Edwards is the real threat to Republicans, and here is why .... short and simple

[Blackhatjack]

In the latest poll, both Giuliani and Edwards do well within their own party. However, Edwards has an eight-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major party.

And there it is.... the killer edge that Hillary and Obama are trying to capture, Edwards now owns.

The 6% swing in recent polling that put Edwards ahead of Obama, did not just appear for no reason. And you will notice that Hillary dropped from 35% to 29%. Edwards is the candidate that appeals to the undecided/unaffiliated and independent voters. Republicans CANNOT WIN against a Democratic Nominee that holds that advantage, and they know it. When Democratic voters begin to understand this very important fact, Edwards will draw even more support.

Hillary and Obama will likely 'outraise' Edwards, and have plenty of money to spend in a compacted primary schedule. However, the strategy to magnify the chances of those with the most money to spend could backfire. With so many primaries occurring in such a short period of time, one or more candidates may win early and carry the momentum into the next week's primaries --lessening the opportunity for the more well financed candidates to use their money to change minds in such a short period of time.

Polling in Iowa has shown Edwards with a consistent lead there over other Democratic candidates, and he has a large grassroots organization on the ground there. The polling in New Hampshire tracks the positive comments from those who heard him speak there. I would suspect that Edwards is perfectly positioned to take advantage of this situation, allowing Hillary and Obama to battle each other for a while longer.

I am a supporter of Edwards, knew of him and observed him in Raleigh, NC, before he sought elected office, and I believe he would be the best choice among the Democrats running for President.

Because I support Edwards does not mean I dislike any of the other Democratic candidates. I believe they all have the opportunity to bring great ideas to the table. However, if the Democratic Party is going to win the 2008 Presidential Election, whoever is the nominee will have to win the support of a majority of the undecided/unaffiliated and independent voters. Right now the polling shows Edwards has succeeded on this point, where Hillary and Obama still have work to do.

[Burma Jones]

1. Shorter and Simpler

He is a White, Anglo-Saxon, Telegenic, Protestant Male from a southern, but not too southern, state. And that is why he will beat anyone the 'Pukes have in a General Election, but may very well lose out in the Primaries.

But, make no mistake, the 'Pukes would have to nominate Hitler in order to lose to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

[renie408]

6. I worry about Obama and Hillary

I am not sure that someone would have to be Hitler to beat either of them. Hillary, especially. I think that with either of them, people could find excuses to cover their bigotry and not vote for them. I think that either of them stand a good chance in a Democratic primary, but they would be in danger in the general election. I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH THAT. I am saying it is something that I think could logically happen. Closet racists will say that Obama does not have enough experience, when their real issue is the color of his skin. With Hillary, they will say...I dunno, they will find something...to cover for the fact that they find her to be too strong a woman (there are even women who are threatened by a strong woman).

[Demeter]

15. I'm More Afraid of Stupid Women

and I can hear Hillary's IQ dropping from here.

[acmavm]

16. So you feel the reason one wouldn't vote for either of those two

is all due to 'bigotry' and 'racism'?

You people who play the the 'race/religion' bigot crap all the time just crack me up. Yep, anyone who doesn't vote for Hils or Barrie sure must be a racist bigot. There just couldn't be any other reason, could there?

I must be one of those closet racists because I truly don't believe that Obama has the experience or knowledge to run for the presidency. I am so glad that you straightened me out though, I really thought I knew why I think he's not qualified for the office.

[frogcycle]

43. roger that n/t

[renie408]

47. Are you a closet racist? Then, NO, I wasn't talking about you.

I said that a closet racist could coat their racism by using his inexperience against Obama and a sexist could use many things against Hillary. I didn't say that EVERYONE who doesn't vote for them is a racist or a bigot. Both of them have real problems facing them in a general election. When you add racism and bigotry to those issues, I perceive that the GOP could run a marginal candidate against either of them and defeat them.

[truedelphi]

90. I thought that you made that clear in your post. n/t

[natrat]

75. thing is you are dialed into politics and are probably inteligent

most of the country is neither and race will play a factor

[vssmith]

84. Hillary is strong?

Hillary voted for the authorization to go to war because she felt as a woman to vote against it she would appear weak. I am sorry, if you have to do something like that to keep up appearances than you are WEAK. There are plenty of strong women in our country, she just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[undeterred]

7. You said it all

except that he has been happily married to one woman for a very long time and obviously comes across well in that area too.

If someone told me 30 years ago that I would finally have a choice between three good candidates who included a white woman, a black man, and a white male, I would be very surprised to hear that I would be choosing the white male (haven't we had enough of them already?!) but I honestly feel that John Edwards is the best candidate.

