Edwards trails Bush in North Carolina, poll says

[Freddie Stubbs]

With U.S. Sen. John Edwards set to formally announce his presidential candidacy today, a poll finds that more North Carolinians now approve of his bid but that Edwards still would face an uphill battle in his home state to beat President Bush .

Fifty-three percent of Tar Heel voters approve of Edwards' decision to seek the presidency, while 40 percent disapprove, according to the poll commissioned by The News & Observer. It marks the first time since Edwards announced an "exploratory" bid in January that more voters in the state approve of his White House run than disapprove.

Edwards has yet to convince a majority of constituents that he should replace Bush.

If the general election were held today , Bush would beat Edwards in North Carolina 51 percent to 40 percent, according to the poll, conducted by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

more: http://www.news-observer.com/front/story/2874206p-2650275c.html

[Skwmom]

1. I don't think this reflects badly on Edwards

He comes from a very conservative state. I'm amazed he was even able to win his senate seat.

[surfermaw]

11. Edwards...won in the state one time...he will do it again

Repubblicans tend to vote as daddy did, even with dad in his grave for 50 years and usually straight republican... This time it may be different not many republicans like Bush eventhough they are slow to admit the fact...Bush has done every thing against what the conservative republican party beleives..Republicans here are very conservative concernig money...Bush isn't. They didn't think their Social Security could be taken...don't think they don't want if, just because the republican party has fought if since it was started..I think they are begining to think S.S. could be in danger. Many of them are working in low paying job, and have lost their jobs..the can't drive their Pick em Truck as much,since Bush Fuel is costing them a load. I personally think politics is changing in the Tar Heel State...EDward's knows this and he refused the Senate run in order for Bowles to take the seat...then he can be V.P., Attorney General amd or suprise every one as Clinton did an become the President in 2004.

[jos]

2. Clinton

was trailing Poppy Bush in Arkansas at this point in '91, so I wouldn't read that much into it.

[CMT]

3. this is a big improvement

over the 58-39 percent Bush lead of last Spring.

[AP]

4. I believe all the candidates trail Bush in home states.

at one point, I think Edwards was te closest, and the trend in this poll is in the right direction for Edwards.

Clinton was behind Bush Pere by a very wide margin in this poll until close to the election (after the primaries).

[dsc]

5. Lieberman was

he was statistically tied while most others were way behind. At this point I would think Dean, Kerry, Lieberman, and maybe Gephardt would be leading their home states given the national polls. The last state ones I saw were back when Bush had a 60% approval.

[CMT]

6. latest Missouri poll

last week put Gep about ten-points behind Bush in Missouri.

[dsc]

7. Wow

that is truely awful. He was around that far behind in what I saw. I sure hope I am right about the others. At this point we should be leading in places that Gore won big.

[AP]

8. No. I believe at this point, Clinton was 21 points behind Bush

Of course, Bush was a gulf war hero, but then again, the economy sucked.

If the candidates are running against each other, people aren't focused on matching them up with Bush. The Democrats are making no appeals to Republicans. All their arguments are aimed at Democrats.

When they start runninga against Bush, and start making their arguments to people other than likely Democratic primary voters, you'll see those numbers improve for the Democrats.

This is one of those statistics that nobody who knows anything expects to be any better than it is now, but people who want to spin refer to in an effort to make the Dems look bad.

[dsc]

9. You are leaving out Perot

who helped us greatly in 92. I think Clinton still would have won but not nearly the decisive EC win he had. Frankly we had better be leading in places like Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut at this point. I know we have time. But Bush is already below 50% reelect. He isn't going to fall much more than that. We can't count on another Perot.

[AP]

10. Clinton was the condorcet winner in '92. He beat

Perot in a head to head, and he beat Bush head to head.

I don't know what Perot's participation has to do with the fact that Clinton was 21 points behind Bush in a head to head before the primaries even started, and ended up being the winner of the race, and the condorcet winner viz Bush.

What's your argument?