Erskine Bowles cost John Edwards the Senate! And, I'm mad as Hell!

[KoKo]

It was the "Dem Party Machine" who forced John Edwards to give up his Senate seat to run for Vice-President. The NC Dem Party helped by DLC/DNC conspired to force Edwards OUT while not requiring John Kerry to give up his own Senate Seat to run for President.

Edwards would be there now...serving in Senate with Kerry if our National and State Party hadn't FORCED HIM OUT over that loser Erskine Bowles...

Here's two article that address some of the "behind the scenes" on this...but we Dems should be VERY ANGRY over this. NC got rid of Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth and had John Edwards "comfortable" in the Senate but the damned "insiders" made Edwards give it up his Senate Status so that a candidate who had already lost to Elizabeth Dole could run again and lose our second Dem Senate seat to a RW Fundie Bushie POS!

Erskine Bowles should be ashamed of himself and the DNC/DLC who forced Edwards out should be ashamed, too!
................................................................

Battle Is On for Edwards' Senate Seat

October 7, 2004 · A close battle is being waged in North Carolina to succeed Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate who gave up his seat to seek the presidency. Democrats have rallied behind Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former chief of staff. Republicans offer Rep. Richard Burr. NPR's Adam Hochberg reports.
-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=41...

T"The people have won"


February 23, 2005

OK, won what?

For starters, it'll be a long time before the Democrats nominate someone as conservative as Erskine Bowles again for a U.S. Senate seat without his even having to win a primary. Meek's election is all about building the party from the bottom up, precinct by precinct, instead of from the country club down. A strong grassroots party would hardly have accepted the wealthy but colorless Bowles, fresh from his '02 loss to Liddy Dole, without raising up some other, more progressive candidates for Democratic voters' consideration.

This was the point state Insurance Commissioner Jim Long seemed to be making when he placed Meek's name in nomination. Meek, a 34-year-old wunderkind, represents "fresh leadership and fresh ideas," said Long, the only elected state official who bucked Easley. And the main idea Meek represents, Long added, is that while money is important in winning elections, it's "more important to create strong networks of supporters at the precinct and local levels."

Long never mentioned Bowles, or Easley for that matter, but the alternative he had in mind was clear: Without local party networks, Democrats have to take what the country-club crowd gives them.

In addition to more candidates, grassroots organization promises to give Democrats a way to lift up more issues for public consumption, which should help those elected officials already sticking out their necks for progressive causes while pressuring the ones who don't. For example, Gov. Mike Easley, when he presents his 2005-06 budget this week, reportedly will propose keeping the sales-tax surcharge on ordinary folks while dumping the income-tax surcharge on the rich. A Democratic Party that takes seriously its platform-adoption process surely would've discussed whether state taxes are too progressive or regressive, presumably coming out in favor of the former.

Bowles has a reputation for being a nonideological and plain-speaking manager who is respected by members of both parties. He coordinated the White House response to the Oklahoma City bombing, and managed the return (and subsequent departure) of controversial adviser Dick Morris.

In recent comments to reporters, Bowles said, "I believe in working in a bipartisan manner. I believe in cooperating for the common good. And I believe in having an administration that has clearly defined goals, objectives and time lines such that it and its people can be held accountable."

Bowles, however, lacks the bipartisan trust enjoyed by Panetta, a former congressman. And, whereas Panetta is widely credited for an intricate knowledge of the budget process, Bowles is largely untested in that area. As a pro-business centrist with most of his experience outside Washington, Bowles seems poised for his own transition.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:VPK3aAs4yxUJ:www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/bowles/+Erskine+Bowles&hl=en

[robbedvoter]

1. geez! I remember the pride you all took in "he's risking it all" attitude

So, now it turns out it wasn't even up to him?