And after the horrific mess junior has made, this election is too important to vote for anyone but the best candidate.

[pnwmom]

17. I don't see why Obama doesn't have a good chance against

a Republican twice-divorced NYC ex-mayor who's been photographed in drag and whose own kids probably won't vote for him -- or a Mormon who claims he's been a hunter all his life, but never had a hunting license, and claims he only goes after "varmints." And who used to be pro-choice but now he's not.

The only thing that will stop ANY Dem from winning will be another stolen election.

[Burma Jones]

52. If everybody thought before they voted, I would agree

but few do.

[pnwmom]

70. Ken Blackwell was all that stood between us and a win last time. He's gone.

I think we have a good chance this year, actually, with any of our top candidates.

[Divine Discontent]

71. I agree pnwmom

KB is gone. GREAT. we'll do better, and anyone (maybe not hillary) of the 10 or so Dem candidates should win. But, I feel EDWARDS especially, without Gore entering, has the best GENERAL ELECTION chance for a solid win!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff!

[vanboggie]

76. Rove isn't gone

He has the US attorneys in place in targeted states and who knows what else he's prepared for stolen election #3.
The Repukes will not go willingly and where they can cheat, they will.

[pnwmom]

77. That's absolutely true. And that's why the issue isn't so much

which one of the Dems has a better chance of beating the Republicans. ANY of the Dems would be infinitely better than the current regime, and I think they could all win -- in a fair election.

In an unfair election, ANY Dem could lose, no matter what the actual vote count was.

[glitch]

81. But Clinton and Obama provide built-in plausible deniability - ie, "they'll bring the racists

and sexists out to vote" and the corporate media will parrot that ad nauseum until enough people actually buy it. A scenario is right down Karl's alley, too easy.

Not that I think either of them should not run because we anticipate that's how he'll play it. Or that there won't be actual racists and sexists voting against them, just that IMO there won't be enough to swing the election to the pathetic lot they're offering (up to and including Jeb as VP :rofl:) -- they will have to steal it again, that's a given.

If the candidate is Clinton or Obama I think we should be aware that he'll use their race/gender to cover for the machines shifting votes and be prepared to challenge the results going in.

If Edwards is the candidate Karl will have to be much more creative in finding a cover for the "mysterious" discrepancy between the exit polls (oh those naughty polls) and the returns.

[pnwmom]

83. They'll swiftboat any of our candidates, including Edwards.

With Edwards, they'll point to his inexperience -- a one term Senator -- and his experience, as a trial lawyer. And they'll use lies against him that we can't even imagine.

If they could swiftboat Kerry, they could do it to anyone. We just have to be prepared.

[glitch]

93. Yeah, there is no excuse for not preparing for whatever toxic sludge they'll fling

All lies, of course. What they did to Gore and Kerry are prime examples. The advantage the 2008 candidates have is that the opposition is down to their true believers, despite the best efforts of the corporate media. The disadvantage is that these people will behave like cornered rats (cornered rats with guns) when faced with their inevitable defeat.

[Cosmocat]

57. Bingo ...

He is the safe, straight down the fairway candidate ...

I would not rule him out in the primaries ... They just said what I had sensed for a while now ... He has LIVED in Iowa, New Hampshire and all the early primary spots the last two years ... Unlike Hill or Obama, the guy does not have a job at this point point, and seems to be hammering away at the early primary states HARD ...

I am OK with him ... I don't love him ... I am ALL about the General, but would get in line behind Edwards if it came to that ...

[ingac70]

80. I hope to see a Giuliani v. Edwards race.....

The theocrats in the Southeast will stay home, and voila! A landslide victory for Edwards.

[Why Syzygy]

2. Convinced me. n/t

[AzDar]

3. I agree. That's why he's being assailed this early on as a girly man, etc.

If you can't really attack a man for his record or accomplishments or personal life.... question his masculinity.
It's the Republican way (as well as the favored attack of many second-graders).

[Merlot]

4. It's a race between a tortise and two hares...

I like all three candidates for different reasons. Edwards is not out in front and still his campaign has raised respectable money.

[OneBlueSky]

5. maybe so, but it all becomes moot when Al Gore enters the race . . . n/t

.

[renie408]

9. Your mouth to god's ear. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

8. Yeah, let's nominate someone the Republicans already know how to handle

-In bed with the trial lawyers. (Edwards handled that one pretty well last time; it's not as if the Republicans aren't beholden to special interests as well.)

-Undistinguished Senate record. (No defense.)

-Weak overall resume. (Virtually no defense, but Obama will have a problem with that one as well.)

-Flip-flop on the war. (Absolutely no defense.)

