Could Edwards have won?

[rockydem]

The thing I keep thinking about is his 'Two Americas' theme. He hit on that over and over again during the primaries, and he would have kept it up. The Kerry campaign kind of dropped it. It could have been an effective way of countering the 'gay-marriage' populism of the repigs.

Whether or not you think he could have beat Bush, Edwards has the right idea. He knows about crafting a theme that infuses an entire campaign. He knows how to frame issues.

Our party has to many god damn policy wonks, and not enough values based debators - people who know how to take policy and put it in stark moral terms - who make it seem like it's not just the sensible thing to do - but the RIGHT THING TO DO.

It's about justice, always.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. No.

Nothing seems to indicate that Edwards brought anything tangible to the ticket. That would lead me to believe he would be in the exact same predicament as Kerry.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Clark/Dean 04'!

That was my ticket!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. I like the Clark part

I don't think Dean would've been effective. Don't get me wrong, I'm no Dean hater, and quite frankly, the entire party owes him a debt of gratitude. He made it vogue to question Bush again. Still, his campaign style would not have worked over the long haul and people would've just tuned him out. He'll be a perfect DNC chair though.

[WI_DEM]

10. I like the Dean part :)

actually I do like the Dean and Clark part and think they would have been a great team.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. I respect your opinion

And I think if Dean puts himself in the right light, he could be a good candidate in 2008, should he choose not to be party chairman.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

41. Wes Clark alone would have put us over the top. A 4 Star General...

who is as articulate as Clinton. Wes Clark and Bill Clinton are very similar. They are both Rhodes Scholars and Great Intellectuals who can put complex policy into simple "speak" that everyone can understand. Wes Clark also sounds more sincere in his delivery.

Dean would have been a very effective V.P and our Chief Legislator!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. Here's the one negative about Clark I agree with

I don't think he was quite ready for primetime. He got his feet wet in '04. I think he'll be ready in '08. He also will get in a lot sooner than he did this time, I hope, and that makes a big BIG difference.

[Kilkenny5]

70. Maybe it's me but

I'm not impressed with Clark, his credentials notwithstanding.

Please give me a reason to support in him 2008 or I'll go with someone else (no, not Hillary or Dean).

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. I don't care who you support in '08. I don't even know who I'm supporting

I just said I like Clark. That's not an endorsement just yet. Get back to me in 3 years.

[ArkDem]

118. I would say Clark is more like the

square root of Clinton...or less

[arewenotdemo]

124. I like the Clark/Dean part

in 2008.

[spooky3]

the polls consistently showed that Kerry had his highest positive ratings

in the month after Kerry selected Edwards. Once the Swift Boat Liars hit and were not responded to, and were joined by the liars at the Rethug Convention, the ratings dropped significantly.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. It's a normal bounce though.

Nearly anyone he would've picked would've generated a similar bounce, simply because every candidate has their supporters and detractors.

[AP]

18. IIUC, this wasnt' the normal bounce in K v B #s. It was a bounce in how...

...people felt about Kerry. I'm not sure how normal that is.

People felt better about Kerry as a person after he picked Edwards, which is no small thing in a year when ABB was the mantra and many rank-and-file Dems were saying they weren't voting for Kerry, they were voting against Bush, like that wasn't a stupid strategy.

For the sake of rounding out the picture, I believe that Kerry did best best vs Bush in October, as the media became more critical of Bush and after people got to compare the two in the debates. But what the media gave, the media took away in the last ten days when they talked almost exclusively about missing OBL + missing explosives = fear.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Fair enough. I can buy that.

[atre]

37. Historically, that isn't true

Some VP selections don't generate any bounce.

But don't let me interupt your cognitive dissonance.

My answer: Yes. Edwards could have won. Kerry could have won. Dean could have won. Clark could have won. Why our ticket lost still baffles me, since were faced up against the worst President in American history. We should have been able to run Cruella Deville and still carried the day.

[AP]

55. For a history lesson, consider '72.

Nixon was the worst president in the history of America in '72. How'd we run against him? Entirely within the frame of Vietnam. Republicans own fear. Democrats have a very hard time winning when you accept that the world is a frightening place.

[pdxmike]

59. veeps never bring

anything to the ticket. They are role players during the campaign.
Quayle was the cute young counterpoint to ghwb.
Gore was Butch to Clinton's Sundance (or vice versa)

Edwards was the optimistic, smiling, dose of charisma.
That was why the Kerry people would not let him go medieval on Cheney during the debate. It wouldn't support his "sunny" role. Does anybody really believe a trial lawyer who quickly became a legal legend couldn't eviscerate a slimeball like Cheney?

[tridim]

2. They cheated

Nobody could have "won" because the election was fixed.

[clintonlover]

30. I second that thought .... eom

[CarbonDate]

89. glad to see the obligatory "we wuz robbed" thread hijack... n/t

.

[LaPera]

130. By all mean let's not even consider it for a moment. No things are exactly

as they seem and that they tell us on the news channels (they would NEVER quash any stories on purpose).

Karl Rove played it completely fair and would never allow no such talk about it in the last four years! Even if it was guaranteed not to be able to prove and disguised perfectly, in all that time he just did it all by the book.

Rove just wouldn't do anything that unfair.

[hopein08]

4. I think so

Kerry tried to use the "Two Americas" theme after Edwards got on the ticket but it just sounded plaigarized and kind of lame.

I hadn't thought about it but it would have been good on the gay marriage question.

I hope Edwards stays very public in the next four years, even if he doesn't run in 2008, for my sake, the sake of the Democratic Party, and the sake of America.

[xultar]

6. Nope, and even if they didn't cheat, the guy didn't win his own state

How can you say you are gonna be there for the country if you weren't even there foryou senatorial district?

Everyone knew that his senatorial duties were the stepping stone for the WH. I which he had waited till 2008. He would have had a much better chance @ Prez and a VeeP slot.

Now I think he may have screwed himself into the ground for 2008.

[blueknight]

8. no, and i love john,

but now looking back, i think if we would have had gephart we probably would have won. we would have won iowa, and possibly missouri with gephart. i think the states kerry won he would have won anyway, no matter who he had chosen

[spooky3]

11. there's no way Gephart would have helped this ticket do better than it did

He would not have generated the excitement and the crowds that Edwards did in the midwest. He's viewed by many people as part of the same ol' same ol' in Washington.

Edwards outdid Gephart in the Iowa primary.

Having lived 40 years in the midwest, I can say it does not matter to midwesterners whether the Pres/VP is from the general area. They decide whether they like or dislike the candidates based on other factors. And, OH & PA, for example, are closer to the east than to Missouri and Iowa.

