points or so...

[Stop Cornyn]

63. Actually, Edwards polls the strongest in most of the races in that new Quinnipiac poll, too:

Out of those 12 head-to-head match ups, Edwards is the strongest candidate in 8 contests and he's either winning or within the margin of error in the 4 other races:

Edwards

vs.

Giuliani
FL 41-43
OH 46-36
PA 43-44

Thompson
FL 44-36
OH 48-31
PA 47-34

Romney
FL 47-33
OH 50-28
PA 49-32

McCain
FL 42-40
OH 46-35
PA 47-39

--

Clinton

vs.

Giuliani
FL 46-43
OH 46-40
PA 48-42

Thompson
FL 48-39
OH 50-36
PA 50-39

Romney
FL 48-37
OH 51-34
PA 49-37

McCain
FL 46-42
OH 48-38
PA 48-41

--

Obama

vs.

Giuliani
FL 39-42
OH 44-38
PA 43-45

Thompson
FL 45-36
OH 44-33
PA 45-37

Romney
FL 43-36
OH 47-31
PA 49-33

McCain
FL 39-41
OH 43-39
PA 45-41

Edwards is the strongest in 2/3 of the contests; specifically, he's strongest against all four Repubs in OH, he's the strongest against 3 out of 4 in PA, and he's the strongest against Romney in FL.

Hillary is the strongest in 1/4 of the contests; she's strongest against McCain in FL and strongest Guiliani in FL and PA.

Obama isn't the the strongest in any of the contests, but he's tied with Hillary and a single point ahead of Edwards in the three-way Democratic route of Thompson in FL.

[rinsd]

79. Losing in PA or NY does not make him the strongest candidate when Hillary wins there.

[rinsd]

30. So how do you know Hillary has hit her peak?

She just finished up a great 3rd Q in fundraising and now has moved ahead in the Des Moines Register poll for likely caucus goers.

Her numbers today are slightly higher than last month which was slightly higher than the month before.

[Stop Cornyn]

32. I guess we'll see.

[rinsd]

36. Well yeah. Predicting "peaks" is difficult at best.

[illinoisprogressive]

51. I can gladly get beind Edwards. If not Obama, I will support Edwards gladly

[Stop Cornyn]

53. I'm happy with Edwards or Obama. I think Edwards is a stronger 50 state candidate, but from a policy

perspective I think Edwards and Obama are certainly the two I like best after Kucinich (who I accept is unlikely to win the nomination).

[Major Hogwash]

56. Probably because he's not an opportunistic warmonger.

After seeing him fend off all the mud that Tim Russert tried to throw at him this last weekend on Meet the Press, I think Edwards has the best shot of becoming the next President of the United States who is not a warmonger.

[maximusveritas]

61. It's pretty obvious what the reason is

These voters just don't know that Edwards is now positioning himself as a progressive populist. They're still thinking of the moderate Southerner from 2004. I'd love to see a recent poll where people said whether they thought the candidates were liberal, moderate, or conservative. My guess is that Edwards would have far more moderate votes and far less liberal votes than Obama or Clinton.

Once the Republicans attack some of his more liberal statements, he'll lose this advantage in a hurry, especially since he won't be able to effectively respond now that he's accepted public funding. I'm convinced that Edwards would be our least electable candidate other than Gravel and Kucinich.

[Cameron27]

62. The reason is pretty obvious to a lot of people:

“Known by his backwoods nickname, “Mudcat,” he’s a self-described “rural liaison” who is helping Edwards craft a populist message of economic equality for “Bubba,” that catchall for the traditional white, male voter living in rural America.

snip: The Edwards I can win everywhere pitch, backed up by Mudcat Saunders' urging to go south, is filled with pitfalls. It's yet another reason why the Edwards campaign is having so much trouble today. They've never had a cohesive strategy and now that they've walked away from the one issue, Iraq, that could win them solid support, it illustrates a deep issue within the campaign that, along with the public financing realities which Markos and others outlined so well, proves that the campaign is utterly clueless when it comes to message discipline and unprepared right now on how to win a general election. It makes me unbelievably nervous, because we simply must win back the presidency in 2008, or we will see the Middle East go up in flames and the arms race explode. Threading the southern needle seems a prescription for heartbreak.