-Flip-flop on everything, actually. Tried to run as a conservative on national security and values last time, saw it wasn't working, became a netroots darling with outlandish lefty positions across the board. (Edwards can call bullshit on that one, but he will have to fight the overall flip-flop meme for much of the campaign.)

Rinse, lather, repeat.

Don't bother flaming me; this is what they will do.

Well, flame away anyway.

[renie408]

11. Not flaming, but not sure those arguments will work this time around.

I think that if the Repukes rehash any past tactics, whoever they are using them against will only have to say, "There they go again.". I think people are MUCH more open to examining the tactics employed by the GOP this time around.

[Joe Chi Minh]

85. Don't you question his judgement in choosing Lieberman as his VP?

And asserting that Elain Gonzales shouldn't be reunited with his father! I mean these are not marginal issues in terms of personal judgement, you know.

Personally, I also deplore his failure to tell the neocons to take a hike, and keep Clinton's private life out of their dirty partisan-political shenanigans.

[Lex]

12. Edwards already beat a Repug in a red state who flung most all that--

--in his Senate race, in NC, when he beat a well-funded incumbent Repug Senator to take his seat.

Edwards can handle himself on those issues.


Besides, do you think the Repugs won't smear ANY Dem who is doing well?

[BeyondGeography]

14. They will, I just think Edwards brings much less to the fight than others

[renie408]

48. Less than Obama? n/t

[BeyondGeography]

50. Figured that out on your own, didn't ya?

;)

[skipos]

13. I like both Edwards and Obama, and they are both going to have challenges

The right wingers will attack Obama for his "lack of experience" and his "scary" muslim sounding name.
They'll attack Edwards for everything you said. I think his house will be a new minor issue too.
I think they would have a tougher time with Richardson, but then again Richardson will have a tougher time in the primary. Maybe they go they will go the "scary mexican" route with him.

The bottom line is that Hillary has more material for the GOP to work with than the other candidates combined. It shows in how weak her gen. elec. poll numbers and fav/unfav numbers are despite her money and name recognition.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. I agree with your assesment

In general I do like Edwards, but he doesn't really move me. Also, not to sound cold-hearted, but I think his polls reflect a "sympathy" bump for Elizabeth. He may be able to keep it, but I think many voters are giving him another look because he was headlining the news for a full cycle.

It feels almost mean to point this out, but I think its true.

[Blackhatjack]

24. Well let me take a swing at your list of accusations....

#1 If you have a problem with trial lawyers, wake up and notice who is fighting the corporate corrupt practices in this country? Who you say? Trial lawyers. On every front. If you want a country run by corporate interests free to use their money and influence without any kind of regulation, then by all means do away with trial lawyers.

And if you thought segregation was just fine and dandy, that is what we would have today if it had not been for trial lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education.

#2 True Edwards served one six(6) year term. But this argument is unsupported by the facts. Edwards worked with Kennedy and many other Senators on important legislation, which made a difference in the lives of Americans. The Senate club is 100 members strong, a rather small group with so much power. And who did the Democrats in the Senate choose to defend President Clinton in his trial before the Senate on Impeachment charges? THey choose Edwards, and he won praise and respect from everyone. Sounds like a distinguished record to me.

#3 "Weak overall resume" is a generalization. People say they want 'one of them' to represent their interests and not a career politician --that is what Edwards is. He is a quick study, and since the last election he has dramatically increased not only his knowledge of defense and diplomatic interests of the US, but has travelled extensively and met most of the foreign leaders of countries we consider allies. He also has met the people, knows their needs. He went up against big business and corporate interests as a trial lawyer, and is a self-made success. I think that qualifies as an impressive overall resume.

#4 "Flip flop on the war" He did change position based on the evidence available, but he did something you are not likely to hear any career politician do --he admitted he was wrong and apologized for his vote. Would you rather have someone in the Oval Office who cannot bring themselves to ever admit they made a mistake? WE have one right now in Bush. I bet you made a mistake sometime in your life, and admitted it and apologized. Would it be fair to judge everything you do the rest of your life based on the original bad decision you made? Forever? Nuff said.

#5 You posted "Flip-flop on everything, actually. Tried to run as a conservative on national security and values last time, saw it wasn't working, became a netroots darling with outlandish lefty positions across the board." Another generalization that is devoid of facts. He has been remarkably consistent in all of this positions, and this is a Republican generated false impression being put forth unsupported by the facts. I am not sure what the 'outlandish lefty positions across the board" are, but I know that his message regarding poverty and two Americas has been a theme since he first ran for office. Since the last election he established an Anti-Poverty center at the University of North Carolina, funded at no expense to the University itself. He also set up a computer center for students, and helped establish college education for students from poor counties in North Carolina. He has used the internet to get his message out, but he also has travelled extensively and talked to people.