[AP]

15. I think Edwards had an impact in WI and OH. He did very well in those

states in the primary, and I'm sure that his appeal carried over to the GE.

[fujiyama]

105. I have nothing against Gephardt

He's a fundamentally decent person, and with the exception of his IWR whoring, his record has been on the side of working men and women.

But he wouldn't have won MO as VP...and I find it unlikely he would have won it at the top of the ticket either.

He's never won a statewide office and I heard he's not liked outside of his own district, which is supposed to have been gerrymandered.

As for IA, it's hard to say. It was a matter of 10,000 votes...but Gep greatly underperformed in the IA primaries, coming in a distant 4th.

[spooky3]

9. how many days/weeks/months did Kerry have Edwards campaigning

in North Carolina or any other southern state (exc. FL)?

He sent JE to the rural midwest.

I'm not sure JE was interested in continuing to bang his head against the wall once the Rethugs took over the Senate.

[xultar]

32. I agree on both accounts, but to your first point...It is KERRY's fault

for hiding JE out in the middle of BFE, were they really that afraid that JE's carisma would over shine his dull persona? To that I say WTF cares what ever it takes to get elected bub.

Second to your next statement. SHouldn't JE have spent time in his state to run for Governor then come out like a Chieftan and run for Pres as an executive office holder? To me that would have made better sense. JE should have done his time in the senate like a good 'ole boy and then run for Gov then run for Prez. He would have at least won his own state then.

don't ya think? :shrug:

[spooky3]

66. it's possible but here's another point of view

Maybe Kerry did the smartest thing to keep JE in the midwest. After all, many of those votes were close (and if you believe there was fraud, Kerry won more of them than announced) and better to send resources to break a tie or solidify a slight edge, than to chase a 10% gap in a winnner-take-all system. Isn't it possible that it had nothing to do with Kerry being threatened, but rather that they just made a cold hard decision to try to put Edwards where he could (theoretically anyway) make the biggest difference?

On your second point, I think it would have been great if JE had been both Governor and Senator. I think that would give him an even stronger background. I don't know whether it would make any difference with the voters. But he did do his time in the Senate--and other than from the point where he was actively campaigning all over the country, he had one of the best attendance/voting records of anyone. Maybe he'll run for Gov. in the future. I think he might have won North Carolina (and Virginia) this year if he had had an unlimited amount of time to campaign in both states, because many people are won over by the person-to-person contact (that's how Gov. Mark Warner won), but that's just not realistic in this close campaign.

[bunny planet]

24. North Carolina is a state with a huge amount of questionable election

results. They are recounting the whole state in a local race. There is a possibility that Edwards did win his own state, when there is fraud, every result comes into question. Sorry, just have no confidence in this election, even in my own state, NJ, there was something going on. They put it out there weeks before the election that NJ might be in play for the Republicans, just not true, but convenient concept to float if you were going to try and shave off votes for your 'popular' vote mandate. How can the results in any state really be known with the shenanigi that went on.

[xultar]

34. Not that much....when your own home town news paper names you Senator Gone

...Houston I think we have a problem.

[atre]

39. That newspaper endorsed him

...and the "hometown" newspaper was actually not the Raleigh News and Observer (as the Republicans callously tried to deceive people into thinking, apparently successfully); it was a low circulation run in Moore County.

[AP]

58. And it wasn't even a daily paper. It was one of those free papers that are

mostly advertisments, IIRC.

[Radical Activist]

44. The Kerry campaign spent no resources in the south

You can't blame Edwards for the fact that the DNC and the Kerry campaign wrote off the south. If they made an effort they could have won NC. They chose not to make that effort.

[Hippo_Tron]

108. North Carolina is a pretty solid red state...

Remember, this is the state that sent Jesse Helms to the US Senate for decades. Clinton didn't carry it either time. It's crazy to think that Edwards could've carried this state FOR Kerry, nobody votes for the Veep. As presidential nominee it would've been close.

[Kahuna]

7. Absolutely not!

nt

[AP]

13. Who knows, but here's some good evidence he might have started from a

stronger position than Kerry:

A national experiment in citizen deliberation took place on line with scientific random samples from Jan 19 until February 26, 2004. 266 eligible voters deliberated online about the candidates and the issues in the presidential primary season. Their views were compared to two "control groups," scientific random samples who did not deliberate but answered the same questions. These control groups numbered 346 and 546. Altogether more than 1158 eligible voters participated in this experiment which will continue until the general election this fall.

...


In contrast to conventional polls and the primaries to date, where Kerry has maintained a wide lead over Edwards, our participants came to like Edwards as well or better. After deliberating, on a "feeling thermometer" (scored from 0 to 100) they rated Kerry at just over 55 degrees and Edwards at just over 56. On another set of questions asking how well the traits “sincere,” “intelligent” and “thinks like I do” describe each candidate (a scale also scored from 0 to 100), Edwards was perceived significantly more positively than Kerry, averaging 66 versus 61.


Edwards' strength vis-à-vis Kerry appears to stem from a greater appeal to Republicans and Independents. Post-deliberation, our Republican participants rated Kerry's traits at about 43 (somewhat to the negative side of the neutral point of 50) but Edwards' at 57, a statistically significant difference. Our Independent participants rated Kerry at 61 but Edwards at 66, a close to statistically significant difference. (Our Democratic participants rated the two about the same.) Among both Republicans and independents, these ratings are significantly more positive among the participants than in the control group for Edwards but not Kerry, indicating that deliberation increased Edwards' advantage.


Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html


Notice that this poll came pretty close to predicting the outcome of the election. If it were right about Edwards vs Bush, Edwards would have won by at least 46:39.

[Radical Activist]

47. Edwards proves you can win over swing voters without selling out

We don't have to be corporate DLC Dems to win swing voters. Economic populism is what this party is supposed to be about and Edwards proves you can unite the party and attract swing voters with that kind of message.

Very interesting article.

[AP]

52. Not only that, but I think a lot of upper middle class white people...

....look at Edwards and like to think that they're just like him.

They see a guy who got everything he earned by working hard and doing the right thing, and they say, yeah, that's me.

If you're not in the top .5% of income earners and if you make most of your money from earned income (and not dividends and cap gains), you're not high on the list of Republican priorities. However, many people between about the top 40% and top .5% vote for Republicans nonetheless. I thik Edwards breaks down that coalition of Republican voters really effecitively because he shows how the route to upper middle class security runs through having a middle class, which is what Democrats care about.

