"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans"

[pamela]

From the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/11/new-poll-shows-huckabee-losing-to-leading-democrats-by-double-digits/

"On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent.)

-snip-

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats," Holland said. "Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties."

[deacon]

1. He's the easy win. The way to go ... Edwards '08

[pamela]

3. Another quote from that article just kills me...

"Maybe electability is not as important as it was in 2004."

Well, maybe it isn't as important to some, but it's pretty damn important to me. I'd like to actually WIN this time.

[senseandsensibility]

29. I don't get that comment.

I realize that the corporate media is desperate to belittle anything and everything about Edwards, but what does that even mean?

[harmonicon]

34. it means surrender

It means we've surrendered our principals when all we care about is winning.

[deacon]

35. And what's wrong with Edwards' principals ? He's intelligent, informed

experienced, anti war, pro labor...

[harmonicon]

47. what's wrong with Edwards' principals ? EVERYTHING

experienced: at what? Being a trial attorney? I don't care. Being a senator? 1 term. Being a candidate... ah, yes, that's what he's experienced at. Raising money and saying what he thinks it will take to get elected.

anti war? Hardly. Not when it counted. He sponsored and voted for the IWR. That's about as anit-anti-war as I can imagine.

pro labor? We'll see. He talks the talk, but can you give any examples of something he's ever actually accomplished that would point in that direction?

[deacon]

58. What total utter bullshit. But go on and continue to foam at the mouth. n/t

[harmonicon]

64. mad because I called a spade a spade?

What's bullshit about my comment? really, tell me. What has this guy ever done for you apart from being part a weak kneed senate minority, voting for laws that lessen our constitutional freedoms, and helping to get us into a quagmire that's cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. What the hell is there to like about this guy? He can win? What's the point of winning when the winner will throw you under the bus to get there?

[Recursion]

45. I think they mean, "perceived electability"

As in, the narrative is we nominated Kerry because he's the "most electable" candidate, and it didn't exactly work for us.

[southtpa]

61. win?

It is not the presidency that you need to win. The presidency is not enough. Governorships, state legislatures, house and senate are even more important. You will lose seats in the south without Edwards at the top of the ticket. You have to win the war this time, a battle is not enough.

[niceypoo]

62. "Electability" is a phony issue

Kerry was selected as the nominee because of his supposed, "Electability." When you start using such shallow criteria you are going down a slippery slope.

[harmonicon]

65. going down a slippery slope? we're already at the bottom covered in muck

We ought to stop worrying about slipping further and start trying to climb back up. This electability thing is complete nonsense. WORST. CAMPAIGN SEASON. EVER.

[AdHocSolver]

70. Electability is a perfectly valid criterion, provided you choose someone electable. Kerry was not.

Of all the Democratic candidates, John Edwards happens to be, in my opinion, the most electable. Moreover, when compared to Republican candidates, polls show that Edwards beats the Republicans no matter which one he might run against.

In 2004, the Democratic party leadership anointed Kerry, one of their own, to carry the banner based on the stupid premise that "anybody can beat Bush". The current Democratic party leadership, both state as well as a big chunk of national party leadership, is behind Hillary (mostly) and Obama as the "anybody can beat the Republican candidate". Wrong!

And, if Clinton is the Democratic party candidate, even if by some chance she happened to squeak by (very iffy), she will bring out so many energized right-wingers to vote against her, in spite of the Republicans fielding a bunch of losers, that she could help the Republicans take back Congress. This would be a disaster, even if somehow she got to become president.

Moreover, nobody at DU seems to be judging "electability" in terms of how a specific candidate at the head of the ticket will effect local races. Of the top three candidates, John Edwards is the only "neutral" candidate in affecting local races on the basis of turn out. The Republican field of losers is our best hope of keeping control of Congress. This is our last chance to save the Republic. Let's NOT blow it!

[Orsino]

63. The easy way out is what got us into our many crises.

I dig Edwards in many ways, but I am also sick of least common denominators.

[harmonicon]

66. lowest common denominator rules. USA! USA!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

2. kick.

[SecularMotion]

4. Kick

:kick:

[spanone]

5. i think a blind monkey could beat all the thugs

[NewJeffCT]

7. It's not that we have to beat the "thugs"

We also have to overcome the corporate media...