I am more than willing to listen to allegations that are supported by the facts about any of the candidates running for President in 2008. None of the candidates running are perfect, they are humans. But to generally slur the reputations of one or more of these candidates without a factual basis goes beyond merely expressing an opinion. Hopefully you will provide facts to back up your opinions. Otherwise, people just may not be convinced that your conclusions are well-founded.

[BeyondGeography]

39. There you go, taking it personally and all

Nobody is impressed with Edwards' record in the Senate, not even Democrats. This is from a Republican site, but the quote comes from Ralph Nader, and it's typical of what is said about Edwards' tenure in the Senate:

<Ralph Nader Criticized Edwards' Lack Of Legislative Accomplishment. "John Edwards was a very good trial lawyer and talks populism in a fresh though not very specific way. . . . But has he introduced or supported fundamental reform legislation on health care, labor rights, consumer protection, military-budget reform, corporate crime (one of his specialties as a tort lawyer bloated corporate welfare hundreds of billions of dollars), access to government by ordinary citizens? No, instead he has been very cautious letting his new style and fresh looks lead the way rather than what he could have done, proposed and articulated for a deeper democracy." (James Fallows and Ralph Nader, "Who's An Anti-Semite?" Slate Magazine, April 30, 2002>

http://www.davidsongop.com/edwards.htm

Anyway...here's a funny clip of Edwards and his new, harder, tougher edge:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XXH8yscXIbc

[Blackhatjack]

42. You mean the best source you could come up with to prove your point was Ralph Nader? LOL

It is funny when you put people to the test to provide proof of an allegation they made, they have trouble coming up with a reputable source.

I am sure the oft-run third party Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader carries a lot of influence with you, but his opinion of just about any Democratic Senator would be at least as critical as that he gave BACK IN 2002 of John Edwards.

But I am not sure what qualifies as 'an impressive Senate record' in your book.

BTW if Nader had not run for President we might have avoided the Bush curse we are experiencing right now. Yeah, I bet he is popular with most Democrats and the first source they go to for a reliable opinion on who is a good Democrat with an impressive Senate records.

[BeyondGeography]

45. Read the link, there's the Washington Post, Roll Call, etc.

And, as if you needed more proof, when is the last time you actually heard Edwards TALK about his accomplishments in the Senate...tick, tock, tick, tock.

Look, these threads always devolve into an anti-candidate flamefest. We're all pro-victory in 2008 here. I've laid out some reasons why I don't agree with your premise in the OP.

We disagree...no biggie. May the best candidate win.

[Blackhatjack]

49. In Order to win, I want to see the most damaging evidence up front, so please post it...

If we are going to be honest in our evaluation of the candidates we each need to be willing to look at the facts that relate to each of the candidates, and discern which allegations are merely unsupported opinions.

It is nothing personal. But our opinions do influence our fellow voters. So if we have something to offer in the way of factually supported information, I think we have an obligation to bring that to the table. THere is no other way for us to get the most qualified candidate elected as the Democratic Party Nominee.

[Jackpine Radical]

74. Bravo. Nice job. Put this post someplace where we can find it

when we need it. It's a very nice rebuttal for all those wingnut talking points in the post you were responding to.

[shimmergal]

Not flaming, but we know the Publicans will come up with

as nasty, or worse, charges about any Democrat who gets the nomination.

It's _our_ job to anticipate these charges and come up with real zingers to fire back in reply.

And then, SOMEHOW,also to persuade those running the campaign to USE them. We need to find things that will evoke an emotional reaction that will work in our candidate's favor.

Why Kerry's campaign didn't dramatize the contrast between his real actions commanding the swift boat -- going back to rescue an endangered crew member at some risk to his own life -- and *'s behavior on 9/11, his moment of truth--hanging onto the pet goat story like a frightened little boy, then carooming around the U.S. in fear for his life -- I'll never know. But they didn't.

We need to do better at political trench warfare this time.

[dogday]

10. Since my man Russ won't run, I like Edwards

I liked him last election and the more I know about him, the more I like him....

[Blackhatjack]

46. Feingold fan here as well. He is going to be a force in the Senate....

There are so many places he could serve well and accomplish much.

I think he was born to lead in the Senate, such a remarkably insightful and persuasive voice in calling upon other members to do the right thing.

He could be a powerful VP running mate for the Democratic candidate, but we need people like him in the Senate as well.

Just a big fan of Feingold, and looking forward to watching what he does next.