Edwards did well with the core democratic constituencies, however, quite interestingly, he did better as you moved farther into the suburbs. The wealthier and whiter, and more conservative the voter, the MORE they liked Edwards, and this was despite the fact that his policies were as liberal as Kucinich's. The difference, I think, is that those wealthy white suburbanites look at Edwards and identify with him, and if he tells them that they wouldn't exist but for progressive taxation, good public schools, good jobs, protecting the value of work, transparency in the debt and equity markets, protecting people from predatory lenders, etc., then those people are going to get on board.

[spooky3]

63. wow, this is very interesting--thanks, AP.

[Carolinian]

16. Yes, yes, yes.

[Padraig18]

17. Maybe....

I don't think he'd have lost any state Kerry won, but whether he'd have won any Kerry lost, I dunno...

:shrug:

[DjTj]

19. I don't know, but he at least would have lost with style...

...if we had chosen Edwards or Dean, this could truly be our 1964, where the Democratic Party unified behind some compelling ideas - "Two Americas" or "You Have the Power"

There's too many variables to predict whether we would have won, but I know for sure that we would at least have more to build on.

[emulatorloo]

21. Terra Terra Terra won, backed up by the mistaken notion that Repubs

are better at national security than Dems.

The message was that "George Bush will keep you safe, John Kerry will not. Plus we just can't change presidents during the middle of a war."

Just substitute any of the other Dem Primary candidates in that sentence; it wouldn't have changed.

(OTOH Kerry almost almost won. . .and if he had won Ohio or Florida he would have. And I am not yet prepared to say that he didn't win those states).

[AP]

22. I'm not sure that every Dem candidate/campaign would have suffered the...

...same fate.

In 1932, Americans were nervous about fascism and imperialism abroad and about poverty at home. How did FDR win? With optimism (Happy Days are Here Again was his theme song) and with a message about creating a wealthy, happy American middle class.

In 1968 when all the talk was about Vietnam, RFK set Vietnam aside, talked about race and class (he went to South Africa and told students to fight racism, and he went to Appalachia and said that no American, white or black, should live in such degredation, and the word is he was combine both of those themes by picking MLK as his running mate). He didn't talk very much at all about Vietnam. I think RFK would have won in 68.

Another 36 years passed, and we were faced with the exact same sort of election. We didn't go with the FDR-RFK message. We reacted to fear rather than run on optimism and a concern for class and poverty.

I don't think EVERY democrat would have lost in 2004. I think that there was a kind of Democrat and a kind of campaign which could have won -- and I think that, to win, we have to run that kind of candidate and campaign in 2008 (if we don't win the recount today).

[Radical Activist]

49. It was about terra because

Kerry didn't make the election about anything else. Edwards would have.

[Mike L]

92. Great toons. Thanks.

[robbedvoter]

23. Nope. Even some Bushies hate the war. Edwards sponsored IWR.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

See results of Notrh Carolina compared with 2000 for conclusive proof.

[UpsideDownFlag]

25. well, it depends on whether your ask the electorate, or Diebold. nt

[robbedvoter]

26. So, it would have been "No" and "No" then

[Padraig18]

27. Maybe, maybe not.

:shrug:

[UpsideDownFlag]

28. i'd imagine that the electorate would prefer edwards more than diebold...

the larger point is, to paraphrase mike malloy, "nothing matters until we get rid of the damn machines. Nothing."

[Padraig18]

40. Exactly.

We'll never know if Edwards could have won because we'll never know for sure that Kerry didn't win. We have GOT TO fix that!

[angrydemocrat]

29. Nope

When Kerry won I was hoping he would pick Clark but oh well he didn't. I like Edwards and all that but I still believe Clark would have been a far better choice than Edwards.

[MISSDem]

31. All of the reports that I heard from the small towns that Edwards

was covering informed that he was received wonderfully well and people had glowing things to say about him. That's what we need. Someone who can talk to the people in America, the men and women in the small towns. The big city people know they are heard but the ones in the little towns feel left out.

[Pithy Cherub]

33. It is a no.

Edwards did not have any FP or national security credentials that would have allowed him to speak from experience and expertise from the world stage. That against the machine that was 24/7 militarymight, WOT, 9/11... He would have had to answer the same questions that Kerry did - If you had it to do all over again...

[julialnyc]

35. NO!

Not in this day and age.

In the age of modern war and terror Edwards is not equipped with the experience and understanding. In my eyes he has people who like him as a personality, but at the end of the day they don't see him as keeping their kids safe.


He wasn't even equipped to be the attack dog on matters of security because of his lacking experience (when things like Abu Grahb, hostility in Falluja, and Swift Boat liars arose on the campaign trail I kept wishing he had Clark or Graham who could really sock it to Bush/Cheney)

[Senator Lamb]

38. Edwards would have been elected President in 2004

if 9/11 never happened.

[Kilkenny5]

71. I agree n/t

[Leilani]

42. And during those parts of the campaign, who did Kerry call on?

Wes Clark & some other military brass to speak out for him.

Edwards had no, none, zip, nada foreign policy, national security credentials.

Edwards probably wouldn't have even won New Hampshire...he didn't do well in the primaries there with Dems, or Indies. Kerry had an advantage because he was a next-door neighbor.

Also, there are other states that Kerry won that I don't think would have been a slam dunk for Edwards at the head of the ticket.

[AP]

57. Edwards did very well in NH with moderates, and, like you said,

there were candidates from next door (two, not one), and he didn't bother campaigning there until after he did so well in IA.

The only way I can see Edwards not winning there would be because he wouldn't have campaigned there because he was busy campaigning in and winning LA, Ark, FL, TN, NC and possibly SC.

[Leilani]

95. Bull!

Edwards spent loads of time in New Hampshire before Iowa.

New Hampshire people see the candidates for longer & more close up than any other state.

They have a huge amount of Indies, & they are the most informed voters I've ever seen.

And they didn't buy Edwards. He's a lot better the less you know. He's a pretty face & a Southern drawl, & after you've heard 2 Americas for the 3rd time, there's no there there.

[AP]

98. He spent loads of time in Iowa in the four weeks before NH.

The put every resource into IA. When he had a surprise fantastic finish, they had to send people into NH (when they originally were going to just focus on Southern Super Tuesday). He had a one week effort in NH and doubled his support in that week.

And everywhere you look -- in every primary -- he did very well with Ind's and Republicans. The Deliberative Poll confirmed this.

BTW, I think that you're going to have to get better arguments than denying things that can be supported with empirical evidence.

