JE 14 points better than JK vs * in NC, JK 1 point better againt JE in NH

[Bombtrack]

These polls reflect I believe the reasons why the GOP would rather face Kerry than Edwards. There are many other reasons. But people seem to be more receptive to the obvious than the suttle measures of electablity.

Source of numbers:
----------------
http://www.surveyusa.comcurrentelectionpolls.html/


Bush 53%
Kerry 42%

Bush 47%
Edwards 50%

2/23/04-2/25/04
m.o.e. 3.9%

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2858932/detail.html

More Voters Would Choose Kerry, Edwards

DURHAM, N.H. -- A new poll shows President George W. Bush's approval ratings in New Hampshire have fallen to their lowest levels since his election.

In a University of New Hampshire Granite State Poll conducted this week, 47 percent of New Hampshire adults said they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, 48 percent disapprove and 5 percent are neutral. That's down from a high of 71 percent in April and down 9 percentage points since October.

Looking ahead to the November election, 38 percent of likely voters said they would vote for Bush, and 53 percent said they would vote for Democrat John Kerry. In a matchup with Democrat John Edwards, 51 percent said they would vote for Edwards and 37 percent said they would vote for Bush.

Pollster Andrew Smith said Bush is in a tough spot, but the large number of Republicans in the state should pull his approval ratings up as the election approaches.

[WI_DEM]

1. despite what the media wants to tell us

John Kerry would be a much weaker candidate in the general election than Edwards.

[Bombtrack]

4. Amen, different things contributed to the wave of ignorance to the dem

primary electorate that contributed to more of them believing Kerry was more electable than Edwards than vice versa in the majority of primary states, but the biggest was the New Hampshire and Iowa wins, and them just going along with those, which is fundementally flawed reasoning in my opinion.

You take away Vietnam, and he's the ideal guy for them to face, and his terrets like frequency with which he changes any and every subject to Vietnam will very likely backfire if he does get nominated

[jfxgillis]

10. LAUGH "Take away Vietnam"????

Take away that pretty-boy charm, and John Edwards is easy to beat, too.

"Take away Vietnam." Indeed.

The Dems need a candidate who can project a credible defense/foreign policy posture to largely disengaged swing voters in swing states. Kerry can do that EASILY and Edwards either can't or could do so only with great difficulty.

[Bombtrack]

15. Republicans would WANT to face a man from the rural south?

No, they'd rather face someone from the Urban northeast.

Republicans WANT to face someone who was born to working class parents who had to worry about buying a home and losing their job and how to pay to have there son be the first person in there family to go to public college and public law school?

No, they'd rather face someone who was born to mult-millionaires, went to elite prep school, went to Yale, went to BC law without ever worrying about loans or scholerships or grants

Republicans WANT to face someone who's legendary professional career before politics stands in stark contrast to Bush's failed Bussiness career? No, they'd probably rather face a career politician who communicates in legislative-speak.

And Edwards being a "pretty boy" is anything but all he has, it's been what he has had to defend himself from in this primary from close minded people who hold his looks against him because of their biases. Although, the GOP would rather face someone who looks like 2 different characters from the Munsters AND the Addams Family, which is quite a feat

[jfxgillis]

16. First of all, the Republicans don't GET to pick their opponents

Second of all, the GOP, if they prefer Edwards as you surmise, is "fighting the last war."

They're petrified of facing a shallow Southern charmer like John Edwards because they got burned by Clinton.

But, in fact, what they SHOULD be afraid of is a Dem who can project a credible Defense posture, which Kerry can do much easier than Edwards can.

Bush is correct: He IS a "War President." Now, it's a messy war that he screwed up and it looks to be dragging to a stalemate. By November, the public will want to know "Who can clean up the mess in Iraq?"

And Kerry gives a STRONGER answer to that question.

When Bush says, "I'm a war president," Kerry says, "I know what war is." What's Edwards's answer in a phrase?