Additionally, bubbaland is filled with people we could reach, but only if you cut out the conservative cretins, which Mudcat and Edwards seem to want to try and convert instead.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26356

[PurityOfEssence]

64. And Clinton, the most conservative, is doing the best with Democrats. Strange world, huh?

Don't make no sense to me.

The Edwards thing makes a LOT of sense, though: he's speaking directly to people on an economic level that they can understand.

[1932]

65. It's a world in which a lot of money buys a lot of votes, and Hillary has a lot of money.

At least at this stage, that's the case.

As in 2004, when it gets within three to five days of a primary, when everyone will have their message saturating the airwaves and when one more add won't make a difference, people will start responding to the message rather than just the fact that they saw an ad -- any ad -- the day they were polled.

[Stop Cornyn]

67. Also, it doesn't hurt that she's the wife of the de facto leader and best fund raiser in the party.

[jackster]

66. I've heard from several "conservatives"

that they could see themselves voting for Edwards.....

[Stop Cornyn]

69. The populist ideas of (1) universal health care, (2) wage hikes, (3) progressive taxation, (4) job

security from outsourcing, and (5) rescuing our children's generation from the debt created by deficit spending.

Here is a GREAT poll on how these issues are splitting the far right Chamber of Commerce/Neocons from the rest of the Republican base: LINK.

[Romulox]

68. I get the impression that Edwards' "progressiveness" is only skin deep

It was only 3 short years ago that Edwards campaigned as a "centrist"/DLCer. He also remains an unrepentant "free trader". :eyes:

[Stop Cornyn]

70. He's no Kucinich, I must admit, but Edwards is very pro-fair trade (anti-"free" trade):

Here are excerpts from a speech:

Today, I want to talk to you about one of the most important economic issues facing America - trade, especially its effect on jobs.... Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a simple reason - our trade policies have been bad for working Americans. Washington looks at every trade deal and asks one question, and only one question - is it good for corporate profits?

They don't look at what it will do to workers, to families, to wages, to jobs, or even to the economy. When it comes to trade, the only thing that matters in Washington is the big business bottom line.... We need new trade policies in America that put workers, wages and families first. Not fourth, not third, not second. First. What we need is trade without trade-offs. Trade without trade-offs for workers. Trade without trade-offs for jobs. Trade without trade-offs for the environment.

We need trade without trade-offs for America.

Corporations, and the executives who lead them, need to realize that creating American jobs is not only the responsible thing to do, it's the patriotic thing to do.... But it doesn't begin or end with just the jobs being outsourced to China, India and elsewhere. The negative effects from globalization are ripping through the economy.

Globalization has helped stunt the growth in wages for American workers. Workers in America must now compete every day with workers overseas earning miserably low wages with no benefits. And what's even worse, big multinational corporations now use the excuse that they have to ship ever more good-paying American jobs overseas in order to compete with the very low wage jobs they themselves created there. In the last few years, wages have fallen for nearly every educational group, all the way up to masters degrees - and corporate profits have nearly doubled.

Rather than create income gains for all, the gains from globalization are mostly flowing to the most fortunate Americans. Globalization is a major reason why income inequality is at its worst since before the Great Depression.... And we certainly need change, especially in our trade policies. For years now, Washington has been passing trade deal after trade deal that works great for multinational corporations, but not for working Americans.

For example, NAFTA and the WTO provide unique rights for foreign companies whose profits are allegedly hurt by environmental and health regulations. These foreign companies have used them to demand compensation for laws against toxins, mad cow disease, and gambling - they have even sued the Canadian postal service for being a monopoly. Domestic companies would get laughed out of court if they tried this, but foreign investors can assert these special rights in secretive panels that operate outside our system of laws.

When economists say that trade helps our economy overall, we need to be honest about the fact that it does not help everyone. The true measure of our economy isn't found only in the size of our GDP or the level of corporate profits - it's whether middle class families are doing better or worse.

A sure sign that our trade and economic policies are seriously out of whack is our trade deficit. Our nation's imports have increased by a staggering 50 percent in the past 15 years, and instead of a trade balance, the United States now has the largest trade deficit in the history of the globe - and it just keeps growing. Last year, our current account deficit was more than $850 billion, which is a staggering 6.5 percent of our nation's entire GDP, and our trade deficit with China alone was $233 billion. That means that we are consuming billions of dollars more in imported goods than we produce - and we are borrowing heavily to pay for them.