[AP]

99. Oh, and google shows it wasn't Bull:

Among independents in the exit-polled states, Kerry has beaten Edwards in six contests; Edwards has beaten Kerry in four. This month, the candidates are tied with four wins apiece. Since Feb. 10, Edwards has won two primaries to Kerry's one.

The pattern among crossover Republicans is more lopsided. Kerry has won one contest; Edwards has won six. This month, Edwards has beaten Kerry among Republicans in all six states in which Republican votes were measured.

Remember, Democrats are as likely to vote for Edwards against President Bush as they are to vote for Kerry against Bush. It's far more likely that independents and crossover Republicans will determine the outcome. In states where the choices of these groups have been measured, Edwards is matching Kerry among independents and beating him among crossover Republicans.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095655/

[AP]

101. And there's more:

"How well has Kerry done among these voters? In absolute terms, well enough. But in relative terms, the numbers show a disconcerting pattern. By and large, the closer you move to the center and center-right of the electorate, where the presidential race will probably be decided, the worse Kerry does. The opposite is true of Edwards."

(Saletan, quoted at http://www.joehilldispatch.org/junkiewire/archives/000790.php)

[AP]

102. And more...

"Edwards defeated Kerry {in WI} by more than 2 to 1 among Republicans and had a double-digit lead among independents, reflecting results in earlier contests where Edwards ran strongest among more conservative voters."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dems18feb18,1,1409642.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

[Radical Activist]

51. We tried the war hero thing

with someone who had lots of foreign policy experience. It didn't work. Remember that Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Bush had when he took office.

[AP]

53. You're letting Republicans frame reality. Time for a paradigm shift.

RFK tried to shift the paradigm off Vietnam in 68 and tried to make the race about race class and opportunity. He won CA, and he would have won more primaries, and he almost certainly would have won the election had he lived.

Instead, Dems ran a candidate who was totally content to run within the frame of Vietnam and lost. In '72, with a war that was clearly getting worse, and president who was loathed by even more people, the Demcorats ran the same kind of campaign -- one framed by Vietnam -- and lost.

If you ever expect the Democrats to win, you have got to change that frame. Even if you honestly feel like a President Edwards were a threat to national security (which, frankly, is absurd) you're not going to win a presidential election if your argument throughout the primaries is that the world is frightening place and therefore we need people with tons of FP experience.

You'd be better off cloaking your FP hero as a middle class hero, and running him that way in the GE. That's the lesson of every FDR race and of Dem losses in '68, '72, and '04.

[Uzybone]

80. RFK being a Kennedy had nothing to do with it

it was all about him running on race, class and opportunity. Gimme a break.

And you cant use an example of something that never happened (RFK winning the election) as a reason why JE would have won.

[AP]

82. Being a Kennedy didnt' help Ted 8 years later. And RFK had definitely

built up a persona around race, class and opportunity (by visiting south africa and appalachia) and he rejected Vietnam as the frame, and he was winning primaries, and I can't think of a good reason why he wouldn't have kept winning.

And something that DID happen was running within the frame of vietnam in both 68 and 72 and losing the GE, and something that did happen was FDR winning in 32 with a message about class and about hope even though fascist and imperialist storm clouds were on the horizon and even though there was economic misery at home.

I think there's enough evidence to support my argument.

But, more imortantly, I don't think there's ANY evidence to support the argument that the Democrats should run even more on just war and terror. When has that ever worked?

[Uzybone]

85. Teddy had that little Chappaquiddick thing

no way he would have won after that. And i do agree that RFK would have won had he lived, but I think that the substance of his race, while being important and visionary, were secondary compared to him being the next Kennedy in line.

I also agree we shouldn't let Repubs define the issues, but fear is the most important emotion you can have on your side if you want to win an election. I dont think that a democrat who talked about 2 americas ad finitum and had nothing to offer in terms of security could have won.

[AP]

86. If you read Clinton's My Life, or if you saw the PBS special recently, or

if you talked to people who remember that race, you'd know that it was much much more than the name.

In many ways, '68 was very similar to what was going on in '04. In '68, there was Dean-like anti-war candidate and the students loved him. When RFK entered the race, the students didn't like him because he wouldn't organize his campaign around being anti-war.

RFK knew that being anti-war was never going to win a Democrat an election against a Republican without having twice as much time and four times as much money to teach people the difference between the parties. RFK wanted to make a statement about what he stood for. He went to SA and to Appalachia to establish the twin themes of his campaign.

When I have talked to people about RFK, literally, I have started the sentence "To prove that he cared about class and race, he flew..." and the person I was talking to said, "to South Africa...and then Apalachia..." People remember that. It was way more powerful than his last name.

And you know what? That worked. It was smarter than being anti-war becuase it was a Democrat running on the strenghts of the Democratic Party, and it was what Vietnam was really all about anyway (taking money from the middle class, and increasing corporate profits, and racism).

It was a model and lesson that Democrats didn't take to heart in '68, in '72 or in '04.

[TimeToGo]

36. Who knows? But I don't think so

[Radical Activist]

43. Yes

Edwards knows how to win in the swing states. We need an economic populist with his message. With Edwards we would have played offense instead of just defending the states Gore won in 2000. The entire conservative populist movement depends on being able to portray liberals as out of touch elitists who want to run your life. Kerry played right into that stereotype. They couldn't have done that with Edwards.

I also think Edwards would have used some campaign resources in the south, which Kerry did not do.

[Withywindle]

45. No, I don't think so....

The negative flipside of his charm is that he can come off as younger and more inexperienced than he really is. Note how Cheney kept harping on that during the VP debate. And he IS relatively inexperienced in holding office -- I think he made his bid way too soon, frankly.

Of course, for every candidate you can think up, there's a reason why that specific person would have lost. I think * was always going to be a lot harder to beat this year than some people think: we might think he's the worst Pres or worst candidate ever, but obviously his supporters don't think so--and there are a lot of them. Plus the deck is stacked.

[GreenArrow]

46. NO

It's one thing to talk about "Two Americas"; it's another entirely to propose policies that perpetuate them.

[saracat]

48. No Dem candidate could have "won" and all of them could

have. With a rigged election, we may never know. I do know that not one of them would have escaped the muck of the scandal machine.And thats a fact. Any of them would have been made to look horrible.And all was in comparison to Bush and the bullhorn. And Michael Moore said "they had the better story". But I'm still not convinced they "won"!

[Julien Sorel]

54. I was never comfortable with Edwards' "Two Americas" thing.

It just seems wrong for the current environment. People are more interested in themselves than worrying about things like fair play and so on.

I keep looking at the religious people, and the prominent ones are those who have embraced all the more militant and negative aspects of Christianity, while not even bothering to pay lip service to the gentler stuff, the altruism. It tells me something about the mindset of this country, and it isn't a mindset that worries much about how the other half lives. Basically, one of Edwards' Americas -- the one that votes -- doesn't give much of a shit about the other one.

[AP]

56. Two Americas WAS talking about what was happening in people's lives.

Everyone else wanted to talk about what was going on on the other side of the globe. Edwards was talking to people about what happens around their kitchen tables when they can't pay their bills or get their kids into good schools.

[Julien Sorel]

69. Not enough people.

Most voters see themselves in the "priveleged" America, and look on the other America as losers. It's just where the country has been. Compassion comes more quickly to those who can hear the wolf coming to their door next; the problem is, there weren't enough of those people, not for Kerry, and not for Edwards.

[AP]

72. In the primaries in every state Edwards did better with people who

lived in the subrubs, were white, considered themselves independant, moderate, Republican, and who made more money.

So clearly a lot of people who consider themselves privileged were ready to get on board with the One America idea.

[robbedvoter]

75. Especially in the open primaries, where Bushies were voting

They altered the party oath voting procedures in South Carolina - to make this even easier. Wingnut talk show hosts were telling freepers to do it.

[AP]

79. Now why would they vote for Edwards in the primary to spoil the election

when, as the Deliberative Poll shows, he did better in a head to head with Bush than any other candidate? Don't you think the Deliberative Poll which showed that independents and Republicans liked Edwards more than any other Dem sort of telly you why Republicans in Wisconsin liked Edwards?

And if Edwards was such a danger that Republicans wanted him on the ticket, how was Kerry fooled into putting him on the ticket? Again, don't you think that's pretty good evidence that Wisconsin Republicans probably weren't trying to sabotage the primary?

And I'd love to see your evidence of the SC vote. You have a link?

Incidentally, SC has a Modified Open Primary:

MODIFIED OPEN PRIMARY OR CAUCUS

In a Modified open Primary or Caucus, persons registered with one of the major parties usually may only vote in that party's primary: generally, Democrats may only vote in the Democratic primary, while Republicans may only vote in the Republican primary. However, unlike in a Closed Primary or Caucus, Independents may choose to vote in either party's primary - though there are usually provisions which automatically make an Independent a registered member of whichever party the primary of which he or she has chosen to vote in: this tends to keep the number of Independents who take advantage of their privilege to vote in a Modified open primary or caucus relatively low (making what is called a Modified open primary or caucus, in fact, more of a "modified closed primary or caucus" in its actual operation!)

However, in some Modified Open states, a Democrat voting in the Republican primary or a Republican voting as a Democrat automatically changes one's party affiliation as well; this has tended to reduce such "crossover voting" between the two major parties in those Modified Open states which practice this automatic change in party registration- for many registered party members might very well think twice before casting a primary vote which would have such an impact on their party affiliation.

[Julien Sorel]

81. Did better than who or what?

How can he have done better with Republicans in a Democratic primary? What is the source of this claim?

[AP]

84. Both the exit polls in the primaries and the Deliberative Poll

show that Edwards did better the more moderate people considered themselves. In WI, where Republicans can vote, he did well with Republican voters in the Dem primary. In other primaries, where Ind's can vote a Dem ballot, he did well with Ind.s. In states where only Dems can vote, it was clear that he did better as people considered themselves more moderate.

And these patterns were confirmed by this study:

From post 13:

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/march04-poll.html

Check the archives for exit poll discussions from the primaries. Search by "AP" as author, because I know I commented on them.

[Julien Sorel]

91. OK, I'll buy it.

And I still don't like the "Two Americas" thing, because it's simply another iteration of "the people vs the powerful," which doesn't have a good track record in national elections. Again, I think this is because voters are more likely to identify with the powerful than with the people these days.

[AP]

94. Bad: two Americas. Good: one america. You don't have to identiify with

the poor to embrace this message. The message is basically that we should all have the same opportunities. That's not Marxist. If you're wealthy, you would think, "yes, I don't want to deny anyone the chances I had." If you're poor, you think, "yes, I want the same chances everyone else had."

There's not "Vs." in there. It's all "together."

What was "putting people first"? Was it saying we have to have a society that works for all the people, and not just corporations (and the few people who benefit from them)? Doesn't that sound kind of like socialism? It worked.

What are some of the other themes that worked?

OK, "morning in America" doesn't say much about opportunity or the middle class -- but that's because a Republican was using it. That's a message mostly about optimism and change. I'd say that Edwards has the optimism component down pretty well.

Another thing: you have to talk to people about what they're experiencing in their lives. If people are feeling like they're opportunities are evaporating before their eyes -- if they see that they're making sacrifices so that a few people at the top can have huge taxbreaks and guaranteed wealth, if you don't talk to people about what they're seeing in front of their eyes, you lose credibility.

You have to talk to people about what is happening in their lives, especially if the big reason you're running for president is because you want those awful things to stop happening to people.

[Mike L]

116. Julien, very true.

The middle class just doesn't care about the poverty issue. They don't care about the working poor and sure as hell don't care about the non-working poor.

[AP]

122. But the middle class does care about the middle class, and that's what

two Americas was about. It was about whether college educated people could afford to send their own kids to college, and whether there'd be a decent job and a debt-free future for their kids after college, and whether their children would have to pay half their incomes to pay for their prescription pills when they retired...

Two Americas wasn't just about poverty.

[cyn2]

60. Not enough experience to be a WAR prez n/t

[zulchzulu]

61. No...he lost in the primaries

Somehow the primary season means nothing? It's a test of the candidate to see if they would be viable in a general election. Would Muskie have won in 1968?

Edwards didn't do well in the primaries, including southern states. So how can it be determined that he would or could have won?

[AP]

62. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1402521&mesg_id=1402576&page=

[zulchzulu]

67. The problem with that whole premise....

The reality that Edwards did not get the nomination is key. We could speculate until the cows roll over the moon that Edwards would have beat Bush.

Frankly, I doubt it. There were plenty of holes in Edwards' candidacy that would have been exploited; none of which matter now.

Edwards is a good guy...he just couldn't get past the primaries.

If this was a horserace, you couldn't say a horse would have won the Kentucky Derby if only he just didn't have to go through those tedious qualifying rounds.

[AP]

68. More time, more money, and head to head with any single other candidate...

...and I'm sure what this study shows would have come to pass: the more you know about him, the more you would have liked him, and you would have liked him more than you liked Bush, and the big cushion he had over Bush would have protected him more when Bush inevitably tried to scare the pants of voters, and, in fact, Edwards's optimism and focus on the issues that voters cared about most (jobs, healthcare and the economy) might have even been a more effective antidote to the fear campaign.

When you say there are plenty of holes...well, the informed voters in this poll talked about the holes -- they talked about the holes for all the candidates. The decided that Edwards's holes didn't matter.

As the study shows, Edwards and Kerry were the only candidates on an upward arc in the primaries. Kerry started higher, however, and had more money, and more organization, and had Clark dividing the Southern vote on southern super tuesday. But Edwards seemed to have the better message and was more likable. In every primary, Edwards went up exponentially in the poles in the final three days when attention focused on the candidates (rather than on media coverage of the candidates). Had he had more attention earlier, it would have been interesting to see where that exponential growth would have taken him.

[LisaL]

64. One thing you can say about Diebold is that it really doesn't

care who runs against Bush.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. It's possible.

The way I see it, he wouldn't have lost any states that Kerry won, and he might possibly have picked up some Kerry didn't. No way to know, however...at least until 2008.

:)

[VOX]

73. Hard to say. He would have connected very well...

But who knows what kind of skunk-piss the GOP operatives would have sprayed on him?

Edwards does have a broad appeal -- **if** the media doesn't just block him out.

He is still one to watch, IMO.

[wishlist]

74. Yes- he had a clearer theme, can discuss 'values' better, raised Baptist

Edwards' had much higher positive approval poll numbers than either Kerry or Bush and would have related better with conservative voters due to his humble background and lack of negative baggage. I think he could have explained the Dem positions more clearly and defended himself better from attacks than did Kerry. I know several Repubs here in N.C. who would have voted for Edwards but could not vote for Kerry because of Kerry's Northeast elitist liberal image and inability to relate with Evangelicals on the religious issues. I had the pleasure of hearing Edwards speak eloquently this week and got to meet him and tell him that I will support him in whatever he decides to do in the future.

[liberalpragmatist]

76. Possibly, but I don't think he'd be effective on terror

An Edwards/Kerry or Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Levin ticket may have worked.

Edwards would have been in some ways a more appealing candidate. But I think he'd have a major problem coming off as credible on national security - he's a "pretty boy" and people think he's quite young. Plus while he has more experience in national security than Bush, few would make that connection.

But to answer your question, yes, Edwards *could* have won. Kerry could have won. Clark could have won. Dean POSSIBLY might have won. Same with Gephardt. And Lieberman could have won (although he'd hurt the party b/c he'd turn into an amorphous wholly centrist being).

Any of these candidates could have won given the right campaign. But given that Bush is a "wartime" President (it's very hard to beat wartime presidents unless a war has dragged on for a long time, in which case they usually just step down, RE: Truman and Johnson). Democrats especially have a deficiency on national security. So it would have always been an uphill battle and would have required a near-perfect campaign. As it is, Kerry ran a pretty good campaign. In the end though, his mistakes caught up with him. It's possible Edwards would have run a better campaign, but that's no guarantee. And I think it would have been harder for Edwards than for Kerry to overcome the national security gap (although the "values" gap may have closed).

[Clarkie1]

77. NO WAY - "IT WAS NATIONAL SECURITY, STUPID"

To borrow a linguistic frame from James Carville :-)

I have no doubt Edwards absolutely could not have won in the times we live in. No way.

To be frank I myself would feel very uncomfortable - yes, even "insecure" - with someone as inexperienced in foreign affairs as Edwards as head of state. And if I feel that way, how would he swing voters feel?

[AP]

83. I have no doubt that someone who thinks that way can't see Edwards winning

but I also have no doubt that if the Dems ran ONLY on national security, they'd lose miserably, like they did in 68 and 72.

[Clarkie1]

87. I agree

It would be pointless, silly, and foolhardy to run only on national security.

Clark had some excellent ideas and proposals on the domestic front, but most people just bought into the "he's good on foreign policy, but not domestic" stereotype. That frustrated me a lot, and hurt the democratic party.

[AP]

97. Clark would probably be better off running as the saviour of the

middle class (via progressive taxation, education, corporate responsibility) than running as the FP expert (ie, if that were the priority). It's his choice what kind of persona he wants to emphasize.

[Mike L]

78. He would have had a better chance than Kerry.

An Edwards/Clark ticket would have had a very good chance.

Kerry's perceived strength (war record) turned out to be a negative after the Swift Liars ran the "US soldiers raped, murdered, cut off ears" clip from his 1971 Senate testimony.

[Clarkie1]

88. An Edward's Clark ticket would have looked silly

Clark's gravitas, experience, and leadership would have highlighted Edward's lack thereof.

Edward's as of today is not suitable for the presidency in the times we live in. I always wonder what his supporters see in him. I am sure he is a good man, but there are a lot of good men (and women).

[Mike L]

90. Frankly, people would have been too freaked out to put a little known

general in charge of the nuclear button. And I can just imagine those 527 ads about Clinton firing Clark for insisting on putting ground troops into Kosovo.

ON EDIT:

And about almost starting WW III when he wanted to confront Russian troops at an airport when they flew into Kosovo. A British General stopped Clark from doing that.

The hard truth.

[robbedvoter]

93. Or rather a drunk butcher (Black Tuesday) shot his mouth off

and created a diplomatic nightmare. The actuall truth, but thanks for playing. Dismissed now.
When he sobered up, he regreted his rumblings. But there's no sobering up from other afflictions.

[LandOLincoln]

107. Hmmm.....Black Tuesday? Wasn't it

Bloody Sunday?

[FrenchieCat]

113. Gen. Sir Mike Jackson's nicknames are .....

"Macho Jacko" and "Prince of Darkness"!
General Sir Mike Jackson's forehead is scarred, his cheeks are pitted, his nose sunburnt and the pouches under his eyes could carry his entire mess kit. His face could be a road map through the last 40 years of British military adventures: the Cold War, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq.
>snip
The peace rallies and the lack of United Nations support never alarmed him (you can't imagine much worrying this general). "No soldier who has seen active service wants to rush into a war, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils," he reflects. "I'm quite satisfied in myself that it was right."

Nor is he concerned that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. "I understand that not everyone saw the necessity of bringing Saddam Hussein to account, but it was the right thing to do and I'm proud that this nation swung behind the troops when their lives were on the line."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F26%2Fnjack26.xml

Bloody Sunday Inquiry `Consider Recall for General Sir Mike'
By Kieran McDaid, PA News
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=6705183
Britain's most senior soldier may be recalled to give further evidence to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, it has emerged.

The three Saville Inquiry judges are considering whether to ask General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff, to return to the witness box in London to discuss a controversial document alleged to be in his hand writing

General Jackson, who was an adjutant in the Parachute Regiment on January 30, 1972, said he had no recollection of taking part in the compilation of a list of what soldiers fired at, when he gave his evidence to the inquiry two months' ago.

A contemporaneous handwritten note of the engagements, alleged to be in Gen Jackson's hand writing, was submitted to the inquiry last week by the Ministry of Defence.

The article by Elizabeth Drew. Read the whole article here (It's good!):
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795
"Much has been made of a single sentence in a long argument that Clark had with General Sir Michael Jackson, the British officer in command on the scene at Pristina airport, who said, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." Clark devoted an entire chapter to the airport incident in his first book, and his account has been confirmed by others. He explains that at first he had the support of the Clinton White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the secretary-general of NATO, Javier Solana. But when the British refused to support him, largely in response to Jackson's objections, Washington backed down. Clark himself reported Jackson's now-famous hyperbolic line to Shelton as an example of what he saw as an emotional overreaction. Berger says, "To say that Wes was reckless is to misunderstand the context; it's an absurd notion.""

http://www.epivox.com/wesleyclark-knoxvill..._editorials.cfm
It makes sense that Clark, being the highest ranking military commander in all of Europe and an expert on central Europe, knew better than any person on the planet what the capabilities and tendencies of the Russian army were - that was his job. Clark knew exactly what he was doing and what the risks were. He knew the Russian high command would never risk a humiliating and historical defeat at the hands of the Americans - which even the Russians admit would have been the outcome. Their military machine was on the verge of total collapse in 1999. One strong piece of evidence for that is how the Pristina issue was finally resolved. The 200 paratroopers could not be resupplied and the Americans eventually sent in food and water - essentially a humanitarian mission. That's how pitiful the Russians were. So all in all, I think the doomsday scenario can be discounted, and some contemporaneous military observers agree that Gen. Jackson's "WWIII" comments were pure hyperbole.

This is a good even handed article about Gen Clark that kind of covers both sides:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/special...ctionsprint-hed

[Mike L]

119. "The hard truth"

I was referring to the fact that 527s would have run these ads, not to the truth of the statements, although it is hard to credibly explain why Clinton 'released' Clark early if he was not "fired". When someone has to start explaining, they are already in trouble. It really doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not.

"Black Tuesday" was the stock market crash in 1929.

[AP]

96. I don't think either of those stories are true...

...and I don't think they could have been used against him as effectively as the Swift Boat ads were used against Kerry.

[Donna Zen]

100. Harder to tell the truth:

Both of those stories are sorry snips from rightwing talking points.

On the subject of the thread: no, I don't believe that E would have had an easier time that K. Someone posted a thread about the Democratic Party having a brand name problem. I think that is true. On a whole, the platform is very much a centrist one; but the far, far, rightwing has succeeded in redefining what the party stands for.

Repeating the lies told about Democratic candidates, only aids the republican cause while creating decension among other Democrats.

According to a quote of Albright's, she once told Clark (paraphrase) They got me, and they will go after you.

And they did....and now their repulsive actions and lies are repeated endlessly on this forum.

[Clarkie1]

109. I don't think Clinton awarded Clark the congressional medal of freedom for

almost starting WWIII.

Do you?

[Donna Zen]

111. I don't think Clinton

would have asked Clark to head up "City Year" or repeatedly say that he never fired Clark either, but hey, when grasping at straws just ask yourself: WWRD? (What Would Rush Do)

A man saves 1.5million people, puts up with true fucks like Sheldon and Cohen, loses not one American life, and what thanks does he get?---rhetorical quesstion.

[DjTj]

112. Like a Bush-Cheney ticket?

We were running against a ticket that had everyman on top and gravitas on the bottom.

Edwards/Clark would have been the perfect antidote. It would have exposed the fakeness of Bush's everyman act and it would have exposed the inside-the-Beltway closed-mindedness of Cheney's fake gravitas.

Edwards vs. Bush
Clark vs. Cheney

We would have won both those battles.

[sampsonblk]

103. I had a hard enough time voting for Kerry

Edwards? I would have voted third party.

[donheld]

104. "Could Edwards have won?"

"Could Feinstein have won?" "Could Leiberman have won?" "Could gephardt have won?" "Could Sharpton have won?" "Could Streisand have won?" "Could Clooney have won?" "Could Wolfgang Puck have won?" "Could Jesus have won?" "Could Puff the magic dragon have won?" "Could My Pet Goat have won?"

When are we gonna stop this nonsense of second guessing. What good does that go? Especially if there was fraud involved?

[fujiyama]

106. He COULD have won

Assuming a fair election (and that's a big assumption in itself) any of the candidates, with the exception of the three "fringe" candidates, could have won had they run the right campaign.

Edwards might have appealed more to some in OH and IA. It's hard to say. In IA you're talking about 10,000 votes and in OH, some 140,000 votes...so anything could have happened.

He wouldn't have won NC though, and that's really not so much his fault as the fact that NC is still a conservative state. We didn't win the senate seat there either. We may not have lost it by as much though, but it's unlikely we would have won it.

But then again, had Edwards been the nominee he may have tried harder in various southern states, though ultimately it would have been extremely tough to fight the "inexperienced" tag. Edwards is a great campaigner but I think he would have a very tough time getting elected in a post 9/11 environment.

[FrenchieCat]

110. Woulda, coulda, shoulda theories.....

Edwards can blame Kerry. Kerry can blame Edwards. We can blame the both of them and the voting machines.....but at the end, it's the media that really called the shots throughout this election....primaries and all.

If we had an honest media, any candidate would have won against Bush. We don't....which makes it hard to say that anyone of them would have won against Bush and done better than Kerry.

Yea...I'm a Clarkie, but I don't think that threads as to whether Clark or Edwards or Dean would have won had one of them been the candidate are very helpful...since they are all based on hypothetical woulda, coulda, shouldas. Of course, we all have our opinions as to what might have happened....but it's all in theory.

But since you asked...here are my opinions ...:

Was Kerry the best candidate for the Dems? I personally don't think so.
Did Kerry choose the right VP? I personally don't think so.
Did Kerry utilize his VP correctly? I personally don't think so.
Did Kerry run a good campaign? Not particularly.
Did many voters vote FOR Kerry or against Bush? I think most voted against Bush...I know I did.
Should Kerry run next time? He probably will, but probably shouldn't.
Should Edwards run next time? He probably will, but probably shouldn't.
Why shouldn't each run? Cause while they were in the senate...and even had a small senate majority for a short while during the summer of '01...they never really went to bat for the issue of the voting machines...or common sense voting reforms or media reform....the things, that in the end analysis are most crucial to our democracy and most crucial to Democrats. Instead they voted for that friggin war, voted for that patriot act, and basically did a ballet in pink tutus. When they had the chance to walk the walk....neither did. Leadership is about doing what is unpopular but is required. Voting against that war would have shown just the kind of leaders John kerry and John Edwards were.

But beyond that point....

The media makes and breaks our candidates. Hell, that's why McCain is such a star. Not because he is as awesome as some believe...but because the media pumps him up anytime they have a chance. Guess they feel guilty for the 2000 primary smears. But the media is also why Bush is President and we are at war. It's that simple.

What will be more complicated is how do we change the media, now that we have even less power? How do we encourage election reforms? Maybe that's what Edwards should talk about...since he should want to stand for something important that makes a real difference to the next election and to our democracy at this point. Would be a sight better than talking about the 2 Americas...cause the media already has determined that there are....the Reds and the Blues (that's a sham though....cause America is a varied shade of purple...damn near throughout).

Although many DUer say that we should not be discussing 2008 candidate just yet....I disagree...Hell the Republicans are doing it..so why shouldn't we? What I say, however, is that talking about something that has already passed, and replaying it with a different set of circumstances...well, that's really a waste TO ME.

[Donna Zen]

115. Magnificent!

Thank you Frenchie for taking the time to write this. "The media makes McCain" is an insight I'd not really thought much about. So true. BTW, how's this? The media has decided that the story line that sells is a battle between the maverick" and the "gun-slinging, hard-livin'" cowboy resident. (strike up the Bonanza theme) The controversy sells.

McCain maybe better than bushCo, who isn't? But does the media EVER create a Dem hero? If a hero comes along, the object is to tear them down...fallen...not quite good enough...

Again, I love the post, and have saved it.

[FrenchieCat]

120. Hey Donna Z....

You always have great posts. I take the compliment and return it to you by the 10 folds!:headbang:

[KSAtheist]

114. No.

One, he's a trial lawyer. It doesn't matter what he said or did, or his motives, or the policies he's championed since then. Rove would have torn him apart just by the virtue of his past profession.

Two, he was a useless VP candidate.

[ernstbass]

121. I live in VA

and many of my repug co workers said they would have voted for Edwards (who knows if they actually would have) - One thing is for sure, Edwards has a helluva lot more charisma than Kerry does and to hear Edwards speak in person is thrilling - the guy has a magic touch with live audiences

[medeak]

123. trial lawyer thing

rnc is already plotting that's their agenda in next election..just like gay issue was this year..

Think they are worried he's going to run and already making plans.

[AP]

125. Edwards went up 10 pts in his NC Senate race in last two weeks when they

started talking about his work as a trial lawyer.

Other trials lawyers might be hurt by the work they did. Not Edwards. It's actually his strength.

Anyway, I'd love to see the debate turn to corporate negligence and helping the little guy and away from the Republican's strength: TERROR.

We can only hope that someone like Edwards will run and that the Republicans will be forced to talk about something else besides war.

[medeak]

126. good point

and why was corporate negligence so ignored this election?

[AP]

127. We were too busy talking about war and being a soldier and terror.

Funny, because even this war is mostly about corporations controling foreign policy, and doing so negligently.

[robbedvoter]

128. "We"?

geez, I wonder how the darn National security business got in the national discourse! Martians must've sneaked it in

[FrenchieCat]

131. Yep....I even heard Edwards

saying something like "we'll hunt them down and kill them". But is sounded kind of forced coming from him. Guess the whole election should have ignored foreign policy and the 2 wars that we are fighting. That would have been swell. Wondered why it didn't happen.

[AP]

132. It's a matter of priorities. But I have a question.

If you're running a candidate who says that the the disappearance of the middle class opportunity is not the most important issue, and that foreign policy is the most important thing, then what is the argument that you're making to people?

How are you distinguishing yourself from Republicans when you say jobs and the economy are not that important. And how are you going to refine a message about foreign policy that will allow voters to distinguish Democrats from Republicans?

Basically, you're already conceding to the Republicans that their world view -- that the economy can suck and transfer a lot of wealth to the wealthy because terror is the most important thing -- is correct.

What is your distinction? That the Republicans want terror and Demcorats don't? Now, I believe that is true, but how much time and money do you need, and how brilliant would your candidate have to be to convince voters that Republicans don't want a safe world, and don't really want to fight terror, and don't really care about your safety? The Republicans are already presumed to be better on national security partly because they are so reactionary. It's a huge Catch-22: their reflexive impulse for violence is what makes voters more comfortable with them when they are scared. It's going to take way more than a single presidential campaign to convince people that this is wrong. (It took Demcorats 100 years to convince voters they were better on jobs and economy, despite huge amounts of supporting evidence).

I can think of much more productive ways to spend a presidential campaign than doing that -- llike convincing voters that the issues you're strong on are the most important issues.

But my question is -- repeating for emphasis -- if you're going to run on the issue of war, how are you distinguishing your candidate from the Republican candidate? What is the distinction that will allow voters to say, yes, I will vote for the candidate from the party I'm predisposed to feel is weaker on these issues?

I'm not saying it can't be done. But the distinction is going to have to be crystal clear and almost subliminally perceived by the voters.

[Zinfandel]

129. Yes. We have fair elections--But, we need more electronic voting machines.

And as long as we know who controls them we know the elections will be fair.

There's no way anyone can manipulate the vote and steal the elections. We know the machines don't have a mind of their own and the people who own them, program them and service them want fair elections just like we all do.

Our votes are sacred and I think all agree that no one would be so low as to try and distort and steal votes.

We have to continue to have faith in technology and that it would be very easy to expose any tampering with our votes. That's why we have these machines.

And I feel we should debate what democrat could of won this past election and who might win in the 2006 senate races, as well as the 2008 election.

Electronic voting is here to stay and thank God that machines don't take sides!!!!

[goodhue]

133. Yes

Edwards could have won.
Not sure that he would have won.
But I think he would have carried all the states Kerry did.
And could have done better than Kerry in Ohio, Missouri, Iowa . . .

[genieroze]

134. We could have Jesus Christ run and they would have

called him a liberal Jew who lacked morals. Then they would have rigged the votes anyway.