[KoKo]

8. Who is "you all"...confused by your post...

:shrug:

[dsc]

2. Maybe I am being obtuse here

but I don't see a word in either your post, nor the one article you linked (two times) which says one word about Edwards being forced to give up his Senate seat (incidently Edwards announced his not running for Senate before he announced his running for President).

[KoKo]

4. Here.....

Battle Is On for Edwards' Senate Seat

October 7, 2004 · A close battle is being waged in North Carolina to succeed Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate who gave up his seat to seek the presidency. Democrats have rallied behind Erskine Bowles, President Clinton's former chief of staff. Republicans offer Rep. Richard Burr. NPR's Adam Hochberg reports.
-http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4135119

---------------------------
AND
The presidential race could also harm the Democrat's chances in the Senate. Both John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida will need to decide whether they are truly running for president or whether they should keep their Senate seats. Even if Edwards gives up his futile run for the White House, he could face a difficult re-election campaign.

Republicans also think they can produce strong challengers in South Dakota and Nevada. With those six seats, the Republicans could get tantalizingly close to a filibuster-proof Senate.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vtZJFn_jWWsJ:www.upforanything.net/archives/000258.html+John+Edwards+gives+up+Senate+Seat&hl=en

[dsc]

28. Reply

First, only one link has to do with Edwards dropping out of the Senate race. That link is from a conservative source and also doesn't say what you are saying it does. It is the writers opinion that Edwards has to make up his mind he doesn't ascribe it to anyone.

[John_H]

41. You must have a dirtect line to the DLC since there is no evidence

in any of your posts that even hints that edwards was forced to give up his seat. <aybe you can start by explaining to us all how someone goes about forcing an independently wealthy, sitting US senator to give up his seat.

[zulchzulu]

7. You're not being obtuse

I have read and even heard indirectly from people in the upper echelon of the Kerry campaign that Edwards knew he was going to lose the seat for Senator and decided to run (and here's the meaty part) for President due to Elizabeth's prodding... like you said, he dropped out to run for President and when that didn't work out, he got the nod to run for VP...(which he didn't do such a great job delivering the South, imho)...

[Leilani]

16. Due to prodding

from Elizabeth?

That's very interesting.

I always thought she was the driving force of the two...she seemed more ambitious than her husband.

[FreedomAngel82]

15. And I thought

he said he was retiring from the Senate? :shrug: He's still doing a lot of good work out there as well with poverty issues. But I do understand.

[AP]

17. Edwards didn't anounce he wasn't running for his senate seat until after..

...the primaries started.

It was one of the early criticisms of him: he was huring the Dems because Bowles didn't know if he was running or not.

[hopein08]

3. I'm confused...

I thought that Edwards himself had made it relatively clear that he had started thinking about running in 2001. Or do you mean the fact that he announced early in the primaries that he wasn't going to run for the Senate again "because I believe I will be president"?

Which reminds me, I've been wondering...when exactly did Edwards decide not to run for re-election in the Senate (date)? Had he dropped out of the primaries yet?

Anyway, I'm sorry but I'm kind of confused although as I've typed this it is becoming somewhat clearer.

[KoKo]

6. See Post #4....n/t

[AP]

18. From memory, it was after the first debate

but before he dropped out of the primaries. So, sometime in early fall 03 but no later than mid-Feb 04

[ZootSuitGringo]

5. Jeeze,

Is this guy ever responsible for himself and the decisions that he makes? Losing the presidency was only John Kerry's fault according to Edwards supporters. Not counting every last vote was Kerry's fault; Edwards' hands were "tied". Now losing his Senate seat was Erskine Bowles' fault?

Look, we've already got one no account leader running this country. Oh wait, I spoke too soon, because now I remember. Edwards did take credit for voting for that war all by his losesome, I think.

Anyhow, I hope that Edwards just chills for a while and takes control of his own life back.

And by the way, I am confused. Is it One America or is it Two America? It keeps changing, and I don't know which one Edwards uses anymore.