[jobycom]

18. Bet your house on it, then, if you are that sure.

I've seen this same post in recent days for Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich, and I've seen similar arguments for Clinton from time to time. And then there are the "It's Gore's if he gets in the race" posts. Obviously, somebody will be right. You will hopefully forgive those of us who aren't convinced of any inevitability, so far. :)

[loudsue]

19. I still want either Al Gore or Wesley Clark....Edwards is tops in those who are already

running for me. I just wish like hell that Dennis Kucinich could get the air time he needs. His message needs more face time.



:kick::kick::kick:

[The Count]

20. Polls, schmolls - they can't wait to silence war talk with the IWR sponsorship

nugget they've been sitting on so far.
If he's such a threat, why were Republicans voting for him en masse in North Carolina 2004?
Just look at the percentage of Bush enthusiasts in this demo (70%):

Ohttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/
index.htmlpinion of
Bhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/
index.htmlush Administration
Angry (32%) 3% 32% 56% 2% 7%
Dissatisfied (43%) 1% 34% 58% 0% 6%
Satisfied (13%) 2% 64% 23% 1% 6%
Enthusiastic (8%) 5% 70% 9% 2% 11% - second number is Edwards

What they really want
Would You Be Satisfied...
Only if Edwards Wins (21%) 2% 88% 6% 0% 3%
Only if Kerry Wins (27%) 1% 4% 90% 0% 4%
If Either Wins (42%) 2% 42% 48% 1% 6%
Only if Someone Else (7%) 6% 34% 12% 7% 35%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/index.html

[BlooInBloo]

21. blahblahblah... nobody else can win... only MY candidate is a threat to republicans...

... godDAMN primary season is silly.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_12_17_atrios_archive.html#116645724148144035

You clearly are a #1.

[demily]

22. My mother is a life-long Republican

Though she is disgusted with the current administration and tends to lean left on social issues. She asked me this weekend who I wanted the Democratic nominee to be, and I said Edwards. She said oh, I just love him! I said, but would you vote for him? She said, I would vote for him tomorrow.

Coming from a woman who has never voted for a democrat in her life, I took this as a very good sign.

[truedelphi]

91. Isn't it neat when a parent grows up!

My dad, a delightful wonderful person in most respects, pulled the lever for Gore at the age of ninety!
(This was the first Dem Presidetnital candidate he had ever voted for)
Consequently, mom didn't speak to him for two days...

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lex]

26. The OP has a right to his opinion without being called stupid or idiotic

by the likes of you.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blackhatjack]

32. Ok here is your poll LINK .... and there are plenty more where that came from

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=37987

EDWARDS, MCCAIN LEAD IN IOWA POLL
Thursday, April 05, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

A new University of Iowa poll finds John Edwards leading the other Democratic candidates in the first caucus state. Edwards was ahead with 34%, followed by Clinton with 28% and Obama with 19%. No other Democrat reached 2%.

***************
Satisfied? Or do you just ignore facts?

[BlooInBloo]

33. Wow - there's more than one genius...

... I missed the part about him being the real threat to republicans - which is the primary claim made by the OP.

And I clearly and specifically addressed the mendacious nature of comparing a four-state campaign to a national campaign. I assume that approach is continued passively in your decision to not address this.

[Blackhatjack]

35. I do believe that the burden of proof is on your shoulders ....

Otherwise, people would be free to allege that you are a card-carrying member of the Martian Society for the Preservation of Minor Sexual Abuse without any supporting facts and you would be ok with that, right?

What are the facts, not opinionated statements, to support your allegation that Edwards is running a 4 state local campaign for President? (BTW Edwards did raise $15 Million last quarter, is that just enough to run a 'local campaign?').

[Blackhatjack]

34. (b) (c) and (d) are broad generalizations. How about some facts to back them up?

Saying "EVERYONE knows" does not prove anything. Facts please?

I showed you a poll that indicated support for the statement I made. Show me a poll that shows the opposite that you allege. Or do you not have any such results to back up your position?

Pollsters conduct simultaneous polls of both primaries and general election tendencies. How one performs in relation to other party nominees is a good indication of how that 'block' of voters will vote, but it takes more than one party block to win a general election. THat is why general election polling is done as well.

ANd I have no problem acknowledging a fact -- that Kate O'Brierne on MTP believes ANY Democrat would be favored in the general election.

One opinion by one pundit is not authoritative. However, it is important to remember that sometimes our opponents are right about issues that will affect upcoming elections. It is the Karl Rove approach to go right at the strength of the opponent.

ANd I did not assume you were stupid. However you have not convinced me of the truth of your allegations, and I told no 'idiotic lies with impunity.' And you have not proved I did so.

