Edwards polls best against rethugs, yet why does he not hold a BIG lead among Dems?

[RiverStone]

Just one M$M poll - a CNN/Opinion Research poll released yesterday which said:

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

<snip>

The poll also shows that Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona would do best against leading Democrats. He beats Clinton by 2 percentage points (50 percent to 48 percent), ties Obama (48 percent to 48 percent) and loses to Edwards by a smaller margin (8 points) than the other Republican candidates do.

In addition to Huckabee, Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney lose to all three top Democrats in the survey.

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).

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I'd love for Dennis to be our president, though objectively (and realistically) I have felt all along that John Edwards has the best chance to win across regions, political parties, and socio-economic groups. I remain baffled why he does not poll better among Dems specifically; but then again, it is hard to blame polls when I barely trust the one I'm citing in the OP.

In this voters opinion, when the dust settles --- I believe Edwards will be left standing as the one candidate with the best combination of experience, temperament, and folksy appeal to WIN. If only Dems were voting in the General, it would be different. But I'm looking to win and when I factor in disgruntled rethugs, independents, fence sitters, and geographically red voters - I believe Edwards populist message resonates best with those folks. That translates to a victory next November!

QUESTION: When will John's head to head appeal against the rethugs translate to leading the race among Dems?

[On the Road]

1. It Usually Works That Way

McCain polls best among Dems (or used to). He was always a long shot for the nomination, even in 2000.

[Beausoir]

2. I was just thinking the same thing. Why can't he get any traction?

[JDPriestly]

3. Edwards is our best candidate.

And he is pacing his campaign in Iowa very well. Of course, the MSM does not like him because they can't control him. He accepts no corporate lobbyists' funds. He won't owe them a Howdy doo when he becomes president. Only Edwards will be a president for all Americans.

[RiverStone]

7. The press can only ignore him for so long...

Ironic that Edwards totally kicked the Huckster's ass (25 points!) yet in the M$M news last night, Edwards barely gets mentioned. We see lots of Oprah/Obama, we see lots of Bill/Hillary, but the tail thats wagging the dog in the M$M gives not a damn for Edwards.

It feels as though John could be at a break though moment which will be so compelling that the networks will no longer be able to ignore him. An Iowa victory would be a start, but couple an Iowa victory with either a surprise NH win (or even a very strong second finish) and John would get more air time.

That would take him with tons of momentum into SC and Super Tuesday.

[cali]

13. unlikely.

he has little money and no organization at all in the Super Tuesday states. This year's compressed primary schedule is not helpful for JE.

[saracat]

15. That is crap. I just participated in an conference call with the Edwards National Campaign Manager

I will not share the details, that is not true.

[RiverStone]

17. Do you think he has a chance in NH?

Edwards stock there has been consistently rising while Hillary's has been falling. Obama is also getting some momentum with the Oprah tour.

If John wins Iowa (which I think he will) and does very well in NH --- that would be huge!

How is NH looking at the moment?

[saracat]

18. Not as bad as they say. And other Super Tuesday states are picking up.

It sounds to me that John is a lot stronger than the MSM is reporting, but we know that.

[cali]

26. Really? why not?

Have you been sworn to secrecy? You don't have to share the details but you could at least roughly say what's wrong with what I said.

[saracat]

29. No but I do not share anything with the opposition. Posting strategy on a public board is not

smart. It is obvious what I meant.If your statement is wrong, the opposite must be true. "How" that is true would be for the opposite camps to determine for themselves.I am certainly not going to assist them.

[AmBlue]

24. BINGO!!! MSM doesn't want him

Can't control him and he won't pander to them or take their money.

GO, JOHNNY, GO!!!

:kick:

[balantz]

4. He is not polling well nationally because he is ignored by MSM.

MSM will not give Edwards a nod because Edwards is against the entire corrupt system that the MSM speaks for. He knew this fact long ago and that is why he has put his focus on Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Clark2008]

9. I wouldn't ask for that, if I were you.

If the "MSM" starts talking about him, they'll also drag out all the cheerleading he did for Bush causes when he was in the Senate.

[balantz]

10. I'm sure that would likely happen.

I'm actually fairly comfortable with a silent campaign if it would only be negative for Edwards in the media. I think he will win in Iowa and upset the apple cart.

[B Calm]

5. People who support Hillary, are they doing it to piss off republicans?

I once donated to Hillary's senate campaign, just to piss off republicans...

[notanotherday]

6. The media, DLC, the ELITES have already chosen CLINTON-OBAMA

Thats why.