[Bombtrack]

18. Edwards knows what a regular Americans LIFE is.

And Edwards also has more foriegn policy experience in quantity than Bush. He was serving on the intelligence agency 2 years before George Bush became president.

Jobs and other domestic issues beat foriegn policy in importance among all voters in every poll.

Edwards is credible enough to Beat Bush on every issue, including foriegn policy, but most importantly reforming and holding corporate America acountable, something Kerry is much less credible on.

I like the big idea of the democratic party in this election being that we're going to break up the corporate oligarcy and finally clearly tell you how we're going to do it, that "no, no, look, we're tuffer on foriegn policy because our guy fought in a war 35 years ago"

[jfxgillis]

20. So what? Your dogcatcher had more experience than Bush

If the public is looking for a crisis president to REPLACE the one we have already, one who is vulnerable on his handling of the crisis, some baby-faced slick Southern lawyer doesn't cut it.

Your dream about attacking the corporate oligarchy is doomed. Nice idea. Just doomed.

Moreover, your argument at its core is that we need to trick conservative voters into thinking Edwards is conservative because of his Southern drawl even though he's as liberal as Kerry.

How about we stand up for what we believe in, call it by its name, and win or lose on the merits?

[Bombtrack]

21. No my argument is just to look at what works in politics and campaigns

People in the south and people in more rural areas of the country just vote more for democrats they can relate to and against democrats who have certain stigmas.

All you have to do is look at all the electoral maps, particularly the ones with different shades of how badly people won and lost the different states. And see that as a party the smartest thing to do if we want to beat Bush is make our parties leader someone who isn't just reacting to their attempted framing of the debate with someone just because of what medals they have, while forgetting the dozens of huge flaws as a candidate that they have. There is no 2 ways about it.

Kerry leaves little margin of error in the electoral college. He is probably the weaker debator, he does flip flop or at least it sure seems that way to people who aren't his knee jerk supporters, he does shamelessly harp on his Vietnam service to change the subject when he's dancing around the truth, and it's patently obvious when he's doing so, and he has an absurdly out-touch financial history, particularly pertaining to the woman he's chosen to marry.

[jfxgillis]

22. Well, then that's just too bad for those ignoramuses in the South, then...

... isn't it?

We should allow the Right-wing Southern Republican conservatives to stigmatize "Massachusetts liberal," then surrender to that stigma forever even though it's bullshit?

Guess what--the South doesn't GET a veto on the White House. If they insist on one, we'll get Bush ripping the country apart for another four years. I will not surrender to Southern bigotry about Northerners to win. You can if you want. I won't.

Moreover, much of what you say is complemented by the very fact you disparage. Do you have any idea how deeply a Medal for Valor cuts politically in states like West Virginia and Tennessee? Kerry probably carries WV on the basis of his military record alone, and he's MORE competitive in TN than Gore was on the same grounds.

FAMILIES of soldiers want to KNOW that the President KNOWS what their children are going through. Kerry does. Bush doesn't. Edwards doesn't.

[Bombtrack]

23. Not deep enough to overshadow everything else about Kerry

George McGovern knew what are boys in Nam were going threw in Vietnam better than Nixon, but the only state he won was Kerry's home state.

Once again people care less about what somebody did 35 years ago than how much they care about All the other things combined. And the fact that Kerry shamelessly uses proclaims his honerable service to innoculate any and every argument he wants to avoid will quickly backfire

[jfxgillis]

24. And the fact that

Edwards is goning to DRIP that disgusting Southern accent all over for eight months won't backfire?

[Bombtrack]

25. Do you know how bigoted it is to call a southern accent disgusting

of course you've run out of excuses for your flawed logic so why not resort to bigotry?

[jfxgillis]

32. Do you know how bigoted it is

to mock Kerry's honorable service in the military?