You just know that if Edwards wins the nomination, a group called "Lawyers for Truth" will suddenly appear and "swiftboat" Edwards, and the media will give them a huge stage to blare their easily debunked charges.

(not to single out Edwards, as I know they'll do similar for Clinton or Obama as well. "Feminists for Truth" or "Women for Truth" for Clinton, maybe, while we get "African-Americans for Truth" for Obama)

[Ken Burch]

49. Great. Anybody KNOW a blind monkey that wants to get in?

He'd need a shaved monkey as running mate, just to balance the ticket.

[ClintonTyree]

60. The blind monkey has already served two terms....

and therefore is not eligible to run again. ;) I'm sure he'd like to (wanting to be a dictator and all) but he just hasn't been able to shred the Constitution to the point where that's possible. Yet. He still has a little over a year left in his second term so it's still a possibility I guess.

[Sancho]

6. Not really, if you look at the national neutral polls head to head: Hillary wins.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

Poll Date Sample Giuliani (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 11/01 - 12/04 - 43.6 47.3 5.9 Clinton +3.7
Rasmussen 12/03 - 12/04 800 LV 43 46 11 Clinton (D) +3.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 11/30 - 12/03 1245 RV 42 46 6 Clinton (D) +4.0
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 900 RV 43 47 4 Clinton (D) +4.0
Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 897 RV 44 49 3 Clinton (D) +5.0
Cook/RT Strategies 11/08 - 11/11 855 RV 43 46 9 Clinton (D) +3.0
NBC/WSJ 11/01 - 11/05 1509 A 45 46 4 Clinton (D) +1.0
CNN 11/02 - 11/04 929 RV 45 51 4 Clinton (D) +6.0

RCP Average 10/23 - 11/20 - 41.7 49.8 6.3 Clinton +8.1
Rasmussen 11/19 - 11/20 800 LV 44 46 10 Clinton (D) +2.0
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 900 RV 40 49 11 Clinton (D) +9.0
Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 897 RV 40 53 3 Clinton (D) +13.0
Newsweek 10/31 - 11/01 1002 RV 45 49 6 Clinton (D) +4.0
ABC/Wash Post 10/29 - 11/01 1131 A 40 56 1 Clinton (D) +16.0
Quinnipiac 10/23 - 10/29 1636 RV 41 46 7 Clinton (D) +5.0

44.6 47.4 5.2 Clinton +2.8
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 900 RV 45 46 9 Clinton (D) +1.0
Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 897 RV 44 50 2 Clinton (D) +6.0
Rasmussen 11/07 - 11/08 800 LV 47 45 8 McCain (R) +2.0
ABC/Wash Post 10/29 - 11/01 1131 A 43 52 1 Clinton (D) +9.0
Quinnipiac 10/23 - 10/29 1636 RV 44 44 6 Tie

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Romney (R) Clinton (D) Und Spread
RCP Average 10/23 - 12/04 - 39.9 50.1 7.0 Clinton +10.2
Rasmussen 12/03 - 12/04 800 LV 43 46 11 Clinton (D) +3.0
LA Times/Bloomberg 11/30 - 12/03 1245 RV 39 47 7 Clinton (D) +8.0
FOX News 11/13 - 11/14 900 RV 37 50 14 Clinton (D) +13.0
Gallup 11/11 - 11/14 897 RV 38 54 3 Clinton (D) +16.0
Newsweek 10/31 - 11/01 1002 RV 45 49 6 Clinton (D) +4.0
ABC/Wash Post 10/29 - 11/01 1131 A 39 57 1 Clinton (D) +18.0
Quinnipiac 10/23 - 10/29 1636 RV 38 48 7 Clinton (D) +10.0

[SecularMotion]

8. Kick

:kick:

[Blackhatjack]

9. Look at these numbers from the Linked Article... Edwards Rocks!

"In head-to-head face-offs – the first to include Huckabee – the former Arkansas governor loses to New York Sen. Hillary Clinton by 10 percentage points (54 percent to 44 percent), to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by 15 percent points (55 percent to 40 percent) and to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards by 25 percentage points (60 percent to 35 percent)."

<snip>

"On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent.)"

MORE

[AzDar]

10. Sounds about right to me.

:kick:

[Catchawave]

11. Like the GOP strategist told Tim Russert this morning....

Edwards is the candidate we most fear !