[ChiciB1]

19. AB-SOOOOO-LOOT-LY CORRECT & Major MSM Journalist Have

commented on how much the D.C. Elites "hate" him! And they used the word "hate" which is a very strong word to use!

Would it be possible for THE PEOPLE to speak this time around?? A double-edged sword... both Repukes and D.C. Elites rigging ANOTHER fraudulent election!! What a concept!! Wonder how that one would go... maybe the Supreme Court could always jump in and toss a coin... a novel idea to be sure!

[Clark2008]

8. Because we know more about him... and his conservative

Iraq-war peddling, NCLB-supporting, PATRIOT Act-writing self.

Conservatives don't know about all his flippedly-floppies.

:hi:

[RiverStone]

11. We know about Hillary's IWR, Kyle-Lieberman vote, DLC...

...pandering, and corporate bed fellows and yet the M$M says she has been in the lead.

We know about her as well. Take that into account and something is not adding up. :shrug:

My guess is John is doing far better on main street then wall street - far better in the voting booth then on the news channels.

Hopefully, the rigged electoral process will not get in the way and John's true popularity will soon be revealed!

[Blackhatjack]

14. Hogwash! Edwards is NOT a Conservative, and your allegation tells us more about you than him. n/t

[book_worm]

12. because Dems don't think about November and who is most likely to win

Many thought they did in 2004--when the backbone of Kerry's candidacy was that he was the only Dem who could beat Bush. Now that it didn't work then Dems are favoring who they want rather than who they think will win.

[Blackhatjack]

16. Edwards is doing just fine in IOWA..... It will be an indictment of the MSM when he WINS IOWA.

You don't build the ground operation that Edwards has in IOWA (which started over 6 yrs ago) and not do well in the Iowa Caucuses.

Edwards came out early that he would move to roll back the media consolidation that has happened under the Bush Administration. The MSM corporate owners have their own agenda, and Edwards cannot be bought on this one.

That likely explains the MSM attempt to 'marginalize' Edwards as a contender.

BTW National polling of Democrats only mean nothing when it comes to the General Election. Hillary has been leading those types of telephone polls, but IMHO she is least electable of the top 3.

[flyarm]

20. when the MSM gives him some attention..not until then..they have totally ignored Edwards.

which tells me ..Edwards is the one they are most fightened of!

fly

[bobbolink]

36. That's what I'm convinced of..... Edwards is their worst nightmare.

It's about time they lose sleep over their crimes.

:hi:

[PurgedVoter]

21. Because he is The #1 Second Choice!

Edwards fans number two choice is variable. But from my talking around, just about everyone blue considers Edwards their favorite second choice.

Lets consider the Republican vote question from a 4th grade reading level and a 6th grade debate level.

From the simplest archetype, we have on their side, Hollywood, Mormon, Big City, and Rich Minister. Rich Minister is the only one that has a chance if the label sticks. His label could so backfire on him, because Rich and Minister only works for televangelicals. Hollywood had a chance but his label stuck to him too well. I left out Tortured Flip Flop Express Boy, because he may poll well, but he damaged goods from the get go. None of these folk are the type you want to to introduce to you boss or take to the company Christmas party. You have no idea what idiot thing they are going to say next.

On our side, we have, Woman, The Secret Sworn Enemy of all Republicans, Edwards, and Nerd. The Republicans don't want any of Edwards obvious labels to stick, apart from liberal or union, because those labels are ones they want stuck on themselves. Common Man, Boot Straps, Populist, Peoples Man, whatever, is going to beat Big City 9-11 any day of the week.

Me I like the Nerd, but guess who my second choice is.

[Jim Lane]

22. One Democrat's answer: The polling results aren't worth much at this stage.

Speaking just for myself, I'll respond that, although I want a nominee who can win in November, I can't put much stock in general-election polls conducted almost a year in advance. Most voters aren't really paying attention to the race yet.

If I knew with absolute certainty that Edwards would win the general election but that any other Democrat would lose, then, yes, I'd support Edwards. It's really not possible to know that with certainty or even a high probability, though. Therefore, I make my choice based on other factors.

I might cast a "strategic" vote based on my view that Edwards would make a better President than Clinton would. If, by the time of my state's primary, the race is effectively Clinton versus Edwards, with no one else having a shot at the nomination, then I'll vote for Edwards.

Before the most rabid of the Clinton-bashers hail me as a kindred spirit, though, let me add and emphasize that I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November regardless of who it is.