[Virginia Dare]

27. I think there is a lot of truth to this...

my view is that by the time the race gets really cranked up, the economy will be in a downward spiral, and Edwards' genuine populist message will play well in most areas of the country. Depending on what happens in the next year or so, I could easily see Edwards winning this thing, ironically for many of the same reasons that Bill Clinton did.

[Clark2008]

28. No, he's not.

But, you keep believing that.

[Blackhatjack]

30. Allegation Edwards Would Not Carry NC is Not True .... Here is Poll Results LINK

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/1226333/

According to a March 6, 2007 poll here in North Carolina:

Public Policy Polling, an independent research firm in Raleigh, surveyed 635 likely Democratic voters and 847 likely Republican voters by phone on March 5. The poll results have margin of error of 3 to 4 percent.

In the presidential campaign, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards leads current Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton by a narrow margin. Edwards captured 29 percent of the response, while Obama passed Clinton for second with 25 percent and teh former First Lady garnered 21 percent.

**********
I cannot find the link, but an even more recent poll showed the Edwards margin in NC to be even larger than this poll.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. Fox News plays up Hillary & Obama. Why? Fox is scared to death of Edwards, Gore, Clark & Richardson

[JNelson6563]

51. You sure about that?

They fear Clark so much he's been a fixture on Faux News. Seems like a bit of an absurd statement to make....

Julie

[WI_DEM]

36. What poll are you quoting and do you have a link? I'm not doubting what you say

just want to see the poll myself.

[Blackhatjack]

37. Here is the LINK to the Poll Mentioned in the OP, other polls in this thread have their own links...

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Edwardsvs.ThompsonGiuliani20070409.htm

[Lex]

38. DU thread and link here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=607692&mesg_id=607692

[Blackhatjack]

40. One Issue that plays to Edwards' favor is his vaccination against opposition research...

You can bet that the Repubs are 'keeping their powder dry' on the opposition research they have done on Obama. I read where the Republicans hired an entire team to read Obama's book and everything he has written, and follow up on every possible negative implication. Some of the scuttlebutt has leaked out already.

Hillary has already been thoroughly researched in her past Senate campaign, but there is quite a lot the Republicans intend to dredge up and attempt to associate with her from Bill Clinton's past campaigns and Presidency. The Republicans already made a 'brand name' out of the Clintons to energize their party and motivate them to go to the polls to vote against her.

In the last Presidential General Election, if there was anything in Edwards' background the Republicans would have used it. If Edwards becomes the nominee, the Democratic Party would likely not have to worry about the Republican opposition research this time.

[senseandsensibility]

41. Interesting point.

It gives me no real pleasure to agree with your entire post, including the last comment. But then again, we all KNOW, if we are honest with ourselves, that we need swing voters to win. And we all know that some if not most of these voters are very malleable, to the point that they were persuaded to vote for the chimp even after he invaded Iraq. So there you go. We can stick to our principles and demand that everyone else do too, (and they won't with the media solidly in the repug camp) or we can deal with reality. For me, this is made somewhat easier by the fact that Hillary is not very principled IMHO about the issue that I care about the most. By supporting Edwards, I am at least supporting a candidate who recognizes and admits publicly that he was wrong. It seems to me that with Edwards, we get a candidate who is right on most issues and can win.

[Blackhatjack]

44. If Edwards does not become the Democratic Nominee I will still be happy if a Dem wins....

But we cannot let commitment to pure ideology trump the ultimate goal of protecting this country from another 4 years of Republican White House rule.

In order to win in 2008, we have to win a substantial portion of the unaffiliated/undecided and independent vote. There is no other way.

THis is a fact that every Democratic Candidate for President knows. And their campaigns are busy trying to reach this group without turning off the ideological true believers of the Democratic Party.

It is not popular to talk in these terms, but it is reality.

[renie408]

56. Hopefully this will be a moot point.

I believe that Gore will run. And if he does, it will be no contest. Nobody really HATES Gore, no matter how much crap the Repukes throw around about the size of his house, blah blah blah. And too many people admire him now that, gee whiz, it looks like global warming might actually be a problem. Let us have the hurricane season that they are predicting and Gore could declare in September of '08 and win.

[NashVegas]

53. Oh Goooooooooooddddddd .. Stoppppppppppp!

We went through this four years ago. Repubs fear Edwards like I fear mosquitos. They're an annoyance with potential hazards, that can be easily managed.

[Nia Zuri]

54. You are so wrong...

Why do you think the media is not vcovering him like Hillary and Obama. Wouldn't be surprised if they were secretly funding Obama. They are scared to dceath of Edwards, he would be very hard to beat...Hillary and Obama weaknesses galore.

[NashVegas]

63. Too Much

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[senseandsensibility]

69. strong argument

there.:scared: Your logic is awe inspiring.

[LaPera]

55. The strongest candidate without a doubt is Edwards - Republicans do NOt want to face Edwards!

I support Edwards as well over EVERYONE.... Edwards truly has a realistic chance...if he can overcome the DLC, the media and republican party pushing Hillary and Obama down our throats....the strongest candidate without a doubt is Edwards and the republicans do NOT want to face him!

[Joe Chi Minh]

86. I think John Edwards is home and hosed as the next President, provided John

Kerry doesn't run, as seems likely. It might be too late, anyway, but he couldbn't have had a finer understudy.

[Blackhatjack]

58. Why? Registered voters LINK Dem 37/Repub 31/Independent 27

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:bqrtIg0aGQkJ:www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2007_poll_tl_feb18.doc+independent+registered+voters+national&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

RT Strategies National Omnibus Poll
Thomas Riehle, Partner
And
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll


Registered Voters
Republican 31
Independent 27
Democrat 37

***********************

Clearly for the Democrats to win the General Election, the 27% Independent Registered Voters are the prize.

Any candidate that is ideologically pure, but cannot reach the independent/undecided/unaffiliated voters is not going to win UNLESS Repubs AND/OR Independents stay at home and do not vote. Which is not going to happen given the seriousness of issues facing this country(ie. War in Iraq).

[GreenTea]

59. I do like Edwards. If he can bust through the media shit...Kucinich is

the most liberal and my man, but I do like the very progressive Edwards, he is excellent.

[Blackhatjack]

60. There are a lot of Democrats who will bring good ideas to the table....

... and the fact that they are not the eventual Democratic Party Nominee will not lessen the value of their contributions.

In the end it will require a team effort for the Democratic Party Nominee to win in 2008, so we really cannot afford to let differences between the various Democratic Candidates and their supporters tear us apart. IMHO that is the best opportunity for Republicans to win.

[milkyway]

61. Edwards is a far superior candidate than he was in '04, and would easily win

the general election. (Even more so, Gore would crush any publican).

In '04 Edwards lines and smile were too canned. More than any other candidate, he seemed to give the exact same speech at every campaign stop. He was also too quick with his smile, seeming too eager to be liked. While likeable to most Dems, he didn't seem serious enough (I'm talking about perception, not necessarily reality).

But Edwards has changed how he presents himself to the public. He and his candidacy seem to be much more substantive. And as unseemly as it might be, Elizabeth's condition, and the ridiculous attacks on her and John for continuing the campaign, gives Edwards a "hook" with some voters who otherwise might not differentiate him from other Dems.

[Blackhatjack]

62. You have to remember that Edwards has put forth specifics about important issues....

which catches the attention of voters. Looking at candidates who say they are in favor of universal healthcare, but do not provide specifics --that eventually catches up with you.

Also, remember that Edwards was getting lots of advice from Bill Clinton in 2004, which I am sure he is putting to good use this time.

[rndmprsn]

64. K+R for edwards!

[mnhtnbb]

65. I think Edwards is going to be tough. I just hope Elizabeth's health holds up.

[Blackhatjack]

66. My son went to the same High School that Wade attended, so we know...

... how they responded to losing their child in a freak accident.

Before the accident, Wade had mentioned politics to his dad as a way to make a difference. After Wade died, they responded by creating the Wade Edwards Learning Lab which provided computer access and training for all students at the High School. They also got involved in helping kids from poor counties go to college.

They refused to let Wade's death keep them from making a difference. I believe that Elizabeth is just as committed to this campaign as John. They are in this together for the difference they can make for this country, and our children's future. I do not see her health keeping them from pursuing that goal.

[mnhtnbb]

67. I live in Chapel Hill, so have seen a lot of the positive press, including

the article from Elizabeth's oncologist which was in the N & O Sunday.
Also read Elizabeth's book. The big 'if' in the equation is how
her cancer will respond to treatment.

I have nothing but admiration for both of them not letting the cancer get in the way of doing what they want, which is this run for the Presidency. I just hope
the cancer stays at a level where she's able to handle the rigors of the campaign.

[Blackhatjack]

68. So now Obama follows Edwards in Rejecting the FOX/CBC Debate....

Once again Edwards is first out of the gate making the right decision to reject Fox News, which is the right thing to do. Now Obama has taken the same position.

Will Hillary drop out now that the debate is obviously dead without Edwards and Obama???

[highplainsdem]

72. They fear him the way they feared Bill Clinton while he was still a governor.

It's been several years since I read The Hunting of the President, but my recollection of Conason's book is that the GOP had realized Clinton was a threat years before '92, and I suspect they see Edwards as too appealing a Democratic candidate for the same reasons.

I believe the corporate media fear Edwards, too. I couldn't help noticing at the start of the last presidential campaign that although Edwards had been all over the cable news channels -- articulate, telegenic, a bonus to any online debate -- before he ran for president, the same programs that had had him on frequently as a guest suddenly dropped him once they knew he was running for president, and mentioned him as little as possible. I still have the sense that they want to give him as little media attention as possible, would prefer Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to fight it out for the nomination, hurting each other in the process.

[BrklynLiberal]

73. I also like Edwards, and agree with your assessment.

[ruggerson]

78. You nailed it

a lot of us have been saying this for a while.

If we're smart enough to nominate John Edwards, he will be the next President of the United States.

[Alcibiades]

79. Edwards was always my top choice

until recently, when I switched to Richardson. There are a couple of problems with Edwards:

He's a senator. Senators don't win the presidency. Governors do, at least in the modern era.

Giving up his seat in '04 was a bad call. He let the Republicans talk him into it. Now the Senate is a tie, with turncoat slimeball Lieberman holding the deciding vote.

You make a good case for his appeal to independents. Who knows--maybe he will be another Kennedy.

[Colobo]

82. Good points... but Obama is still my guy

[colinmom71]

87. He doesn't just appeal to undecideds and independents...

I was just about gobsmacked when my dad, who I don't think has voted for a Democratic candidate in over 30 years, mentioned this past weekend that of the Democratic hopefulls, Edwards is one he really could find himself "crossing over" to vote for! My husband is still snickering at me for having this in common with my dad.... Just to give you a hint of how shocked I was, my dad is the epitome of the angry, entitlement complex, white Southern older man voter.

Seriously, my dad voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 despite my pleas to not do so. I was actually resorting to a tantamount emotional blackmail back then, stating that a vote for Bush was a vote against his only grandchild (my son is disabled/special needs). Even that had NO effect. But somehow, Edwards's folksy, "aww shucks!", everyday-guy demeanor with a nice centrist (overall) platform has even my dad now reconsidering his options for 2008. He even seemed to somewhat agree with me that the best ticket for this country right now would be an Edwards/Clark candidancy for 2008...

[Triana]

88. Here, Here...

...I'm another Edwards supporter. Always have been. Still am. That could change, I suppose and of course if one of the other Dem candidates gets the nom, (s)he will get my vote. But my preference is now - Edwards.

[Perky]

89. It;s not about the popular vot.e. It is about the electoral college.

[Blackhatjack]

92. With the past 2 Presidential Elections I think we all understand that. However, ...

If you take a close look at the role that Independents/Unaffiliated and Undecided voters play in each state you start to realize that the 27% registered Independents play a much bigger role in the outcome of elections than most people realize, and that effect can be magnified in terms of electoral votes where they literally are the 'swing votes.'

Each Democratic Candidate has their own campaign strategist who is very aware of this reality, that a Democratic Candidate cannot win the General Election without winning a substantial portion of the votes cast by the Independents/Unaffiliated and Undecideds.

[ManWroteTheBible]

94. The only thing ANY Dem...

nominee has to fear is OUR side. Be realistic. The Repukes are toast for awhile including those vying for residence at 1600 Pa Ave. We can thank BushCo for that!

Hillary's only real problems come from our side of the aisle - not the other. There's more Hillary hate spewed here than anywhere else except for maybe Kos.

Obama's inexperience is a problem for him but not if he plays it right. The lack of not being tainted by Washington yet could be used as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. For those who don't remember, Edwards had only one (1) Senate term when he ran in '04.

I liked Edwards then and I like Edwards now. He can be MY president!

But here's the thing... so can Obama... and so can Hillary!

We eat our own (and yes, Hillary is one of our own - unversal healthcare was her initiative - the war isn't the only issue we face). Not just here & Kos, but in Congress too. Remember the hell Dean got for speaking the truth? Our biggest weakness is our in-fighting and our inablity to drive the message of simple verifiable truth(s) to the uninformed in a way they can understand.

I didn't like Kerry much, but I damn sure voted for him. Hillary's not my first choice, but I will damn sure vote for her! We're not the morans that base our presidential votes on whether we'd like to have a beer with him/her or not. I'm voting for the nominated Democrat - whomever he... or she may be. Whether they were my first choice or not even considered.

Can anyone here say the same?

Because everyone here should know the consequences of the other option(s) by now - not voting, voting for Nader (although I agree that we need a viable 3 party system to avoid the gridlock we seem to be experiencing).