[saracat]

12. Absolutely.Edwards 08 is the only answer if we want to win!

[chimpymustgo]

13. Kick for a reality check. JRE is OVERWHELMINGLY the best candidate. nt

nt

[saracat]

22. I agree!Back at cha!

[Elspeth]

14. Really?

I like Edwards, but I'm wondering if the GOP strategist has some other goal.

[Catchawave]

23. The new CNN poll has Edwards beating all Republicans

and the Dem strategist was asked the same thing, his reply was McCain because he's the only Republican that can beat Hillary...according to the same Poll.

What's funny, I'm watching Hardball now, and David Gregory just explained the results are because of "name recognition"....:rofl:

Then wouldn't you think McCain and Edwards would be at the top of their party's polls.

Indeed, strange manipulation by the media.

[Kansas Wyatt]

46. Because they are frothing at the mouth to run against...

Hillary and Obama. Why? Because the Republicans will beat them, but with Edwards, it is a cakewalk for him and he wins with a solid mandate for change. Because he will represent 'We The People,' instead of Corporate America.

[dbackjon]

15. Fortunately, the Democratic Candidate

Only has to beat One Republican, not four... ;)

[Nutmegger]

16. R&K ...

... for Edwards!

Edwards 2008!

[Stump]

17. K&R

Edwards '08!!!

[Plucketeer]

43. INDEED!!!

Edwards '08!!!!!! :kick:

[FatDave]

18. John Edwards can bring us Mondale's Revenge on election night

None of the other democrats can. I think any of our candidates would have a good shot at winning, but Edwards could turn that whole fucking map blue, and I've been waiting a god-damned long time to see that happen.

Go Johnny, Go! Go!

[pamela]

21. "but Edwards could turn that whole fucking map blue"

That's exactly what I've been thinking. Wouldn't that be beautiful?

[Maddy McCall]

25. Funny you should mention that...

I was reading a newspaper's forum in Mississippi today. There's vast support for Edwards there.

I think it could happen.

[Catchawave]

24. Oh yeah.

:toast:

[mzmolly]

39. As Minnesotan and Mondale supporter in general, I'll say that would be DIVINE.

:toast:

[pamela]

48. Here's a nice visual...

[mzmolly]

51. That is down right therapeutic!

I think I'll hang it on my wall. ;)

[nosferaustin]

52. nice

But Utah? Really? I'd love to think it (as a true blue resident of the Utah theocracy)

:-)

[pamela]

55. We can dream. lol

I guess a blue Utah might be a stretch.

I love Utah, btw. We just got back from a cross-country roadtrip and Moab and Monument Valley were my favorite parts of the trip. Beautiful state you've got there.

[balantz]

19. Yet another good reason to vote for him in the primary.

[Catchawave]

30. What's funny, here in Virginia

Our Gov (Tim Kaine-D) endorsed Obama last February, a couple of months later, our state party leader came out very enthusiastically for Edwards...because he is sooooo electable.

Here's a snip from a recent interview:

Q: You have endorsed Democrat John Edwards for president. What makes him the right person to win in Virginia in 2008?

A: He's electable. I think one of the things that has always united Democrats is economic justice. I really think he's talking about that.

I think electability in the general election is a big issue, at least for Democrats like me. I believe we have to change the direction of this country, not just for Americans but for the rest of the world. We were there to help when people needed us, and we really weren't looking for anything in return.

http://www.vademocrats.org/news/items/daily_press_interview_with_chairman_cranwell/

[waiting for hope]

20. Damn -

Error: You've already recommended that thread.

But I can KICK!

[PATRICK]

26. Perception time

And I'm talking about the entire maddening long primary season. Why all the strange numbers? Looking into the heart of chaos and not going mad(I hope) I can only guess what we see here are old and new media effects on the general populace sprinkled with increasing serious decision making. That is why people are going nuts trying to figure it out as if people were in full vote decision mode AND digging into the candidates.

The Eyes of Heisenberg, the pollsters, goad(those who will answer at all) people into transferring themselves somewhat into decision mode thereby creating a representative voting time populace that does not yet exist. As more people enter the real time decision process polls miraculously get better.

