Poll: Edwards Favored As Kerry VP Choice

[VolcanoJen]

Veep-Stakes are heating up... and I, for one, am rooting for Edwards!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20040612/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_veepstakes_2

Sen. John Edwards, the smooth-talking populist who emerged from the nominating campaign as John Kerry's chief rival, is favored among registered voters to be the Democratic vice presidential candidate, according to an Associated Press poll.

<snip>

The AP poll showed that more than one-third of registered voters — 36 percent — said they would most like to see Kerry choose Edwards.

Among Democrats surveyed, Edwards fared even better: 43 percent preferred him over three other Democrats.

<snip>

The poll showed that 19 percent of registered voters wanted Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the longtime Democratic leader who is retiring from the House. Eighteen percent chose retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, a political newcomer from Arkansas, and 4 percent picked Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a relative unknown on the national scene.

<snip>

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) of New York was added to the mix, one-fourth of the respondents supported her while Edwards' backing remained strong at 34 percent. She picked up one-half of the black vote, drawing support from Gephardt, Vilsack and the "not sure" category.

[struggle4progress]

1. Edwards would be a great VP!

[Woodstock]

2. I would also like Edwards to be the one

Is the story about McCain being asked by Kerry true or false? Haven't had time to follow this story...

I don't want McCain, although I like him, he's not pro-choice, and earth to the DNC, he's not a Democrat! Can you imagine the Republican candidate wanting a Democratic VP? Why won't Democrats just be Democrats.

[struggle4progress]

32. I don't believe the story. It makes no sense. Somebody's pushing it.

The story surfaces. One or the other of McCain or Kerry denies it. A week or two passes. The story resurfaces. One or the other of McCain or Kerry denies it. Another week goes by. It's ba-a-ack. One or the other of McCain or Kerry denies it. And a week later ...

The story never has any real source attached. And it's always full of weasel words. Somebody is pushing this sick puppy hard. I think the intent is to discredit McCain among the Cons ("Oh, that traitor!") and to erode support for Kerry on the left ("Doesn't Kerry have any integrity?")

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. Shit, If These Poll Numbers Are True, I'll Root for Edwards, Too!

All I care about is picking a VP who boosts Kerry's chances against Bush the most. That swing between Kerry/Edwards and Kerry/Clark looks pretty big:

_Kerry-Edwards had 47 percent to 44 percent for Bush-Cheney.

_Bush-Cheney had 47 percent to 45 percent for Kerry-Gephardt.

_Bush-Cheney had 47 percent to 43 percent for Kerry-Vilsack and for Kerry-Clark.

As much as I love General Clark, and think he'd be a better choice for various reasons, if the numbers really are that way I think Kerry should go with Edwards.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

10. One Percentage Point IN ONE POLL Means Squat

and adding a VP pick, just about ANY VP pick, does the same thing.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

14. Read It Again, It's a Seven Point Swing (eom)

DTH

[KittyWampus]

18. Not In The GOP Match Up

can you find methodology listed?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Yes, Seven Points in the Matchup with the GOP

And again:

The AP-Ipsos poll of 788 registered voters was conducted Monday to Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For the responses of subgroups, it was slightly larger: 5 percentage points for Democrats, 5.5 percentage points for Republicans.

DTH

[AP]

16. From -4 to +3 in race this tight--it's pretty compelling.

And the other advanatage is that Edwards get's more votes the more you know about him, so you probably wouldn't be fooling yourself if you thought that that number can only get better as people learn more about the ticket. (Whereas, say, you add Clinton -- you probably are at your peak from the start.)

It's a very good starting point.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

23. I Agree

I've said all along I would have no problems with Edwards as VP. I think he'd be a strong one.

DTH

[Momof1]

4. This article was written by

Ron Fournier. There was a discussion earlier today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x546622

Here's the thread about the writer of the article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=546325

[DoveTurnedHawk]

5. So Fournier Spiked the Poll Numbers Now?

Come on.

DTH

[Momof1]

6. I just pointed out the threads

from earlier today and yesterday. I didn't say nothing about polling numbers.

But seriously Big Bird would be polling good today against *

[DoveTurnedHawk]

7. You're Implicitly Claiming Fournier Is Biased

Aren't you? My point is that the poll numbers weren't taken by Fournier.

DTH

[Momof1]

11. Do I think he is full of crap?

You betcha...