Behind all these numbers and statistics are the faces of millions of Americans forgotten in our trade deals. Well, I can tell you that I will never forget them. I saw what happened when the mill that my dad worked in all his life, and that I worked in myself when I was young, closed and the jobs went somewhere else. It wasn't just devastating to our community economically -- it was devastating to the pride and dignity of the people who worked hard every day trying to make a better life for their kids.

Let me tell you, if a CEO thinks the right thing to do is to ship American jobs overseas, to destroy families and communities, then I challenge him to go and look those workers in the eye and have the guts to tell them to their face that they can't compete. I've stood with these workers all across America - and let me tell you, they can compete, because they are the best workers in the world.

The trade policies of President Bush have devastated towns and communities all across America. But let's be clear about something - this isn't just his doing. For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities. Instead, too many of these agreements have cost us jobs and devastated many of our towns.

NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in its core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen growing income inequality in the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Well enough is enough. Americans have paid the price long enough. We need to change our fundamental approach to trade. We need to make American values the foundation of our trade deals, and we need to put workers back at their core....

First, trade deals must benefit workers, not just big multinational corporations. Today, our trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors. The multinationals get their say, but when one goes to Congress it gets an up or down vote - no amendments are allowed. No wonder that corporations get unique protections, while workers don't benefit. That's wrong.

Imagine trade policies that actually put American workers first. We need fair rules for workers, and we need strong protections for labor and the environment and against currency manipulation. If a deal is good for middle-class families, it's good for America; if it's not, it's not.

Second, our trade policies should also lift up workers around the world. This struggle over fair trade is about more that just what's at stake for America's workers - it's also about what's at stake for workers in every country. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated fairly and share in trade gains is the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do economically, and it will make us much safer and more secure. That's what strong labor standards are all about. Making sure that workers have the right to organize and earn a fair wage will not only prevent a "race to the bottom" on labor rights - it will also help build a global middle class that shares in the gains from trade and creates markets for U.S. exports.

Third, we need to address more than just our trade policies in order to restore fairness and opportunity to workers. I talked earlier about some of the adverse effects of globalization - stagnant wages and rising inequality. To help regular Americans get ahead and stay ahead, we need to make sure our children get a quality education and have the chance to go to college. We need to raise the minimum wage, strengthen unions, and help families build assets. And the most important thing we can do to provide security to our workers is to guarantee universal health care in this country. I am proud to be the first major candidate to come out with a plan for universal health care....

Fair terms of trade also mean fixing our own tax code so that corporations aren't rewarded for closing plants and shipping jobs to countries like China. Our government should be encouraging businesses to invest here. Yet, one of the starkest examples that our economy works best for big business instead of regular Americans is that we actually give tax incentives to companies to invest overseas. American companies setting up shop in tax havens often pay little or no U.S. tax. This is not only wrong, it's unpatriotic. I will eliminate the tax incentives that encourage companies to invest overseas rather than here at home. These dollars, if invested in new facilities and in retraining workers and rebuilding devastated communities, can fuel a dramatic expansion of our own economy.

Third, we need much more investment in helping the workers and communities left behind. When we sign a trade deal, we know which industries and workers will likely be affected by greater competition. We need to restore some honesty to the trade debate and not claim, like too many presidents from both parties have done, that trade will help everyone. This is simply not true.

When I am president, every trade agreement will be subject to not only an economic assessment showing how imports and exports will be affected by the agreement, but also to a "community impact assessment." We need to make sure trade deals produce real benefits that are widely shared, and we need to get a head start on helping any workers and communities who will be hurt by increases in imports or by competition from other countries. Before I ask Congress to approve any new trade agreement, we will have an honest discussion about the real impact of that agreement on towns and communities and workers across our country.

There is a lot more to this substantive speech and the whole speech is worth reading, but this is as pro-fair trade as you are apt to hear from any candidate other than Kucinich.

[Romulox]

71. Nice rhetoric. But I was referring to Edward's support for maintaining MFN for China and NAFTA

You know, his actual positions on real life issues, not his "trade should be fair" platitudes...