[Bombtrack]

33. I have never mocked Kerry's military service

I've pointed out what a perfectly cookie cutter candidate he would be without it, and it's something that happened 35 years ago, which is why it's so rediculous for Kerry to bring it up and exploit it whenever he wants to avoid discussing something he doesn't want to admit or elaborate on about himself or his positions.

[jfxgillis]

36. Guffaw

I'm hearing an EDWARDS supporter trash Kerry for being "cookie cutter"?

It's a good thing he has that mole or he'd look like an animatronic "Southern Democratic Presidential Candidate."

[Bombtrack]

40. Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Gore, yeah we better fix that broken....

Oh, wait, it's all the Others who were the landslide losers.

Gore Won Florida and therefor the election and had it stolen. Dukakis comparably lost Florida(and new hampshire I might add) by over 20 points each

[jfxgillis]

42. Two problems with your illogic

1. YOU start off saying, "take away Vietnam" and Kerry's just about nothing, but when I respond by saying "take away Edwards's humble Southern roots," you INSIST that that's "important" but Vietnam isn't. Dude, "take away" that "Bush" name, and GWB isn't even a baseball executive. "Take away" any candidate's defining feature or most critical attribute and what do you get but a "cookie cutter."

2. It's hard to say by your avatar if you are from the North or the South--The Red Sox have a national following--but here's what your argument boils down to:

Because Southerners have demonstrated a bigoted reluctance to vote for Northerners, whereas Northerners have not demonstrated a similar bigotry about Southerners, THEREFORE, the Democrats should nominate a Southerner. In other words, the South demands a veto over the Democratic nominee and by golly, you think the Democrats should yield to that blackmail.

Here's what I say to that: NO.

I'd rather LOSE.

No region gets a monopoly on Presidents. The charming list you presented is actually a better argument against a Southern Democrat. They've had their fucking turn. If Southerners would rather vote for Bush because of a bigoted stereotype of "Massachusetts liberal" ten times more noxious than my little shot about a Southern accent, well, that's too bad for the country we have to slog through another four years of Bush.

Having said all that, if Edwards had demonstrated broad appeal by winning primaries across regions and he was in a commanding position in the delegate count now, I'd happily support Edwards come November. But then, I'm not an IGNORANT BIGOT like the Southern voters to whom you want the Democrats to appeal.

[Bombtrack]

43. I'm from the Boston suburbs, but I go to college in Miami

And Northerners do have a bigotry towards southerners, not in the voting booth as much, but I'll adress that later, but there is a bigotry and mockery towards southerners and people from rural America that is vastly pervasive in the media and popular culture. Think Cletus the slackjawed yokel, shirtless guys on cops, etc. There isn't a real mockery of people from Long Island or Orange county. That's what's "normal". Southernors and people from rural America resent that. That's why Edwards was right to blast Dean for his stupid "confederate flag stereotype.

Now, Southern republicans do have the biggest negative stigma in certain parts of the country. The states where Bush got little more than 30 percent. Lots of people in these parts of the country who couldn't relate to Bush voted against him because of it. However, democrats from places like Massachusetts and Vermont have a worse, maybe not much worse stigma to people in the south and rural America. But the fact that Kerry is not only from Massachusetts, but that he's an elitist with an absurdly out-of-touch status coming from things like marrying women worth a combined billion plus dollars, just exascerbates the whole thing.

Kerry's equivolent on the republican side would be someone like Trent Lott(Ok, maybe not that out of mainstream but you know what I mean). Just like the Bill Maher joke when he said that the democrats chosing Boston as their convention location would be like the republicans chosing Bob Jones University.

Kerry can win, but it will be much harder and we are far less likely on Paper to do it. On personality, geography, biography, perceived ideology, ammunition for the repubs to pick someone apart(such as voting record, past statements) Edwards has the clear edge every time. And Kerry using Vietnam as a distraction from everything else will only get him so far before it backfires.

[jfxgillis]

50. So you moved from one Northern city to another?

grin.

I was born and raised in Boston and took my graduate degree in the Deep South (LA) where I lived for ten years.

The question isn't about bigotry in general, it's about VOTING PATTERNS, and in those terms, the South is bigoted toward Northern Dems in a way that the North is not toward Southern Dems BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

Who cares how hard it is to win? What do you think you get style points for this?

One of the KEY benefits to the country that Edwards cannot deliver and that ONLY Kerry can is this: Over the course of 25 or 30 years, the conservative Republicans have so successfully dominated the political discourse (Reagan through Gingrich to Hannity) as to stigmatize and demonize "liberal" to a degree virtually unprecdented in US political history barring Reconstruction.

It is not good for the country to have one of two honorable and sometimes essential governing philosphies dis-credited and de-legitimized by definition, as the Reagans and Limbaughs have succeeded in doing. Bringing in another phony "I'm a moderate how dare you call me a liberal" Southern Democrat which SURRENDERS TO THE BIGOTRY OF ANTI-LIBERALISM is no answer in my book.

As I said above, I'd rather fucking lose. You want to trick Southern voters into voting for a guy who is a liberal although he doesn't admit it, so we can all continue to buy into Rush Limbaugh's and Anne Coulter's view of the political spectrum. I don't want to do that. Moreover, I don't think we even need to do that because "liberal" is starting to look awafully good again with "conservatives" like George W. Bush running things.

Nope. Not me. If your Southern voters won't vote for Northerner of a liberal, that's okay. They can go straight to hell with George W. Bush leading the way.

[Bombtrack]

51. JK is a "I'm a moderate how dare you call me a liberal" Northerner

There is nothing unnoble or sacrificial about prudent politics. If you're a democrat running in Tennessee, it's best to come from the east part of the state or the nashville. If you're in Washington state and a republican, it's best to come from Seattle. Etc etc.

[jfxgillis]

52. Sure there is

And the tactics you recommend are especially ignoble, because they rely on fooling Southern voters (our guys are both liberal but we won't tell you that) AND on encouraging and buying into their anti-Northern bigotry (hear that accent? Does John Edwards sound like some Yankee librul?).

FUCK THEM.

If they won't vote for a Northerner, then a Northerner won't be elected. And their children will die in an incompetently managed military adventure, their health care system will ignore them and their Social Security will go away, and then they will learn the lesson that bigotry carries a price.

[mmonk]

28. NC is no longer predominately rural

It change over to mainly urban/suburban a long time ago. It's also the 10th largest state population wise. Sorry about that little correction.

[Bombtrack]

34. JE was born and raised in a rural area. Robbins is 60 miles from Raliegh

And NC is still a state with alot of big rural areas. Even if alot of it's metros have had big population growth over the last decades

[Adelante]

31. Except in the voting booth

"Jobs and other domestic issues beat foriegn policy in importance among all voters in every poll."

It's national security. It's national security. It's national security.

[tryanhas]

9. I agree.

People here always complain about the media, but I never hear them complaining about the media pushing Kerry and BANKROLLING him at the same time.

Everyone knows that Edwards is the stronger general election candidate.

The Bush administration has 5 inches of opposition research on John Kerry, and they REFUSE TO RELEASE IT RIGHT NOW because they are afraid that they will bring down Kerry too soon and risk having to face Edwards.

Only people who seem to be clueless to this fact are DUers and Democratic voters.

[Hav]

48. Oh interesting

"Everyone knows that Edwards is the stronger general election candidate."

Is that a fact that everybody knows that Edwards is the stronger candidate?He might be, who knows, but I doubt your statement is even close to the truth.


"The Bush administration has 5 inches of opposition research on John Kerry, and they REFUSE TO RELEASE IT RIGHT NOW because they are afraid that they will bring down Kerry too soon and risk having to face Edwards."

Another fact? Where is your prove for your strong convictions? Everything you can do is just assuming things. Unless you work for them, which I doubt.


"Only people who seem to be clueless to this fact are DUers and Democratic voters."

Oh nice, those who do not agree with your position are clueless. Sheeple right? Does it feel good to have the strong arguments on your side?

[KurtNilsen]

19. hear hear.

[KC21304]

2. So what are you telling me, John Edwards would do better in his

home state, North Carolina, than Kerry ? We better go back and figure this whole thing over.

[WI_DEM]

3. yes

and Edwards would probably do about as well as Kerry in Massachusetts--so who would get us more electoral votes--Kerry losing NC but winning Massachusetts or Edwards winning both NC and Massachusetts?

[KC21304]

7. Makes sense to me. Throw out the candidate who has won 18

primaries/caucuses because the candidate who won 1 is within the margin of error of winning his home state.

[Bombtrack]

11. Early Primary winnability is not parallel to GE electability

you're talking about completely different dynamics with very little in common, and all new factors.

That basic line of reasoning was BS when the Dean-supporters were using it for months and it's BS now

[tryanhas]

13. You mean like the electrical voting machines...

...sealing up NH for Mr. Skull and Bones, John Kerry?

If the ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES wouldn't have sealed NH for Kerry, how would the dynamics of the election have swong?

What about Kerry's team convincing NH voters that Edwards was guaranteed the VP slot, so Edwards got thousands of write-ins for VP in NH, as an attempt to minimize the seriousness of Edwards, whereas Edwards would have finished in a solid 3rd in NH and then won both SC and Oklahoma and once again changed the dynamics of the race?

NOT SO FAST, KERRY SUPPORTERS!

Things are not always the way they look on the surface, and Kerry's team is as dirty as they come.

Wins my behind...

...Kerry is riding on a wave of "MYTHICAL ELECTABILITY".

Take that FALSE THEORY away from him and he will sink like a rock, because his support is soft.

People vote for Kerry int he primary because they FALSELY THINK that he can beat Bush, and then they leave him alone, because they don't really support him.

[Bombtrack]

5. New Hampshire Should be the swingstate that Kerry has the biggest

margin of ability to beat Bush over Edwards.

With Kerry, NC isn't even a swingstate. With Edwards, our chances are better than 50/50

If you follow that logic, Edwards is probably more likely to beat Bush in the entire electoral college.

[bigtree]

6. This is more a reflection of the lack of popularity of Democrats

in the South. New Hampshire Democrats don't discriminate between Kerry and Edwards based on their perceived conservatism as much as in the South. Apart from that, not much separates their views, notwithstanding the trade differences which don't charge up the New Hampshire voters.

I think that the majority of the South's voter's traditional obsession with 'conservatives' and 'conservative' issues do not reflect the primary concerns of most Democrats.

[Bombtrack]

8. Edwards is the moderate and Kerry's the lib in style more than substance

But that is what's likely to make a lot of difference

They're both Bush-lite to knee-jerk leftists, and they're both knee-jerk leftists to dittoheads

But we're only likely (better than 50/50) to win if we have an even playing field in the electoral college. And when one candidate can not worry about not winning the south and one candidate can not win the south, the scales are tipped enormously

[jfxgillis]

12. But but but but

You concede the victory of style over substance in one arena, but dispute it in another.

VIETNAM MATTERS. Now, it may matter only as a triumph of style over substance (not altogether, but that's a different thread), but it will matter.

[bigtree]

14. You forgot states that Gore ignored or should have won

Like Ohio and West Virginia, Virginia. And to the west, Arizona, Nevada. And Missouri and Florida too!

I won't concede Florida.

[Bombtrack]

17. Ohio is a socially moderate-to-right state that jobs are the issue in

Tell me how Kerry has an advantage over Edwards?

And with Virginia and West Virginia, the contrast with who has the advantage is even starker.

You think Appalachias bigger concern is Terrorism/Vietnam or domestic issues/jobs/lifting people out of poverty and into the middle class?

[bigtree]

30. We will see. Edwards has to get the nomination

And he can't go on much longer without a significant win. You assume that these states have indicated that they think the Democratic principles you listed will be better served by Edwards. If that is the case then he should be winning these primaries in these states. If he doesn't that would indicate that Edwards is weaker among folks with these concerns. Whatever measure you are using is tested by the votes cast. Folks who make judgements about electibility take many different things into account when they cast their vote. Kerry has had record achievements in this primary so far. I expect him to continue that.

To assert as some do, that when republicans start voting that Edwards will fare better than Kerry is irrelevant if he loses the primary and even more irrelevant if more Democrats would show up at the polls in November than republicans. Only half of half of the registered voters participated in the last election. We need to energize our base and stop worrying about how our candidate will appeal to non-Democrats. Build it and they will come.

[Bombtrack]

35. Our base will relate far better to Edwards than to Kerry

See Clinton. He had no problems relating to our base. Less than GB1 did to his.

Although Dukakis was the most similar candidate to Kerry to run for us last, we've never had a candidate with the absurdly out of touch financial history of Kerry has in my or my parents lifetime. Even Kennedy didn't marry fortunes twice after already being born rich

[Dookus]

37. if that were true

wouldn't Edwards be winning some primaries?

[windansea]

38. ka ching!!!!!!!1

what about them there votes? what 15 for 17 so far?

[Dookus]

39. now 18 for 20

[Bombtrack]

41. He would be if they hadn't been fed the bullshit electability that's been

attributed to Kerry by a select few media whores. And the rediculous notion that military service is now a requirement for president.

That's what the polls show. democrats who want someone who agrees with them and cares about people like them are voting more for Edwards and people who want someone they think is electable are voting more for Kerry

[bigtree]

53. Voters aren't dupes

Why trash the voters? They registered their opinions on a broad range of issues. Electibility covers more than just esoterics. Electibility is an assessment of the totality of the candidate's attributes. It isn't necessarily an assessment based just on polls.

Even at that, I am facinated by your ability to read these voter's minds. The Amazing World of Kreskin analysis.

[TruthWins]

26. We All Know Polls Are Meaningless

John Edwards gets trounced on national security and Bush wins in a landslide. Sorry, but that's how it would work.

[newyawker99]

29. Hi TruthWins!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mmonk]

27. I wouldn't read too much into hypotheticals right now

Kerry hasn't campaigned in NC yet. NC is loaded with veterans that could organize in the general election.

[Bombtrack]

44. almost every state is "filled with veterans"

some of whom will vote for Kerry and some of whom will vote for Bush. People need to get off of this myopic idea that Kerry's service in Vietnam will just brainwash everyone into voting for him

[DaveSZ]

45. I agree in part with Bombtrack.

With Kerry, we have little margin for error in the Electoral College, whereas Edwards could win in some Southern States.

Clinton knows that the South is important, and that's why he put Clark up.

Actually if only Wes Clark had some more political experience he would have been the ideal candidate.

[Bombtrack]

46. Clark would have been as close to the ideal candidate regardless

He would have done for the democratic party what John McCain would have done for the GOP

And neither party got to ever know.

He would have held those 5 southern senate seats plus put us back in the majority in my opinion.

He was perfect in everthing other than his tax plan, which I had some qualms with, as it did shrink the tax base

[DaveSZ]

47. I'd also like to add

That Massachusetts to the Dems is like Alabama is to the Republicans lol.

[jfxgillis]

49. Dreaming

Edwards isn't going to win any Southern states IF the election is close nationally. If the election spread is great enough for the Dems nationally that Edwards would win Southern states (say, 54-46 popular, 350-180 Electoral College), then the Dems don't need the Southern states anyway.

And the South is NOT important. The South is now a Republicam/conservative STRONGHOLD. It is IDIOTIC tactically to base a strategy on attacjking the opposition's stronghold.

As for Wesley Clark, to continue Bombtrack's twisted illogic, "take away" the fact that Clark didn't know shit about running for President, and he would've done great running for President.