[B0S0X87]

12. Whoa... you're right

Last I heard, Edwards was still making his "Two Americas" speech. And now I see his supporters with "One America for all of us" banners.

I confused.

[Dr.Phool]

9. Correct me if I'm wrong

And I don't think I am.

You can't run for 2 offices at the same time. Kerry kept his seat because he wasn't up for re-election. Edwards, and Grahams terms were up, and they could either run for the Senate or the presidency, not both. If either had dropped out of the presidential race, prior to the filing deadline in their state, they could have sought re-election to the Senate.

In Grahams case the qualifying date was in May (7th or 9th, I forget). He was way out of the race by then, but decided to either be VP or retire. I'm not sure about the dates in NC, but Edwards had the same option.

Dennis Kucinich dropped out of the presidential race, then filed to run for his congressional seat.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. Lieberman ran for re-election to the Senate in 2000

It is allowed.

[leyton]

21. It is allowed but rare.

Lieberman's seat was safe in Connecticut. Edwards could not simultaneously campaign for POTUS/VPOTUS and a contested Senate seat. It may be legal, but it would be impossible.

[pauliedee]

47. Kerry could run for both president and senate in 2008

I read that Kerry could legally run for both president and senate simultaneously in 2008. Therefore his seat would be safe. It's legal in Massachusetts. Please confirm if it's legal in all states.

[bowens43]

11. He wasn't forced out. He quit.

[Leilani]

13. Actually, Edwards is more at fault for the seat being lost

He decided to leave the Senate & run for Prez.

IF he had given up the seat, the governor could have appointed a Dem replacement, who would have been the incumbent.

Edwards was not going to win back his Senate seat, & knew it, but he selfishly held on to it, & completely disregarded his constituents, who didn't get any representation from him for several years.

And he's a phony; he keeps saying all he cares about is his wife's recovery, but he's been on the trail since right after the election.

And he keeps saying he respects Kerry & then proceeds to explain how he wouldn't have made the same mistakes.

[AP]

19. Actually, appointed incumbants have a very low success rates, IIRC.

In the archives here at DU is a news story about that issue. I remember reading it.

Incidentally, his wife really cares a great deal about America and seems to want her husband out talking about progressive issues. There's nothing phony about that.

He's also been incredibly fair in talking about the election, if you ask me. He doesn't criticize Kerry and he still manages to identify some obvious weaknesses in the Democrat's strategy.

He has said that disagreed with not responding to the Smear Boat Vets immediately and that he thought that values should have played a greater roll in the campaign. Both are extremely fair comments.

[hopein08]

33. I hate to admit it, but I agree with part of what you said...

You said..."And he's a phony; he keeps saying all he cares about is his wife's recovery, but he's been on the trail since right after the election."

As you can probably tell by my avatar and my banner, I completely support John Edwards for office of any sort. But with all the news of his visiting this city and that state over the next month or so, I can't help but agree that the line about being with Elizabeth and getting her strong is getting awfully hard to believe. Although, I don't doubt that she's supporting him on making those trips...I just think he needs to get a new, less phony line.

[pauliedee]

48. Edwards hurt Kerry campaign

Edwards hurt Kerry campaign bigtime. Initially I thought Edwards was the best choice. But, he hurt our chances in the south more than helped with sheer stupidity. Several times while campaigning in the south, Edwards bypassed large groups of people waiting to shake hands with him when he was in their town. No waiting hands should ever go untouched especially in Arkansas where we could have won.

Another time, he went to a restaurant to eat with his family, but instead of eating with the other patrons and asking for votes, they cordoned off a section for he and his family to eat. This caused people to swear to vote against him and the local media also had a field day with it.

I hope Kerry wins the primary again in 2008 and chooses a better VP candidate.

[ISUGRADIA]

14. You're way off here, dude...totally wrong

"the "Dem Party Machine" who forced John Edwards to give up his Senate seat to run for Vice-President."