The media has its past hype of well known names and new hype which is less rooted and less time tested. Most of what they do is screw up the dem decision making process anyway, very sloppy cattle herders with a spotty track record. They throw their punditry with visible irritation into the slow, still not quite engaged voting public creating an impression all these pre-primary activities are the same picture as on the day before balloting, but the polaroids keep coming out bad and darken.

So the frustrations here amount to likewise trying to read what has not yet happened. How do people react to the candidates, to the media impressions and what independent ideas do they retain under the assault? How will they come down, we ask, arguing among ourselves impatiently. Whose political wisdom or propaganda will win out and in what mix? How can campaigns ultimately screw up or appear brilliant?
Whose common sense will be victorious, whose tragically abandoned?

Apparently there is no more objectivity or consensus here than anywhere else and into this mix is thrown the strategies of caucus voting. Our only wish is that the primary voters were more immune to the hostile spin of the main sources they now glean some information from. Obama is somewhat the beneficiary of their spirit of suspicion and rebellion despite NOT having Edwards forced upon them. Stranger and stranger as time narrows.

[harmonicon]

67. thank you for your intelligent comment

It's crazy to me that even on here no one seems to want to have a discussion about who the best candidate is based on their platform and past history in government. It seems like they watch the talking heads, come here, post something about how great they thought a sound bite was and feel like they're being useful. Try to have a discussion about either a candidates platform or their voting/governing record and you'll get shit piled on you, or told that those things don't matter - only winning matters. What is the point of having primary at all if people are voting for the candidate who best represents their views? If all we're going for is electability, we could just have a think-tank and pollsters choose the candidates for us. Hell, do away with elections all together - just have polls about who's the lowest common denominator and who beats who.

[MissDeeds]

27. Works for me

John Edwards - Best chance to win, best hope for the US. :bounce: :bounce:

[quiethm75]

28. kick n/t

[progressivebydesign]

31. John Edwards is my second choice, and I will volunteer for him enthusiastically if he gets the nod..

I like him... I like Hillary more, but I'd be happy to support Edwards, too.

[onehandle]

32. Of course. And he would expand our hold on Congress the most too.

This should be obvious. Seriously.

[asdjrocky]

33. R&K

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Huh?? This statement makes no logical sense

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans,
and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats."

Can someone who took logic puzzles on their IQ tests help me out with this one?

[creeksneakers2]

37. Edwards beats 4 Republicans

McCain beats either Hillary or Obama or both but not Edwards.

key words - ANY of the three

[mzmolly]

38. That's the primary reason I support JE.

I think he can win.

[downindixie]

40. Edwards is my choice

and I will give my voice to him anytime!

[Kurovski]

41. K&R. (nt)

[EV_Ares]

42. Kick this, great news for the Edwards campaign, nt.

[SlingBlade]

44. Kick it high

Edited for clarity

I also think he stands the best chance.
And in my humble opinion, Hillary means another 4 years
of Re-Puke ruin and devastation.

And another 4 years might just be the end of America as we used to know it.
No more holding my nose, If I don't support the Dem. Candidate

I'll write in the name of the one who should have been.

And that would be Edwards.

[AgadorSparticus]

50. I must say, of the leading 3 Dems, I like Edwards the best anyways.

He always struck me more real than the others....

[harmonicon]

68. what's the point of having a choice when you're choosing between 3 of the same thing?

[theHandpuppet]

53. I'm leaning towards Edwards more and more

I like Kucinich also but I think if John got elected he'd know how to shake, rattle and roll the old guard in D.C. He's a fighter and in the political arena, a true heavyweight contender. My reservation is in his objection to gay marriage. That hurts.

[Divine Discontent]

54. that's my only objection also

but it's not like he's a bigot on the issue of gay rights, so I'm satisfied with him as an overall package. I think his wonderful wife's influence is something that would be great if he got in...


GO JOHN!

[harmonicon]

69. "He's a fighter and in the political arena, a true heavyweight" - since when?

Was he those things while in congress? Not to my recollection. Unless you mean he'd buckle to complete BS like the patriot act and IWR again as president, if put forth to him by congress. There's the candidate, our hopes, and the actual person who has an actual record. Do not confuse any one of those things for the any other.

[GreenTea]

56. Edwards will win the presidency.... No doubt!

[tinrobot]

57. He's got my vote.

I hope he gets yours, too.

[Swamp Rat]

59. Geaux Edwards!!!

:kick: