After what happened in Iowa, how can anyone say that Edwards or Hillary are the most electable?

[Dawgs]

- Obama beat Edwards by 8 and Hillary by 9. All three campaigned heavily(especially Edwards), and Obama won easily.
- Obama's combined support was greater than the top three Republicans combined.
- Obama won among woman, union households, independants, etc..
- He didn't as well among Democrats over 55. Those dependant Democrat voters will support him in the GE.
- Turnout was double from 2004; mainly because of youth and indys(supporters of Obama).
- The trend of youth and indys should translate to every other state.
- Iowa is 96% white, so the argument that America won't vote for a black man is not valid.
- Obama will win big among African-Americans, who make up a large majority of the South.
- There has been almost zero proof that Edwards or Hillary can bring out the new voters that Obama can bring out.

Obama supporters, please add if I've missed anything.

Edwards and Hillary supporters, please show why I'm wrong(if you can).

[Horse with no Name]

1. Well the only thing I can add

is that I certainly hope your Indy voters and youth show up to vote for Obama in the GE.

[Dawgs]

9. Don't forget African-Americans.

Well, if history has shown us anything, people actually tend to vote more in the GE than in the primaries.

[Horse with no Name]

11. I'm more worried about the Independents.

A great deal of his support is derived from them.

[fightindonkey]

2. Iowa Is Not The Country

You should have already realized this.

[rucky]

3. This is a 50-state election.

Regional differences are vast. This is going to get interesting on Super Tuesday.

[MethuenProgressive]

4. Hillary is the most electable,

if you don't count Richardson.
Edwards and Obama aren't tough enough to stand up to the GOP.

[ccpup]

5. one State and only thousands of votes

in a Country of 50 States and millions of votes. Before we Coronate anyone, we might want to let some more of the Country have their say. Or why even bother scheduling any Primaries or Caucus after Iowa? Let's just in the future end it there, allow Iowa to Crown our Nominee and tell everyone else to just deal with it.

[Dawgs]

8. I'm not coronating anyone. My post was a response to a recent poll.

This post is about electability in the GE, not who will win the primary.

[abburdlen]

6. but the caucus thing

makes it too screwy to base anything on. Second-choices, 2 hour process, 15% threshold ... it isn't like the General election.
Plus the whole Dem vs Dem rather than Dem vs Repub.

Just because someone does well in Iowa doesn't mean they'll do well in the General Election.

Of course after 3 or 4 contests, if you aren't catching on with voters it's a tough case to make that'll you can make it on a national level.

[Benhurst]

7. Obama won a plurality, not a majority in Iowa. More Democrats

voted against him than for him.

That said, I don't think Iowa does much to indicate how any of our candidates would fare in the general election.

[AndyA]

10. Open the drapes and take a look at the BIG PICTURE.

There is more to this than just who wins the first couple of states. The nominee has to compete against the GOP machine, and win in order to get the White House.

John Edwards is the ONLY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE who consistently beats EVERY Republican running. THAT is why he is the MOST ELECTABLE.

Clinton 54% Romney 43%
Clinton 48% McCain 50%
Clinton 51% Giuliani 45%
Clinton 54% Huckabee 44%

Obama 54% Romney 41%
Obama 48% McCain 48%%
Obama 52% Giuliani 45%
Obama 55% Huckabee 40%

Edwards 59% Romney 37%
Edwards 52% McCain 44%
Edwards 53% Giuliani 44%
Edwards 60% Huckabee 35%

What these results show is that John Edwards runs about 10% better than Clinton and Obama against everyone except Giuliani.

It will do no good to wind up with a candidate who cannot beat the GOP, and ultimately that's what matters most, and poll after poll for months has put John Edwards as the one to beat the GOP.