Why is the media pushing Edwards?

[Scoopie]

Here's a poll that gets to the heart of the matter.

[Auntie Bush]

1. I think you should add

Because the corp/media want Bush to win. I'd vote for that.

[Doosh]

2. until I finish my Clarkie crying towel

have this one

[Scoopie]

3. What are you talking about?

There are some pro-Edwards answers to vote in up there.
And, you cannot deny the media is pushing him.
Get a grip.

[MallRat]

4. To make a bigger surprise when Kerry names RICHARDSON the VP.

:-)

[Scoopie]

5. Hee hee

:)

[goodhue]

6. The media is not pushing Edwards.

Rather they are reporting the strong support amongst democrats for his inclusion on the ticket.

[Scoopie]

7. Then why do they rarely mention Clark?

He's also got strong support.

Really, he does - but you'd never know that by reading the paper or watching the pundits.

Clark also does as well or better among Independents - even in scientific polls.

That's why I believe this to be orchestrated in favor of Edwards.

Besides, I used to be in newspapers. I kind of know the "bring 'em up to tear 'em down" routine.

(Edited for clarification)

[Doosh]

8. he's getting 1/2 the support Edwards does.....AT BEST!

[Scoopie]

9. Not among independents

who, btw, is who you need to woo.
Dems will vote for Kerry anyway!

[AP]

23. Edwards is getting 43% support among Dems, 36% among all voteres. Next

best is half that.

The media is only trying to create expectations among all those people so that if Kerry picks someone else, whom the DLC likes, people will be disappointed with Kerry and be less likely to vote for him.

Regardless of whom Kerry picks, the media is going to try to destroy Kerry and his VP (would it be worth the effort to go after the VP?).

And if there were something inherent in Edwards's persona and candidacy that made him an easy target, Edwards would be the nominee today.

This study -- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html -- shows that Edwards is the easiest candidate to get people to like, and if he was a weak candidate (which inherently contradicts this study, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend that it doesn't) then the media would have had an easy time putting him on top of the ticket. The only needed to give him a few more minutes in the debates and, say, 2/3rds the ink they gave Dean (instead of 1/10th).

[wjsander]

10. You forgot the "because he's the favorite" option

It's a biggie. Just lettin ya know. :)

[Scoopie]

11. Yeah, but I don't see that as a plus

I think that puts a target on him and that's why I didn't include that - the press is never right about the favorite. In 2000, it was Kerry, but Lieberman got it. Cheney also came out of nowhere. So did Al Gore... you know.

Besides - polls are another form of media manipulation. So, the talk about polls is just PART of the overall umbrella of the press pushing Edwards.
Locally, I never saw and still don't see any Edwards support. This is why I'm wondering about all this.

[Doosh]

13. more often than not, surprise picks hurt

ferraro and bentson was somewhat surprises and bombed, especially ferraro. gore did well, leiberman was a drab choice.

there is so much enthusiasm and support for Edwards, just because you don't see it in whatever town you live doesn't mean it's not there. It's there in the polls, it was there in the primary results. He was 2nd only to Kerry.

Edwards is a different case, you can't really compare him to anything. If there was ever a time to buck the traditional "surprise vp" pick, now is the time.

[Auntie Bush]

14. I've also never met a single person who said they want Edwards.

[Doosh]

15. I guess that means they don't exist then

because a clarkie has never seen one :crazy:

[Scoopie]

20. Yeah, but I'm in the South

where allegedly he does well.
You know what I contend about the Tennessee vote (that it was freepers picking Edwards because we're an open primary state) and the reason I believe what I do is because I never saw any support: no signs, no bumper stickers, no nothing and I still don't.
I see Kerry stuff.
I see left over Clark, Dean and, believe it or not, even Kucinich stuff (at one time, Tennessee led the nation in buying Kucinich paraphernalia! I laughed about that one! :) )
But, I still don't see any support of Edwards - except among the neo-cons I work with who say Cheney will waylay him, of course. ;)

[Darkamber]

30. there is a reason for that...

Part of Edwards problem in the primary was he was never prepared for the 2nd in Iowa. When he became a serious runner, he had no staff and nothing organized. Clark was brought into the race via his grassroots organization. He had that already in place. Edwards did not have that. He got it as time went on, but he didn't know how to tap into it.

Believe me there were tons of us wanting to buy bumper stickers and signs and wanting go the word out, but there was nothing ready to buy. The time was so face from Iowa to the next stop and the next stop that we were throwing together anything.

And Edwards didn't spend the kind of money that Kerry, Dean or Clark did. His organization was small and he could afford what he had. Each one of us new to the political scene because his organization where ever we lived. But we had no glossy literature to pass out and no bumper stickers. We made paper bumper stickers from the computers and put those on our cars. And where I live no one has Kerry or Bush or anyone else's bumper stickers on their cars.

Does that mean he has no support? I would disagree. When 85% of the Democratic Delegates in IL vote for Edwards as VP, I would say he has support. The group you hang around with would reflect your views mainly. If they didn't, you wouldn't hang with them. The people I hang around with reflect my views and quite a few of them are Republicans. And the Repubs that I know like Edwards. Really like him and wish that he was the nominee instead of Kerry. Not because they want Bush to win, but because they wanted someone to vote for.
They are fiscal conservatives, who would love a moderate fiscal conservative to vote for. Bush is anything but a fiscal conservative. And the war is not the center of their worlds..jobs and health care are the center of their worlds.

[JI7]

31. some points on Kerry

Kerry didn't have an organization either in tennessee and virginia and he didn't spend much money. in wisconsin and georgia and south carolina edwards did spend more than kerry. in many of the states kerry won he didn't spend much or any other than just visit the state.

[spooky3]

33. I'm also in the South and there are plenty of supporters here.

[venus]

12. Because they want to expose the true relationship between

Edwards and neocons like Shelton.

[MontecitoDem]

16. How about adding

"They're NOT pushing him." as an option - just to see what people think.

[Scoopie]

19. I could, but it might be too late for that now

that there have been some voting.

Should have thought of that.

Sorry. :(

[MontecitoDem]

21. Hey no worries Scoopie!

It's just a DU poll. We're not expecting Gallup here.:)

Are you going to see F 9/11 - is it playing in your town on friday?

[Scoopie]

22. Yes!!!

And it's playing here because all the Clarkies and Kerry-ites got together and called Regal Cinemas - which is HQ'ed in my city (Knoxville, TN - the heart of conservative voting) - and asked them to run it.
One of their theaters - in the smack-dab middle of the city (convenient for everyone) is going to play it. I've called them and called them about times and they keep telling me that they'll post them after midnight tonight (which is now - need to go check).
They've also told me they've gotten more positive messages about running it than negative ones. Yeah!!
It should be a fun night. :)

[MontecitoDem]

25. Fantastic!

We just found out that it's been moved from a small 4 screen theater to the largest theater in our town (santa barbara) because of demand! We have organized voter registration tables outside the theater for opening night (we being Clark, Dean, Kerry and Kucinich folks for the most part).

I'm STILL looking for a babysitter though! ARRGH!

Cheers to Friday Night!

:party:

[Scoopie]

26. My Mom's watching my boy

She watches him all week while I work - so I rarely ask her to watch him for me (which is why I blog all weekend long, too - I'm such a dud! LOL!), but she's making a couple of exceptions for me: that night and the night of my best friend's bachlorette party in July. :)

[MontecitoDem]

29. You're lucky to have your family close by.

I may just ask my husband to stay home with the kids if I can't get a sitter, but I really wanted to bring him. I'm the "political" one in the family, but I just know it will set a fire under him!

[DjTj]

17. Because they read DU, and they love to drive you crazy...

;-)

[troublemaker]

18. He's a dope and the media have developed a taste for dopes

[AP]

24. Yes. Please understimate him. I love low expectations.

[julialnyc]

27. Why?

Aren't we a Country of greatness and going beyond expectations (and not because they are low)

[AP]

28. Because he isn't dumb. And if people think he is and then realize he

isn't, it means that he gets 10 times the credit than if people said, oh, he's smart, wait till you see what a brilliant debater he is. (Sound familiar? Gore vs Bush?)

[Awsi Dooger]

32. This is pure genius, like asking why all the attention to Smarty Jones

prior to the Belmont.

As someone else mentioned, Edwards is the favorite. The HEAVY FAVORITE according to English and offshore betting outfits. I saw Edwards at odds-on 4/5 at one respected outfit tonight, and nothing higher than 8/5. For reference purposes, Clark is available at 6/1 to 15/1. Let's not pretend the DU wave of relentless and blinders-on Clarkies is representative of anything in the real world.

The 5/1 or 6/1 that oddsmaking goofs like Craig Crawford were putting out there on Edwards was pure media hogwash. Three weeks ago I tried to get down on Edwards at 3/1 or higher and was laughed off the phone every time.

I just checked four national magazines I saved from early summer 2000. The VP stories championed John Kerry, because he was the favorite. Extremely complicated, I concede.

[GreenArrow]

34. because he's telegenic

and gives good soundbites. He's a perfect example of the modern candidate, all image and presentation, and no depth.

[osaMABUSh]

35. Media likes a good looking, young guy - it draws viewers

More will tune in to look Edwards over some old dude: Graham, Gephardt etc...

[FrenchieCat]

36. He's not that good looking to me....

He has that nervous tick with his eyelids when he bats his lashes. It's distracting and takes away from his message. Maybe he's just not my type. I prefer a rugged and manly type of man. Wes Clark is my eye candy...oops, sorry.

[Southsideirish]

37. He's like a new toy to them and they are just dying to get in there

and take him apart to see what makes him tick. Then throw him to the gutter after they have dissected him. Its very sick.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Oh....I forgot to answer the question....

The media is pushing Edwards....because they can. He's their creation and they want to see how far they can take him...before they start tearing him apart......