Distortion
March 18, 2004
Fournier's Amnesia

Via Atrios, we've spotted the Associated Press' Ron Fournier writing revisionist history about his own coverage of Al Gore's 2000 campaign.

Yesterday, in a story on truth vs. distortion thus far in the 2004 campaign, Fournier wrote: "Few of assertions are patently wrong; most reside in the murky gray area between correct and incorrect -- a rhetorical margin of error. Just as Bush convinced many Americans in 2000 that Democrat Al Gore fabricated his biography and record, Bush and Kerry hope to open a credibility gap."

A little research, however, points out that Bush had a little help in convincing some voters that Al Gore had fabricated his biography and record in 2000 -- from, among others, Ron Fournier.


http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000304.asp

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. Maybe So, But That Has Nothing to Do With the Poll Numbers

That was the most important part of the piece, for me.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

20. I AM OVERTLY CLAIMING THIS IS CRAP

where is the number of people polled and info about WHO was polled.

Sorry, the media has and is giving Edwards the same treatment as pre-Iowa Dean.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Christ, CS, Read the Piece

It's in there.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 788 registered voters was conducted Monday to Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For the responses of subgroups, it was slightly larger: 5 percentage points for Democrats, 5.5 percentage points for Republicans.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

26. Thanks

:loveya:

I obviously scanned WAY to fast. However, I DID take the time to try and find pertinent info on several threads about polls giving Edwards "good numbers". It is now a conditioned response.

It sickening how the media manipulates opinion. And they are doing so with Edwards.

Some people either actively support Edwards or have no problem with him as VP.

I have MAJOR concerns with him.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. I Get That

Some people have major concerns over our guy, too. It's never an easy thing, navigating the waters of the post-primary campaign season.

Oh well. I guess we'll see what Kerry decides, pretty soon, hopefully!

:toast:

DTH

[KittyWampus]

44. Funny, I'm Not Actively "Campaigning Or Plugging" For Clark As VP

and believe several other DU'ers suggestion that he'd make a great Security Adviser. :)

Then he could finally look forward to retiring after 4 or 8 years and work on becoming a golf pro! :D

[DoveTurnedHawk]

45. I Hope Kerry Puts Him SOMEWHERE in the Administration

VP, SecState, NSA, Homeland Security. Otherwise, it would be a complete waste of talent!

DTH

[AP]

8. Edwards's appeal hasn't diminished. In March he pulled about 40% overall

in the Southern Super Tuesday states. At 43% of registered dems and 36% of all reg'd voters nationwide, the passage of time (and his absence from the national media) hasn't made voters less fond.

Clearly there's something about this guy that voters like.

[KittyWampus]

22. Edward's "Appeal" Is Largely Media Driven & Reliant On Name Recognition

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. The Media Is the Media

We can rail against them all we want, and sometimes we can obtain results by doing so, but sometimes we have to deal with them the way they are and beat them at their own game.

I agree with you that Edwards has had very favorable media coverage. Maybe that's because he's handsome and charismatic, and has a populist appeal. Regardless, I certainly don't think it's fair to spin that against him as some kind of NEGATIVE.

In my book, any VP candidate who can get the media to fawn over him gets positive points.

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

34. I'm not so sure about that.

Edwards' appeal is the way he connects to voters. For my money, he was the best public speaker in the primaries, and I felt like I had more in common with him than with any of the other candidates.

He just didn't seem as hollow, or politically "conditioned" as some of the other candidates, to me.

I started off as an Edwards supporter, then switched to Clark, and back to Edwards. It was an interesting ride during the primaries, and I really had to struggle to make up my mind.

I can find something in each of our primary candidates that I didn't like; in fact, our nominee continues to rub me the wrong way. But that's just too damn bad, because I'm working for him and supporting him all the way.

Anyhow, I think Edwards' appeal is genuine, and not media-created. But that's just me. :D

[PurityOfEssence]

35. And how does this differ from elections in general?

Care to tell me that? Whether you like him or not, he consistently beats the tar out of any other possible opponent. These polls have him beating Clark by more than 20 points. You need to look at what's gotten the media behind him: it's him.

Yep, those fish only swim well in water, what's that got to do with their value as fish? Um...I don't know...the water part?

The same criteria people use to decide for voting are the ones they use for polling--which is a form of voting, by the way.

As for the name recognition part, he struggled in the back of the pack for a long time before breaking out, and he did it on policy and personal appeal. Maybe he's got a bit of name recognition now, but that's just icing on the proverbial cake; his real strengths are his personality, his rhetorical skills, his life story, his voting record and his extreme intelligence. The cruel and misleading media are hardly ginning up this thing, he's got genuine appeal.

If Reagan's elections didn't teach you anything, then Clinton's should have: charisma matters. This guys got more of it than any of the others. He's also got level-headed and workable solutions to problems, and more than anything else, he's a statesman. He's not going to make flubs based on ignorance or bad temper, and he's approachable. Heads of state, educated elitist snobs and backwoods yahoos all feel some affinity for this guy; that's magic.

Your post may have some truth at its core, but those two issues don't just spring from good PR, this guy's repeatedly shown that he improves in peoples' minds as they see him. He's a media darling, and it's not just because of his looks. Exposure just improves peoples' opinion of him, and that can't be said for the other choices for VP or either of the two criminals on the other ticket.

The heart of your argument is that he's just a creation of PR, and that only "name recognition" keeps the momentum going. That's just nuts. He was never the darling of the media until he started doing well in the Primaries. He took them by surprise in Iowa, and as he picked up steam as the others floundered, he started to turn their heads. They liked what they saw, and because of that, he got some decent press. His popularity is because of him, though, not because he's some manufactured front-man.

Out of adversity, this guy pops to the surface like a cork, and that's the kind of personal buoyancy that wins elections. Why scorn this? He wins on the facile "gee he's cute" level, on the iconic "I can make it too" level, on the "I feel safe with him" level, the "gosh, that makes sense" level and passes muster no matter what scrutiny he undergoes. He also fought a very decent campaign, even when being virulently targeted with lies. He has poise and finesse unlike any of the other candidates, and this is not to be sneezed at. Why throw this away?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. Good Post (eom)

DTH

[sendero]

39. I have no particular problem..

... with Edwards, personally having seen him and Clark in interviews and speeches - I think Clark blows him away - but I'll admit that Edwards' Southern roots cannot hurt the campaign.

That said, polls can be made to say whatever you want them to say, everyone knows that so the only real question is "did the pollster have an agenda?". Because if the pollster has an agenda you can wipe your backside will the results, that is all they are good for.

[Doosh]

9. but...but..what about the internet MSNBC poll the Clarkies freeped?

surely that has to count for something :eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

13. Why So Bitter?

Who cares about any of that shit? Kerry will make his choice on his own.

DTH

[KittyWampus]

15. How Many People Were Polled, I Looked For Info

about methodology but could find none.

Thus, this is meaningless and AFAIC, QUESTIONABLE.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

17. Here

The AP-Ipsos poll of 788 registered voters was conducted Monday to Wednesday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. For the responses of subgroups, it was slightly larger: 5 percentage points for Democrats, 5.5 percentage points for Republicans.

Just because a poll doesn't say what you want it to say, that does not automatically make it questionable.

Yes, it's just one poll. But it's an interesting piece of data, nevertheless.

DTH

[Spazito]

19. Does anyone have the poll numbers ...

from 1992 when Clinton chose Gore? from 2000 when Gore chose Lieberman? They would be of value to see whether the polls were able to predict the eventual VP winner, imo.

Edited to add: Found a Zogby poll for Gore's VP in 2000:

March 29, 2000 | Preferences for vice president among Democrats (Zogby March 15-17):


Bill Bradley, 23 percent
George Mitchell, 13 percent
Barbara Boxer, 8 percent
Tom Daschle, 6 percent
Bob Graham, 6 percent
John Breaux, 5 percent
Evan Bayh, 4 percent
Other, 8 percent
Not sure, 27 percent

Link:

http://archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/03/29/vppolls/

Will see if I can find a 1992 one for Clinton, will update if so.

[AP]

27. Bradley was the only other person in the race and at the end of March he

was only pulling 23% with more undecided. That's interesting.

It's June and the race has been decied for 3 months, and Edwards is pulling twice Bradley's March 29 number, with fewer undecided (no?). Interesting.

I bet none of these candidates made a 7 pt swing difference in Gore v Bush numbers.

[Spazito]

33. But note, none of those in the poll were actually chosen...

Lieberman wasn't even on the radar screen which tells me that popularity polls don't seem to choose the VP position but I would still like to see where Gore placed during the polling of possible VP candidates for Clinton in 1992 before I can be totally sure.

[AP]

41. By June 11, '00, Lieberman might have polled just as well as any of those

other Dems.

I bet Bradley wasn't polling at 23% by June.

[SouthALdem]

25. Fellow Edwards fan here too!

I think if Kerry picks Edwards,it might just give the Kerry campaign some steam down here in the South. The buzz out of everyone's mouth is how much they would love to see Edwards as VP. Might entice more young voters to get out and vote as well. Of course, these are just opinions from a layperson but I think there is definitely a possible for some of these so called hardcore Southern Bush states to swing a bit the other way. Georgie Porgie better not start thinking he's got this in the bag (or maybe he should and then we can take it from him like taking candy from a baby!) Oh wait, he is baby.

[Melodybe]

40. I agree Edwards is very well liked here in MS

Though, I like Clark, Edwards is the one.

He is handsome, will make Cheney look like Darth Vader during the debates, he is a great stumper and his "Son of a mill worker" speech actually resonates with people.

Edwards is our best choice and Kerry/Edwards IS our strongest ticket.

[JI7]

30. what this says is the vp wont really matter much

in terms of winning the election. and that whether the democratic ticket wins or loses will be based on kerry.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

31. Huh?

The poll indicates that choice of VP can result in up to a seven-point swing, which is just about outside the margin-of-error for the poll.

That's pretty damn significant, to me!

DTH

[Lex]

37. If Kerry doesn't pick Edwards & ends up losing

everyone will blame Kerry big-time for his decision not to pick Edwards. They will say that is what lost it for him.

Kerry is pretty much going to have to pick Edwards in order to keep the above scenario from happening.

[struggle4progress]

38. Not much has changed in the last four months ...

Posted 2/29/2004
Poll: Kerry/Edwards ticket leads Bush/Cheney

Both Kerry and Edwards are basically tied with Bush in head-to-head matchups in a CBS News poll released this weekend. But when Kerry-Edwards are matched against Republican Bush-Cheney, the Democrats lead 50% to 42%. None of the hypothetical matchups included independent candidate Ralph Nader.
When CBS' Dan Rather asked Kerry and Edwards during a debate Sunday in New York about the possibility of joining forces on a Democratic ticket, both said such talk was premature.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-29-kerry-edwards-poll_x.htm


March 08, 2004

A new USA Today/Gallup/CNN poll has Kerry ahead of Bush and Democratic voters preferring Edwards for Kerry's VP slot.

Edwards, the North Carolina senator who dropped out of the presidential race last week, was the choice of 30 percent of voters who are Democrats or lean Democratic, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/005578.html

[stickdog]

42. Dean wasn't even in the poll.

Thanks for the consistent treatment, AP.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

43. I Think Only People Being "Vetted" by Kerry Were in the Poll

Edwards, Clark, Gephardt, Vilsack.

Are there any others?

DTH

[stickdog]

46. How about Hillary Clinton? (nt)

[DoveTurnedHawk]

47. Good Point

She's always been the media's favorite stalking horse.

Although didn't Dean himself say he wouldn't be VP, due to the regional issue?

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

48. Silly, semi off-topic question.

I've never completely understood the meaning of the political term "stalking horse."

Clear it up for me? :-)

Thanks, and yes, I'm embarrassed to admit it,
JenJen

[DoveTurnedHawk]

49. My Understanding

I think it's a takeoff on "Dark Horse," a longshot possibility, except it's one that's not even officially declared. Kind of like a Dark Horse that's out there lurking in the background.

On Edit: It appears that I was wrong. :-)

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

DTH

[VolcanoJen]

51. Thanks, Denny!

Bet you hate it when I call you "Denny," eh? Still... a cool shortened nickname!

Wicked-cool website, too... I've seen it referenced here before, but I don't think I've ever clicked-and-read. I've got a rare Saturday night off, and I'm diving in! Thanks, buddy!

:loveya:
JenJen

[Doosh]

50. maybe she is being vetted

heck, we probably only know half of what's going on.

[Kukesa]

52. Kick! n/t

[wjsander]

53. Put Edwards on the ticket already!

Jeez, how many polls does Edwards have to win for Kerry to see that this is THE guy that is going to help him win?

[Doosh]

54. he wants to keep people guessing

I think the Edwards decision was made a while ago, and Kerry is just waiting for the right moment.

[Carolab]

55. Flip-flopper if he does....

I seem to recall Edwards insisting in the primaries that he would not accept VP.

Don't like him. He back-stabbed Dean in Iowa. Don't trust him. Voted the wrong way. Just a pretty boy with that phony "mah daddy" speech. Ick.