[weeve]

23. Iowa / NH are crucial

The Media has been trying to make this a TWO PERSON race since forever ( well, at least since they realized they couldn't AUTOMATICALLY shove just Hillary down our throats). O & H have their back ... Edward's progressive ways threaten their interests. One incovenient fact though ... actual voters make the choice ( well - ha - at least I once thought so! ). When Edwards wins Iowa, and comes in 1st or 2nd in NH ... the media will HAVE to pay attention. They'll still try to Howard Dean him, but hopefully the momentum will take on a life of its own.

If Edwards gets the nomination, we win the White House and strengthen our Congressional majorities. Sinmple as that. Let's not be bedazzled by Oprah, or bought by the Clinton $$$ machine. Let's make it happen for Edwards.

[Maven]

25. I think part of it is baggage from the last election.

Which is sad, because he's a strong candidate.

[annabanana]

27. He isn't #1 on Corpomedia's hit parade. . . n/t

[cali]

30. I think that's more myth than truth

what could be more corporate than hedge funds? And they don't have any reason to fear him.

[weeve]

31. ha

The "haircut" smear didn't stick ... nor will this "hedgefund" one. ( Do most Americans even KNOW or care what a hedgefund is ? ) Sad that Hillary supporters have to fall back on these dirty tricks.

Let's nominate the MOST electable, MOST Progressive Democrat and win the White House for a change ... JOHN EDWARDS !!

[Blackhatjack]

32. They have a hard sell ahead of them trying to convince voters Edwards is pro-corporate interests.

Amazing how they keep trying over and over again, even though it has no basis in reality.

[cali]

33. it's not a smear. It's his history.

And I'm most certainly not a Clinton supporter. It's so pathetic that people think that anyone who casts a dispassionate eye on Edwards is a partisan, and in particular a Clinton partisan. I damn well do know what a hedge fund is. And people should know and care. They are bad news. Do you need hedge funds explained to you? Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_fund

Edwards consulted for Fortress Investments in 2005 and earned $500,000 for his very part time work. He invested millions with them. And made millions. Off of morally questionable investments.

That's not a smear, those are the facts. And furthermore when asked why he worked for them, this is what he said:

John Edwards has made poverty a top issue as he stumps for the Democratic Presidential nomination. So his connections to Fortress Investment Group, a highly profitable hedge fund and private equity firm with several executives on Forbes’ latest billionaires list, have provoked quite a bit of interest from campaign watchers. Asked about his decision to join Fortress as a senior adviser in 2005, Mr. Edwards told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he did it “mainly in order to learn about the relationships between financial markets and poverty.”

But the reporters and editors at the A.P. didn’t let him off that easy.

Did he really have to join a hedge fund to learn about that? they asked Mr. Edwards, a former United States senator and trial lawyer. “How else would I have done it?” he responded. Well, you could have taken a class, it was suggested.

“That’s true,” he allowed.

He also conceded that he worked for Fortress in part because “making money was a good thing, too,” but insisted he did it “primarily to learn.”

Mr. Edwards’s year-long stint at Fortress began in October 2005, after he served as running mate to Senator John Kerry in his failed presidential bid. Since the Kerry campaign, Mr. Edwards has also run a center on work and poverty for the University of North Carolina law school.

Hedge funds are private, lightly regulated pools of capital that are usually restricted to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. The best of these funds offer returns that far exceed what the average investor could get from a mutual fund. Hedge funds have created mountains of wealth for the people who run them, some of whom have built modern-day castles in Greenwich, Conn., where many hedge funds are based.

<snip>
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/for-poverty-101-edwards-went-to-a-hedge-fund/

[saracat]

34. What is pathetic are those who use t his as a smear.Give me a break.Like Taking a class would be

than real experience? And he has stated he wasn't made "aware" of the NOLA investments. and I believe him.Otherwise he wouldn't have contributed the money back to the homeowners and worked as hard as he has for NOLA.None of the other candidates have done as much.And as for making money, and saying it wasn't a 'bad thing" so what? Have the Clintons given back any of their money from speechs or investments? Bill is always saying he doesn't"need' his taxbreaks.Well why doesn't he donate the money then ? Sheesh.Talk about double standards.This is just like the garbage about his house.Please,the same standards are not applied to any of the other candidates and as soon as they are widespread howling takes place.

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. Because too many people want to vote for the first woman or first African American President

It's sad that in a country that is 230 years old that this is still an issue, and we're still torn between voting for a 'first' and voting for the 'best', but many will vote against their own best interest to vote for the 'first', IMHO....

[Inspired]

35. We have a history of voting against our best interests. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

37. The non-Hillary vote is split.

[porphyrian]

38. Corporate polls are useless crap? -n/t

[bvar22]

39. "why does he not hold a BIG lead " ?