Edwards: "I've proven I can win (a general election) in the South", says HRC-BO spat "needs to end."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==By BRUCE SMITH
Associated Press Writer

Posted: Jul. 27, 2007

MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Friday that he has the credentials to win in the South and is the best candidate when it comes to dealing directly with the region's problems.

"I've proven I can win in the South, that's how I was elected to the United States Senate," Edwards said as he campaigned for the third day this week in this early primary state.

"I have the clearest, most specific agenda on the issues that affect people in the South - a universal health care plan, ending this war in Iraq and doing what's necessary to strengthen the middle class," said Edwards, a South Carolina native.==

==Edwards later headed across town for a fundraiser and then to Columbia to meet with college Democrats. There, he told an enthusiastic crowd of students that a recent spat between Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama needs to end.

"The last thing we need is to be attacking each other," Edwards said.==

Read the rest at http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1643643/

[tritsofme]

1. Ha

If you consider running for president because you were unable to win reelection to the Senate "proof" that you can excel in the South...

Or the fact that his presence on the ticket did nothing to boost Democratic numbers in the South, let alone his home state of NC...

I guess that is all the proof I need to make up my decision.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. That is a myth

He had an approval rating of 56% in 2004 in NC, for instance, and that figure has been posted at DU numerous times. Moreover, he leads Republicans in trial heats in North Carolina. Yes, Edwards flips North Carolina--the only Democrat who flips the nation's 10th most populous state. Edwards is the only candidate who flips real red states, not just purple states, but true right-wing states like Kentucky and North Carolina.

[TeamJordan23]

4. But you cannot argue that him being on the 2004 ticket had an effect in NC. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Yes, as we know people vote for presidential candidates

Let's have a quick look at instances where the VP nominee was from a state the other party usually wins in.

2000: N/A, Holy Joe came from a solid blue state and Cheney from a solid red state
1996: Republican nominee Jack Kemp was from New York. Dole-Kemp was crushed in New York by 30 points.
1992: Clinton-Gore flipped Tennessee but that was because of Clinton. Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 when he headed the ticket. Kerry-Gore would not have won TN, for instance, in 1992
1988: Democratic VP nominee Bensten was from Texas. Dukakis-Bensten lost Texas by double digits.

[benny05]

15. That's BS

People vote for the top of the ticket. I talked some Republicans afterwards, and they said they liked Edwards but could not vote for Kerry (which is too bad). Kerry's campaign made the mistake of pulling out of all of the Southern states and put all of their money into Ohio. Look where it got them--an election fraud.

[yodermon]

12. What are you even talking about?

He beat repuke Lauch Faircloth to win his Senate seat.
He did not seek re-election.
WTF?

[tritsofme]

17. So he won one election, in 1998.

A relatively good year for Democrats across the nation, and "proves" he can win in the South?

I don't think so.

There was lots of speculation that when Edwards started his first presidential campaign in 2003 it was because he determined he would not be able to win reelection in NC.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Winning in the South does not prove you can win in the South?

:crazy:

How many elections have the other candidates won in the South? How many have won in a red state?

[tritsofme]

19. If he wants to stake his claim on one election in a generally Democratic year

Then he can be my guest.

I don't think he would do markedly worse than any of the other major candidates in the South, but I don't think one election in 1998 gives him some sort of uber advantage.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. He won as an underdog against an incumbent in a red southern state

Let's compare that to the electoral records of his rivals.

[surfermaw]

25. He running ahead in North Carolina as we speak

Oh Yes he is.

[snowbear]

2. Did Senator Edwards actually say "HRC and BO" or is that your added touch?

I'm guessing it was a mario exclusive...

[madrchsod]

6. the adult tells the children to quit throwing sand

it`s about time someone called out these two brats...i wonder how the phantoms who run hillary are 44 is going to spin this...

[tularetom]

7. I'm not sure that "I can win in the south" is a real asset

Any candidate whose chief claim to fame is that he can win in the south is probably not a candidate that the rest of the country is going to feel real comfortable with. If he is so gung ho about winning in the south let him go be president of the south.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Why? The only Democrats to win since 1964 have won in the South nt

[jmp]

8. Why is Edwards ...

Not still a Senator? Was it a term limits thing. ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. See post #3

;)

[yodermon]

13. He did not run for re-election in the Senate in 2004.

That's why.

[autorank]

11. I think Edwards is doing ok but should ...

...just ignore those two and go right for the general public and

...get real mad at the MSM weasels for this 'hair' thing and ignoring his bold campaign for social justice.


We're ready for a pissed off populist and that's appropriate to the times.

I just know Edwards has it in him way down deep. He would be so amazing if he expressed the barely contained rage of everyone but the 25% who still "approve" of *.

[surfermaw]

26. I hope it is a Gore & Edwards ticket,

If Gore doesn't get into the race, and only time will tell, Edwards and Gore attract the same voters, Edwards will gain if Gore doesn't get in.

[frazzled]

14. Truly a feeble claim

You can buy it if you want to, but but winning a senate seat in a state-wide election back some 9 years ago does not constitute anything in the way of proof that a candidate can "win in the South" in a presidential race. He's proved nothing, and if that's the only tactical line he's got (as opposed to Hillary's "I've got more experience" and Obama's "I had the judgment to oppose the war from the beginning"), it's not very convincing. This meme of Edwards being the only candidate viable in the South has been put forth and debunked so many times, I can't believe it's still being trotted out.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

16. Winning in the South does not show that you can win in the South?

He is the only candidate we have who has won in the South and in a true red state. That is more credible than Obama claiming he is more electable than Hillary (for unspecified reasons). What is his electoral record? He got the nomination because a scandal hit the front-runner and he then beat Alan Keyes in a very blue state because the legitimate Republican candidate got caught in a scandal...

Edwards is running on many things. Electability is just one of them. Obama is also touting his electability.

[frazzled]

20. I know it's useless to reason with you ... but here goes

North Carolina, over the last decade or so, is not a truly red state. As we have seen, it has a Democratic governor and Democratic senator at present. The demographics of North Carolina had been changing for years, due to job migration in some of the larger cities there. And I reiterate: winning a state-wide election says nothing about one's viability in a national race.

By the same token, Illinois is not a solidly blue state. During the time Obama was in the Legislature there, it was solidly in Republican hands, with a Republican governor and one Republican senator. True, the Republican scandals caused the nominee to be Keyes .... but you forget Obama had to win a Democratic primary in very reddish, rural parts of the state outside the more blueish Chicago region.

When you ask the question what was Obama's legislative record, you show your (not surprising) inability to research. Lo and behold, even in today's New York Times there is an extensive article with a half-page graphic on his legislative record in Illinois, before coming to the US Senate. It was precisely this record, according to the Times, that "helped him win election to the United States Senate in 2004." The article describes how "The new senator, Barack Obama, was a progressive Democrat in a time of tight Republican control. He was a former community organizer in a place where power is famously held by a few. He was a neophyte promising reform in a culture that a University of Illinois political studies professor describes as “really tough and, frankly, still quite corrupt.”

Obama sponsored more than 800 bills during his tenure there. These include:

• 223 bills on Health Care and Public Health, including:
-- An Illinois constitutional amendment that would establish a right to universal health coverage
--A number of measures that would extend health care coverage for those just abvove the federal poverty line
--A bill that would establish a commission to develop a plan for providing universal health care in Illinois
-- A bill that would permit embryonic stem cell research

•125 bills on Poverty and Public Assistance

•112 bills on Crime, Corrections and the Death Penalty--including his famous (successful) efforts to require police to videotape interrogations of criminal suspects

•97 bills on Economy, Business and Finance

•62 bills on Education

•60 bills on Civil and Human Rights, including
--A bill that would initiate a study of the race of people stopped for traffic violations (this really began to change racial profiling in Ill.)
-- A bill that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation

•35 bills on Infrastructure and Public Works

• 21 bills on Ethics -- including his well known efforts to ban nearly all gifts by lobbyists and bar personal use of campaign money

• 20 bills on the Environment, including that that would require utilities to purchase a portion of their energy from renewable resources

• 15 bills on Gun Control

And more ...

You might want to inform yourself by reading the article at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Here are the facts

==North Carolina, over the last decade or so, is not a truly red state.==

==By the same token, Illinois is not a solidly blue state.==

2004

National vote: +2.5% for the Republicans
North Carolina: +12.4 for the Republicans
Illinois: +10.3 for the Democrats

2000

National vote: +0.5% for the Democrats
North Carolina: +12.8% for the Republicans
Illinois: +12 for the Democrats

1996

National vote: +8.5% for the Democrats
North Carolina: +4.7 for the Republicans
Illinois: +17.5% for the Democrats

North Carolina has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976. People can look at the facts and reach their own conclusions. The facts are pretty clear...

==True, the Republican scandals caused the nominee to be Keyes .... but you forget Obama had to win a Democratic primary in very reddish, rural parts of the state outside the more blueish Chicago region.==

What you didn't tell DU'ers is the only reason Obama won the primary was because a scandal hit the front-runner. Obama needed two scandals to win in a blue state. That is his electoral record.

==When you ask the question what was Obama's legislative record,==

I have never asked about his record in the minors. We hear a lot about it so it is known. I have asked about his record in the senate, which we never hear about. I also, in this thread, pointed out that Edwards' electoral record is far better than that of his rivals if we are using it to assess who could do well in the South.

[frazzled]

27. Your facts are in your head

Your statistics about NC and Illinois, respectively, are based on national elections for the presidency, not state-wide races--the only things Edwards or Obama have ever won. Your facts are useless in saying anything about either Edwards or Obama's previous election results, and only further underscore the counterclaim that Edwards has NOT proven he could win even his own state in a presidential election (much less the so-called "South").

Look, you are a zealot with few analytic powers. It's really quite useless to go on with this. I welcome you to embrace your empty-suit political-construct of a candidate, who was truly one of the most conservative Democrats in the Congress during his brief time there, and weave this straw into gold for youself. Your constant posts really do more, alas, to harm his reputation than enhance it. I feel a bit bad for that, but whatever.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. They are running in a national election aren't they?

==Your statistics about NC and Illinois, respectively, are based on national elections for the presidency, not state-wide races--the only things Edwards or Obama have ever won.==

The point was that Illinois is a liberal, Democratic-leaning state and the opposite is the case in North Carolina. The presidential results confirm this. It is easier for a Democrat to win in Illinois than it is in North Carolina. The contend otherwise is ludicrous.

[PATRICK]

22. Beyond the hyperbole

Currently Hillary and Obama take up big swaths of Dem voting blocks that would have no problem at all with his candidacy. Inroads into the GOP leaners even while being the most progressive candidate isa good point to argue. However this is of course more theoretical than resting on the Senate campaign by itself would allow. I would like to point out, not to the detriment of John or his critics here, that he is making several astute political points here. He uses clear, simple, factual methods to present them which in fact are not the strongest logical expression- just the most dramatic.

If he were to match his staff's delineation of wonkish strategy alongside the other staffs, the voters would get bored, confused and write the whole discussion off.

The point is to get people thinking about the general election first and foremost, not the inevitable Dem popularity contest- which transforms very quickly these days(after losing two popularly elected presidents to fraud) into anxiety about November. No one caught the possible, most straight faced score against the "spat" between his two rivals. Forgive me if I would enjoy that more if he was not 100% sincere because political smarts aligned to proper wisdom is beautiful to behold in any form.

So while people react to his claim it gets them thinking, which across the board is not good for the weaknesses of the rival campaigns and then slips the high road diplomatic knife graciously across both their throats. I know, I know, we are supposed to be better than that. Very often these kind of points have to divided differently, the gaffes, the shortcomings, the "brilliance" only a prologue to more substantial voter decision making. It depends on what you believe about the inner character of the candidates as to whether this riles or encourages you. This reminds me to some extent how Bill handled Bush/Perot in the general election. It would be ironic if he could liberate his own steadfast strengths in the pattern of Hillary's husband even in the primaries staking out the high road to November 2008. of course this is the primary so Edwards can't really afford to let the spat crowd him out the limelight. For those who object to the force of the argument, please examine how the necessity is finally expressed. It could be have been biting, savage, ridiculing. Instead Edwards naturally surfs that Bill Clinton path toward the voters- and the voters must be trusted to decide.

[surfermaw]

23. He is running ahead in North Carolina as we speak

Yes he won in NOrth Carolina, something that a popular Democrat Governor James(Jim) Hunt couldn't do, and something that Terry Sanford a Democrat Governor and President of Duke University Couldn't do.... I understand he is running ahead in North Carolina

Fact, If Wes Clark, hadn't gotten into the race at the same time Edwards, did he would have carried not only South Carolina, he would have also carried Oklahoma and N.H., Edwards would have been on the presidential ticket instead of Kerry.. And we would have won, unless we would have gotten cheated out of the ra ce as Gore did in 2000,

[NCarolinawoman]

28. He used up most of the good will he had in NC when he started ignoring his constituents.

Most people in NC are now aware that he started visiting Iowa in January of 2001. He started serving as a Senator in 1999. Much of the general populace was surprised and dismayed that he had Presidential plans.

The last NC political poll I saw, had Hillary 27% Obama 27% and Edwards 26%.This was a poll among Democrats.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. So how did he manage to win the North Carolina primary in 2004?

==The last NC political poll I saw, had Hillary 27% Obama 27% and Edwards 26%.This was a poll among Democrats.==

Yes. The thread is about the general election. The only GE NC poll that I know of showed Edwards winning North Carolina and Clinton and Obama losing it.

As far as the primary numbers, Obama has a 4 point lead (within the margin of error I believe in that poll) over Clinton in Illinois. Does that mean Obama is unpopular in a state in which his approval rating is about 70%? Or does it simply mean other candidates have bases of support in Illinois?

[depakid]

31. Now THAT's a ridicuous statement

I doubt he could have gotten re-elected in North Carolina- and he sure didn't make much difference in 2004.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Those memes have been debunked in this thread nt

[depakid]

33. Seems to me that having it both ways

Is a conundrum that lots of people have to deal with.