FACT Edwards decided not to run for reelection long before he was picked for VP, in fact it was in mid-2003. Polls showed it was an iffy race so he went full force for the presidential race . The ""Dem Party Machine" didn't force Edwards give up a race to become the VP candidate; he had already abandoned almost a year earlier.

ON EDIT: I found that Edwards announced in Sept 2003 that he would not run for reelection to the US Senate.

http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=1040

[AP]

20. In Sep '03 he was polling really welll in NC. It's a myth that he would

have lost his Senate race.

If he was VP, there's a small chance he might have lost simply because Kerry's message didn't resonate with NC'ians. He might have lost for the same reason, say, Tony Knowles lost in AK -- because the president was running on themes that were incompatible with the themes the Democrats running for senate were running on.

However, if Edwards had been running for his Senate seat, he almost definitely would have won it, and he certainly had nothing to lose by running for it. The decision not to run for it was definitely for other reasons.

[ISUGRADIA]

25. Polls I saw had him at high 40s and Burr at high 30s

before he decided not to run, bad signs for an incumbent against an opponent who had a high unfamiliarity % at that time. I also think his favorable/unfavorable ratings were not good either.

Could he have won a race, possibly. But his Senate absences surely would have been an issue in a Senate race in a closely divided state like NC. And staying into the presidential race as late as he did would have been a negative too.

He had a lot of baggage going into a reelection race, but I will agree he would have been a better campaigner than Bowles and it would have been closer. Edwards has charisma.

[AP]

30. The last polls in the Raleigh N&O had has approval rating over 50

with Republicans!

Seriously, his polling was great. Even the N&O had to admit it. It totally killed all the crticism that he wasn't going to win...until months later when people hoped that nobody remembered the polls.

[Awsi Dooger]

27. Edwards definitely would have been re-elected if he ran for Senate only

Burr was a below average candidate who won only because it's a red state and Bowles was a pathetic candidate who was successfully tied to the Clinton era late in the campaign. Even at that, it was relatively close.

Edwards would have defeated Burr by a small to moderate margin. He has the winner's personna and charisma while Bowles was already branded a loser in 2002 and, of course, looks remarkably goofy. On election day, Edwards had a good favorable/unfavorable number among North Carolina voters, even while they were preferring Bush to Kerry by something like 11 points. I forget Edwards' exact favorable number, but it was considerably above 50%.

If someone wants to assert an incumbent senator with Edwards' appeal, appearance and fundraising ability would have been ousted, please start betting sports and let me book all your action. Like Klink, you know nothing.

[leyton]

34. Bowles also polled with a ten point lead over Burr in summer of 04.

Yet he didn't win... so how does an incumbent polling somewhat above an unknown challenger but not winning in a landslide translate to certain victory? Edwards would have lost - he only won his first election by a squeaker, and in a year that was kind to Democrats no less. It's a seat that was probably going to turn over anyway because of Presidential coattails. And finally Edwards entered the race for POTUS in January 2003, so he was going to be accused of ignoring his home state, which would have been a reasonable accusation. No, Edwards would not have won in 2004.

[AP]

35. Bowles isn't half the candidate Edwards is. Edwards has never gone down in

polls. In '98 he started low and finished high. He was down 10% with a week to go until Bowles started running ads about Edwards's trial lawyer career. Edwards shot up in the polls because people finally learned who he was.

In 2004 Edwards started low and finished high. He was averaging 4-10% in national polls throughout '03. In the last three or four days of EVERY primary, he went up exponentially.

Edwards has never gone backwards.

The only way Edwards could have lost NC had he run is if Kerry ran a national campaign on issues which NC Democrats did not like (which is what happened to, for example, Bowles in AK). Had Edwards not been on the ticket, he could have won NC. About that, I have no doubt. On the ticket, it would have been close, but I'd put my money on a win.

[leyton]

36. There's a difference.

First of all, you cite only two races. That's hardly a law of a nature. Also, Edwards was not the incumbent in either race. However, in the 2004 race, he would have been the incumbent, and in was not in a particularly strong position.

[AP]

44. I'll stake my argument entirely on 2008.

I'm willing to let 2008 prove his popularity in NC. And I'll make no excuses if he loses. But if if he wins NC, you will here me say that every piece of evidence available as far back as 2004 proved that he was going to do well in NC.

[tritsofme]

50. What is he running for in NC in 2008?

The presidential primary?

If he's in the race, the NC primary would be virtually uncontested.

[AP]

51. Presidential Primary. General Election. Whatever you got.

The argument here is, "he couldn't win NC."

I say he will.

[pauliedee]

52. Edwards made dumb mistake that hurt party

Edwards made dumb mistake. He would have won his senate seat if he didn't run for president. He had NO chance of winning prez race as a one term senator. He could have then maybe been chosen for VP and the seat would still be democratic. BTW, Governor "Zell" Easley is a sleazball who abandones the dems when they campaign in his state.

Howard Dean needs to straighten him out.

[depakid]

22. Well, the Dems were STUPID to pick Bowles

and I mean just plum southern STUPID.

Let's see- a Clintonista, investment banker and MAJOR NAFTA advocate.

Hard to imagine a worse candidate for a state where entire towns are falling into ruin over mill closures....

It's almost as if the DLC Dems just want to lose.

[KoKo]

39. I have to agree with you here...and donated to him...and went to his

"businesse" meetings. He loses and then comes back ...but instead of the "business appeal" he does some "Fundie Music Grand Ole Opry Roadshow" in his last attempt to run for Senator.

The last function I attended for Erskine had "Country & Western" blaring from the speakers and I would have figured a "Choir of Evangelists" was going to come out and sing "PRAISE JESUS...ERSKINE IS RUNNING AGAIN!!!"

I was so turned off with Erskine's "Second Coming" that it nauseated me..but I voted for him...and in Wake County he Lost" where he should have WON....but none of these f**king people here in NC want to RECOUNT THE VOTE!! Erskine rolled over and died..and we have Burr as a Senator along with Dole...which means no matter how many times I FAX them they will never answer...and we LOST our ONE DEM SENTOR EDWARDS...because of all this Political SHIT!

This has me breaking out in hives and angry as hell...that we were played by Erskine to GO DOWN A SECOND TIME! in the meantime losing our only Dem Senator Edwards...who was pretty useless to us NC Activits but at least we could let him know what we think through "E-Mails, Phone and Fax." Now...because of "ERSKINE" we Dems are left out...Liddy Dole and Richard Burr could care less about the 50% of NC'linians who hate their guts...Like, YEAH...they are gonna' care if we "contact" them.

But...you know what...Edwards didn't care much about answering his "constituents who gave money and "shoe leather" to support his Senatorial run, either...so I guess it's a "draw." Repug switcheroo so Edwards could run with Kerry and that idiot Bowles throws his "hat in the ring" figuring we were still "DLC DEMS" and we LOSE AGAIN!!!!!

:puke:

[pauliedee]

53. Clintons hurt the Democratic party

He was a Clintonista. They are hurting our party. It's time to move past the Clintons.

[DaveinMD]

23. Edwards didn't run

because his approval ratings were slipping and it was likely a presidential primary campaign where he ran to the left would cost him his seat in RED North Carolina.

[WI_DEM]

24. I don't think there is a law in NC which would allow him to run

for re-election to the Senate if he were seeking another office at the same time. So, he had to choose and being ambitious he decided to seek the presidency.

[ISUGRADIA]

26. NC law would allow him to run for both potential if he had taken that path

"Although North Carolina law would have allowed him to simultaneously run for re-election and for president, only the strongest and most popular of candidates can pull off that maneuver without paying a steep political price. "

I found that in a Charlie Cook archive through google.

[trillian]

29. