Edward has highest favorability rating of Dems

[OzarkDem]

Edwards: 52/41
Clinton: 51/47
Obama: 50/44

He also polls strongest against Romney and McCain.

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

[bdamomma]

1. that is good news.

[OzarkDem]

2. Its been the case all along

since the beginning of the primary race.

Edwards is the candidate the public likes the best. They just don't get to hear enough about him.

[Occam Bandage]

4. He's also the candidate they least want to vote for.

23/38 vs. Obama's 29/36 and Clinton's 30/47.

[lame54]

9. Why is that?

:yoiks: :banghead:

[Occam Bandage]

14. I think the problem was a shift in his narrative.

His narrative representing SC in the Senate was that of a centrist hawk with populist leanings. His narrative in '04 was positive, sunny, and can-do. His narrative in '08 is ferocious, defiant, and unapologetically populist.

Any of those narratives could be reasonably applied to his record--there are plenty of bad votes for each, but no politician's record perfectly matches his narrative. And really, people don't remember individual votes. They remember narratives and messages. John Edwards had the distinct disadvantage of pushing a different narrative than people remembered. And--unfortunately for him--trial lawyers are already seen as being slick-talkers; he unwittingly fed that in his repositioning.

However, he had to reposition himself that way. Obama stole his '04 image and magnified it; Obama was like '04 Edwards on steroids, both in positives and in negatives. Clinton had a firm grasp on the establishment line. Edwards did the smartest thing he reasonably could, but it was an uphill battle all the way.

[OzarkDem]

26. Only because they don't know him as well

that's why the media is ignoring him.

[Occam Bandage]

27. That dog don't hunt.

His name recognition is extremely high, and his favorable/unfavorable numbers are pretty good; it's rare that people would form an opinion on a candidate but yet not be able to form an opinion on him regarding their vote. What's more, people did know him in '04, he did vote for him in the '04 primary, he did get tons of media coverage in '04, he did get a year's worth of exposure as the Dem VP nominee, and he did get plenty of coverage in that regard in '04.

[OzarkDem]

29. This is 2008, a very different time

I suppose you think Obama would be winning with no media coverage, too?

[Occam Bandage]

31. So what exactly is different? Why is it that Edwards could command attention

in '04, but can't in '08?

[MagickMuffin]

35. TWO Words: CORPORATE CASH

Obama and Clinton accept Corporate Cash.

Edwards does not eat at the trough this time around.

[Two Americas]

33. sorry, not happening that way

The power of the media to define the race and to exclude the messages of all of the candidates - not just Edwards - from public hearing should not be underestimated.

The messages of Obama and Clinton are not being heard, either, or are seriously being distorted. I completely agree with all of the complaints that the supporters of Obama and Clinton have about the media coverage of their candidate, and I think most of the negative publicity about those two candidates - sadly, repeated here - has been generated from whole cloth by the mass media.

Each of the candidates is being damaged in various ways by the media coverage, and most of the population just has no alternative but to rely on the mass media.

So people are not hearing what any of the candidates are saying. What they are hearing - relentlessly, consistently, day after day after day - is that the race is between the two front runners, and media attention was always disproportionately focused on Obama and Clinton, and the "Clinton is inevitable" stuff started long ago.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. The same MSM that is steering the Democratic party primaries will soon enough be destroying the Democratic candidate, whomever it may turn out to be.

I think your rabid anti-Edwards zealotry is clouding your view.

None of the candidates' messages are reaching the people. All of the candidates are being damaged by the mass media, and all are being set up for destruction by the mass media after the convention.

[neutron]

39. Absolutely

I channel surfed past CNN and caught a commercial for COAL.
These are the kinds of companies that dictate what Wolf
should keep you from knowing.

[rhett o rick]

47. You said you cancelled cable? nm

[rhett o rick]

46. You agree that the media is defining the race. And that no Demo candidate is getting their true

message out. I agree. The point is that the media is favoring Sen Clinton and Sen Obama. Regardless of the type of media coverage, they are getting coverage and votes. It is clear that Edwards is getting shunned completely by the corporate media and many of us understand why. The question you should ask your self is why is the media giving my candidate more coverage than another. The answer probably isn't what you want to know.

[Two Americas]

49. some thoughts

First, I think the MSM cover politics the way they cover sports events. They try to develop an entertaining story line rather than cover the event as journalists. I noticed something interesting in the coverage of the SOTU last night. The producer of the coverage kept cutting to reactions by various people, particularly Clinton and Obama. Then, in the analysis afterwards one of the talking heads said that what he found interesting was how we were getting the reactions from Obama and Clinton in the middle of Bush's address. WTF? He was reporting on the producers camera decisions, as though that were something that Clinton and Obama had done. Very odd. He was not making any distinction between what was reality, and what was a reality that the producer was creating for us. Not sure I described that well - hope you see what I am saying. So there is an effect of those supposedly covering the story actually creating the story and not making any distinction between the two, and also an effect of the anchors - and whatever in the Hell Wolf Blitzer et al are supposed to be - being larger than the events they are covering.

Then, the people "reporting" are bribed off bought and paid for super-wealthy people, and I think there are biases that they bring to their coverage that result from that. They live in a pampered and privileged world and are out of touch with reality. Also, their large salaries are dependent upon them presenting a certain pro-ruling class and pro-corporate point of view. If they want to keep their jobs and their lavish lifestyles, they had better not rock the boat.

I also would not be surprised in the least if there were more overt and direct and heavy-handed censorship going on there, as well.

[rhett o rick]

50. I agree with your thoughts. I also think the the media is shutting out Edwards

completely. And since I think they could "make a story" and include him, I am suspicious that they are shunning him because of his anti-corporate message.

[Two Americas]

52. agreed

From the moment Edwards hinted at breaking up the corporate media monopolies, the coverage he was given dramatically dropped. Are we supposed to believe that is a coincidence?

I know from being a performer that is not so much your performance that counts - your message as it were - it is what the anchors, talking heads, DJs, publicists and critics are saying about your performance that counts - as measured objectively by CD and ticket sales. I also know that one minute of favorable comment by a media personality on the big AM stations is worth hours and hours of coverage on NPR by "like minded people." The first point speaks to the denial by many Democrats about corporate control over our lives, the second speaks to the naiveté and foolishness of the insular and elitist and cult-like approaches many Democrats take to politics.

[redqueen]

3. His populist message and healthcare plan were the initial reasons

I considered switching my support to him...

This kind of stuff is icing on the cake!

Thanks for posting this. :)

[fenriswolf]

5. he's also the most popular Dem candidate among the repubs.

[Dawgs]

6. Hate to say it, but these are the results of not being a front-runner.

[redqueen]

18. I don't think so. The public knows all about his house, and his hair, and his hedge funds.

All have been yammered about endlessly by the talking heads, which most people get their 'news' from.

[jackson_dem]

37. So why does McCain have high favorables on the rethug side?

[surfermaw]

7. He will be there when the dogs come hom, some will see the light

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. I hope so!

[Armstead]

8. "I like him best but I can't vote for him."

The psychology of people is very puzzling sometimes.

[Occam Bandage]

15. Well, it doesn't mean they like him *best.* When you have

high favorables but low support and a low vote-for score, that means he's inoffensive, not that he's well-loved. Edwards is liked by many people--but most of them like someone else better.

Always a bridesmaid.

[Armstead]

20. Maybe you're right about the bridesmaid part (with a change in gender of course)

[Two Americas]

40. "loved" or "offensive"

It has nothing to do with a candidate being loved or not. You are talking about cult of personality, and no doubt Edwards is the weakest by that criteria. What you are saying is that Edwards is weak because of low entertainment value as defined and controlled by corporate MSM. That is a self-contradicting argument.

You can't talk intelligently about politics when your premises all preclude politics. The cult of personality is part of the problem, and your argument is a reason to support the Edwards candidacy, not to reject it.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword." The same premises and assumptions that are leading you to reject Edwards will destroy your own candidate soon enough. I will be on your side then, by the way.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

43. I think you're right...

It's much more interesting seeing a woman and a black man duke it out. Is America so dazzled by this because that is what our media is focusing on? Why does this "CHANGE" that we so desperately desire have to come in this package of "woman" or "black man"? Give me a break.

[Two Americas]

51. point of view

For those who are fairly well off, life is working and things are pretty good. Electing a Black person or a woman to the presidency seems to them to be a logical step and to define progress. It is a symbol, a frontier to be explored and conquered - given that everything else in your life is pretty good.

But when we look at the millions of people of color and women in desperate poverty and despair, symbols don't mean so much anymore and progress is measured on a more mundane and urgent set of criteria.

It depends upon whether or not the observer is looking from the top down, or from the bottom up. I fear that too many educated and professional Democrats look at things from the top down without realizing they do. What is a college education all about anyway, if not to train us to take that point of view? We are better, smarter, than the average Joe, right? And that is why we have what we have. We deserve it. We earned it. The corollary to that is that those who are less fortunate and who are suffering must not be so deserving, must not be so smart, must not be so good.

Be proud of what you have achieved, but don't forget where you came from and don't forget the sacrifices that others made to get you where you are, the community that sustained you. Others did not have the advantages we had, or were not blessed with the same talents or happy accidents of birth. Or they did everything right and lost the "lottery" - fell by the wayside through accident or misfortune in the cruel and arbitrary dog-eat-dog "free market" nightmare in which we are being forced to live.

[Two Americas]

38. "Don't get me wrong, but..."

I have been hearing that for 40 years. "Don't get me wrong, I support all of the positions of Kucinich, but...." and variations on that theme.

Students of Latin American politics recognize this for what it is. "Don't get me wrong, we are all concerned about poverty, but...." In that word "but" is the opening for what follows, which is always an apology for and defense of the aristocracy and the inevitability of poverty and the class system.

The argument that nothing can be done disguises the fact that the speaker does not really want anything to be done. They like things the way they are. They are comfortable.

"We want to do something about poverty, but...." is a lie. No one would overtly say “I don’t give a shit about the poor” because that could very well lead to something being done. “Don't get me wrong, I want to help the poor, but…” solves the problem nicely. One can continue to counsel against change, while claiming to be for it, continue to defend wealth and privilege, but avoid being called on that.

[Yael]

10. But do we listen?

No. We are intent on snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Sucks doesn't it?

:argh:

[Triana]

12. YEP - the lamestream media is blacking him out - he'd beat all Republicans

Including McCain - whom one of the "Frontrunners" tied with, and the other lost to in the last poll that I'm aware of. The last poll - deliberately did not include Edwards - see Huffington post article about that posted earlier - they're now excluding Edwards from polls too - in addition to excluding him from media coverage.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. Mission Accomplished lamestream media! Thanks for nothing!

[mac56]

17. Good lord. What does it take to wake people up?

A sure fire winner, and he's being relegated to "also ran" status.

People have got to wake up, and soon. Or else we'll have President McMitt.

[Helga Scow Stern]

19. Or Guiliani. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. Too late. It's a done deal.

[surfermaw]

22. Edwards won the democrat vote in Iowa

Ind. probably republicans threw it to Obama. and when Nov. Comes they will be voting for McCain or Romney

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. The day after the GE is going too be interesting here.

:evilgrin:

[OzarkDem]

25. Not sure I agree with that analysis

People who vote in the Dem primary are not representative of the entire electorate that votes in the GE.

Voter's don't support candidates they don't like. Even Bush's favorability ratings have been higher than his job approval.

People want to like the person they're voting for. In Edwards, they get the whole package, someone who is likeable, is free from corporate control and has the best policy agenda.

[cbayer]

24. We should be cheering for all three

The good news here is that any of OUR three candidates beat all of THEIR candidates (except for one tie) in this poll. And that is what we should be celebrating.

[avaistheone1]

28. Wow! It pays off to behave like a grownup. Thanks John Edwards

for focusing your campaign on issues of critical importance to the American people like health care and jobs.

[ErnestoG]

30. Edwards will make a great VP.

[zalinda]

48. He does not want to be VP

Will you please get that through your head. Neither of the other two candidates are on board with really helping the poor get ahead. He will not compromise on that issue. He would go the Al Gore way and help the world, rather than be relegated to second chair. He is first chair or he is gone.

zalinda

[TheWraith]

32. Those are odd-looking polls.

All the other polls I've seen have put Edwards' and Obama's unfavorables much lower, mid to upper 30s.

[dtotire]

34. This Is the advantage of unpledged delegates

The professional politicians want a winner. If none of the candidates has a majority, it is possible that Edwards would be the final choice. In 1972 McGovern was selected in the primaries, and there were no unpledged delegates. He was overwhelmingly defeated by Nixon, and the party decided that unpledged delegates would serve as a check. During the primaries, McGovern had a great deal of financial support, but this dried up during the general election. It is believed that his support during the primaries came from Republicans, who felt he would be the easiest to beat during the general election.

I personally believe that the professional politicians could do as good as or better in selecting a candidate as the average voter, and the primaries scrapped. It might not be as democratic, but it would be a lot less expensive and shorten the election cycle.

[Two Americas]

41. sabotaged

The pro-big business conservative Democratic party power brokers undermined and sabotaged the McGovern campaign. It has ever since been used as an excuse to suppress and marginalize the left within the party. Where the left did fail with the McGovern campaign was in making the same mistake that we are still making today - selecting a candidate who best "matches our values" in a dry and pedantic way rather than the candidate who is most likely to shift the political context so that our causes have a fighting chance on a level playing field.

[AzDar]

36. I STRONGLY feel that if JRE is not our Nominee, we are going to have to suffer through

President McCain.
:puke:
I truly do.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

44. I respectfully disagree.

"America just wasn't ready for a woman or a black man" is what we'll be hearing next when the Republicans steal the election.

"It was the 'Bradley effect' for Obama" or "Clinton came off as a emasculating harpy."

"It was the $400 haircut that did Edwards in", in comparison, is a less likely to be believed, yes?

Ask yourself which candidate is most likely to protest the stolen election. That's my guide. :D

[PerpetuallyDazed]

45. Disregard my last comment!

I completely agree with you. :D

[onehandle]

42. Kick! nt