[Stop Cornyn]

73. Once upon a time Kucinich was pro-life, Hillary was a Republican, Obama went by "Barry," Clark was a

Republican etc, etc., etc.

People who think sometimes change their minds; that's part of why we thing. And if someone isn't capable of thinking about an issue and changing his little mind, then we get a dipshit who wants to "stay the course" no matter how badly things go the hell in a handbasket on the ground in Iraq.

[Romulox]

74. These are his *current* positions. The presto-changeo conversion simply lessens his credibility

when he says he wants to "fix" NAFTA, e.g.

[Stop Cornyn]

75. I like debate about the candidates' positions but you should make an effort to be factually accurate

Here is a LINK TO A SPEECH EDWARDS GAVE AGAINST NAFTA, calling NAFTA a "disaster."

Here's a quote from Edwards during one of the debates: "NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers."

This is not a new position for Edwards. Do you remember THIS FROM THE LAST PRIMARY SEASON?

"Senator Kerry supported NAFTA and other trade agreements," Edwards told CNN. "I was against NAFTA and some of the trade agreements that he was for, and I think they've cost us millions of jobs. And I think voters need to see the difference in our views on what needs to be done about trade and how trade can work for America and American workers."

How about from THIS PRIMARY:

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- Democratic presidential contender John Edwards on Monday criticized former President Clinton, arguing that he allowed corporate insiders to shape the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement that has cost U.S. jobs.... "It's time that the president stood up and fought for American workers," Edwards told a crowd of about 300 people at a union hall in Cedar Rapids. "It's time to have a president that always puts the interests of the American people first."

While Edwards' speech did not mention the name Clinton, the object of his complaint was obvious. Edwards criticized the presidential leadership during the 1993 passage of NAFTA, which was started by President George H.W. Bush and pushed through by Clinton. He said the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada was "written by insiders in all three countries." ... "For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA, promising that they would create millions of new jobs and enrich communities," he said. "Instead, too many of these agreements have cost jobs and devastated towns and communities across this country."... Edwards said the trade deal "did not serve the interests of regular workers. It included unprecedented rights for corporate investors, but no labor or environmental protections in the core text. And over the past 15 years, we have seen the growing inequality in the United States, and Mexico and in Canada."

Edwards used the campaign appearance to offer his trade proposals. The 2004 vice presidential nominee said the economy is growing and productivity is at an all-time high, but wages aren't keeping pace with the increased costs of education, health care and retirement. He blamed technological change and globalization, as well as outdated labor and workplace laws for a system that is benefiting the wealthiest and shortchanging workers.

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a very simple reason -- it's because our trade policies have been bad for working Americans," he said.

Edwards said his plan would:

# Require pro-worker provisions in new deals.

# Hold trade partners to their commitments.

# Invest more in dislocated workers and communities.

# Ensure that imports are safe.

I'm not trying to stop you from hating on Edwards if that's your conclusion, but your attack is just factually inaccurate.

[Romulox]

76. "[NAFTA] needs to be fixed," Edwards said,"

Even John Edwards, who has worked hard to win over the unions, stopped short of calling for the United States to pull out of Nafta.

"Scrap it or fix it?" the moderator, Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, asked.

"It needs to be fixed," Edwards said, then quickly changed the subject to take a swipe at Clinton, who was recently featured on the cover of Fortune with the headline "Business Loves Hillary (Who Knew?)."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/12/america/trade.1-113375.php

Where's the misrepresentation?

[Stop Cornyn]

77. Edwards doesn't support "maintaining" NAFTA. He proposes the most comprehensive overhaul for NAFTA

of any candidate other than Kucinich.

Edwards supports fair trade 100 times more strongly than Hillary or Obama (who I also like).

There is going to be trade between the US, Canada, and Mexico. No candidate disputes that.

There is a need for a trade agreement among US, Canada, and Mexico. No candidate disputes that.

Whether we completely overhaul NAFTA or start from scratch, we need for the trade agreement among US, Canada, and Mexico to look like what Edwards proposes.

[Romulox]

78. Any specifics? Also, why the silence about CHINA? nt

[Stop Cornyn]

81. There is no "silence about CHINA." He addressed it in the video I linked.

If you aren't going to listen to the speech, maybe this will help (and if not, I cannot help you - I think Kucinich is right on China, and if Kucinich had a 1% chance of winning, I'd probably support him):

Dear President Bush,

As one father to another, I'm calling on you to end your silence, speak out, and take immediate action to stop the growing crisis of dangerous toys being imported from China. The safety of the American people should be your highest priority and these unsafe toys pose a serious threat to the health and welfare of millions of children. Given the growing scope of this crisis, we cannot rely on corporations to initiate voluntary recalls while your administration sits on the sidelines. America's families and our children deserve better than this.

Again, I ask you, as one parent to another, to consider the serious fears and concerns that millions of parents face because they are unsure whether their child is playing with a toy made in China that could seriously harm our children. With nearly 12 million toys recalled this summer alone, it is clear now that the chain of recalls are not isolated incidents. Just today, Mattel had to recall 9 million toys from China because they put our children at risk. The manufacturing standards in countries like China, from where which nearly 80 percent of toys are imported, are inadequate and not being enforced. This is unacceptable. We need real leadership and we need action to ensure that our children's toys are safe.

A working group to study the issue is plainly inadequate. As president, you must put aside any concerns you may have for the impact on this industry, and do everything in your power to ensure that dangerous toys never pass our borders and harm America's children.

Two weeks ago, I proposed that we look at solutions like mandatory, independent third party testing. Many manufacturers already seek independent safety assurances. Since neither Chinese manufacturers nor their American corporate partners seem capable of stopping the production of dangerous toys, I am convinced that mandatory independent testing is absolutely necessary to safeguard the health of our children.

Until a reliable system of testing is firmly in place, we must protect our children. I want to know why you have not adopted a "zero tolerance" policy, getting whatever authority you need to immediately stop and test the highest-risk imported children's products -- those with potentially toxic lead-based paint or detachable magnets. We also need to put the Consumer Product Safety Commission back on the side of consumers — by strengthening its enforcement powers and eliminating conflicts of interest. Finally, we need to enact smart and safe trade policies that put workers and families first, instead of the profits of big multinational corporations. I urge you to immediately take these steps to help ensure the safety of our children — they deserve nothing less.

You have the power to make our country a safer place for our kids to play and learn and grow – for their sake, please act today.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid,

As parents, I am asking you to take immediate action to stop the growing crisis of dangerous toys being imported from China. President Bush continues to remain silent while more and more dangerous toys make their way into our children's hands. This is unacceptable. I have called on the president to take immediate steps to ensure the safety of our children, but given his silence, I urge you to take action. Given the growing scope of this crisis, we cannot rely on corporations to initiate voluntary recalls or, apparently, on the Bush Administration. Clearly, America's families and our children deserve better than this.

I ask you to consider the serious fears and concerns that millions of parents face because they are unsure whether their child is playing with a toy made in China that could seriously harm our children. With nearly 12 million toys recalled this summer alone, it is clear now that the chain of recalls are not isolated incidents. Just today, Mattel had to recall 9 million toys from China because they put our children at risk. The manufacturing standards in countries like China, from where which nearly 80 percent of toys are imported, are inadequate and are not being enforced. This is unacceptable.

Two weeks ago, I proposed that we look at solutions like mandatory, independent third party testing. Many manufacturers already seek independent safety assurances. Since neither Chinese manufacturers nor their American corporate partners seem capable of stopping the production of dangerous toys, I am convinced that mandatory independent testing is absolutely necessary to safeguard the health of our children.

Until a reliable system of testing is firmly in place, we must protect our children. We need to adopt a "zero tolerance" policy, passing new legislation if necessary to immediately stop and test the importation of the highest-risk children's products-- those with potentially toxic lead-based paint or detachable magnets. We also need to put the Consumer Product Safety Commission back on the side of consumers by strengthening its enforcement powers and eliminating conflicts of interest. Finally, we need to enact smart and safe trade policies that put workers and families first, instead of prioritizing the profits of big multinational corporations.

Respectfully, I urge you to launch a bipartisan congressional investigation to determine why this threat from unsafe Chinese imports is now emerging, the exact threat our children face, what corporations that trade with China knew, and when did they know it, and what, if anything, the Bush Administration has done to address these serious issues.

I strongly encourage all members of Congress -- Democrats, Republicans, and Independents -- to work together to address this problem before it becomes an even greater threat to our children.

Sincerely,

John Edwards

I don't think Edwards is perfect, I just think he's (1) way better than Hillary on most issues and more electable than her in a general election, (2) slightly better than Obama on some issues, but slightly worse than Obama on other issues, and slightly more electable than Obama in the general election, and (3) not as good as Kucinich on the issues, but along with Obama I think Edwards is the next best on policy after Kucinich but Edwards is much more electable than Kucinich.

[Romulox]

82. I'm not in a position to listen to video/audio where I am.

And testing toys from China is, at best, tangentially related to Edwards' support for continuing "free trade" with China.

Of course, if you have a link of Edwards reversing himself on China trade policy, I'd love to read it.

[Romulox]

83. OK, should have said, "Silence regarding his continuing support for MFN status for China," nt

[Stop Cornyn]

84. I agree with Kucinich on this. Other than Kucinich, which candidate is better than Edwards on trade

China?

Hillary is a complete "free" trader -- worse on trade than Republican candidates like Duncan Hunter (who's sometimes accidentally right on trade issues for so odd reason). Obama is not as much a "free" trader as Hillary, but much more than Edwards.

With those choices, I'm just going to have to go with the best fair trade candidate who has a chance at winning. That's Edwards.

[Romulox]

85. So you concede, after all of this, that John Edwards supports maintaing NAFTA and MFN for China?

That was my original point, after all.

[Stop Cornyn]

88. OF COURSE NOT. Does your mommy know that you are playing on her computer? Other than Kucinich,

who is the only candidate I'm aware of who has actively called for the removal of MFN status for China, I can only point you to where Edwards has called for trade protections against China. I cannot show you where Edwards, Obama, Hillary, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson have called for revoking China's MFN status.

As far as NAFTA goes, Edwards has always opposed it and he offers the most comprehensive overhaul of NAFTA from any of the candidates other than Kucinich, and the distinction between Edwards' approach to NAFTA and Kucinich's s largely semantic because they both want to wholly revise our trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (Kucinich wants to go back to the drawing board and Edwards wants to work from the current model) but they have the same end goal.

[Romulox]

89. Just because its unflattering, doesn't mean it's untrue...sorry

And the name-calling is quite juvenile in itself. :eyes:

Your argument is now that Edwards supports MFN for China, but so do other Democrats. So do all the Republicans. None of this tends to distinguish Edwards from the other "free traders" out there.

[Stop Cornyn]

90. My argument is not "Edwards supports MFN for China." I cannot tell you where anyone but Kucinich

has made a statement either supporting MFN status for China or opposing MFN status for China. And you can't either.

What I can tell you is that no candidate (other than Kucinich) has called for more re-evaluation of our trade agreements - including our trade agreements with China - than Edwards.

You may remember that we got onto this topic when you wrongly said that Edwards supported NAFTA and I showed you that you were wrong, and that Edwards has criticized NAFTA now and also during the last election.

Look, I'm not trying to talk you into marrying Edwards and having his babies; I'm just trying to correct your inaccurate suggestions about the candidates' positions. Hate Edwards all you want, just don't pretend that its because he pro-NAFTA because he's clearly not.

[Romulox]

91. John Edwards VOTED for MFN for China. That's "a statement supporting MFN..." nt

[Romulox]

80. “There is no more important relationship that America has than our relationship with China,"

Remarks made on 12-8-2006

“There is no more important relationship that America has than our relationship with China," Edwards said in a 2006 speech before the Asia Society in New York after returning from a trip to China. Edwards appears to believe that the United States must accept that China is becoming a major world power, and that its relationship with the United States does not necessarily have to be tense. In Edwards’ analysis, Chinese leaders “want the world to be a stable, relatively tranquil place” so that they can focus on further expanding their economy.

As a senator in 2000, Edwards voted for the U.S.-China Trade Relations Act, which normalized trade relations with China.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13521/candidates_on_us_policy_toward_china.html

I guess John is due for yet another miraculous conversion/apology to go with his IWR vote, vote to expand H1Bs, etc. But I'm sure John has evolved on this issue quite a bit in the last ten months! :rofl:

[nashville_brook]

72. thank you for this!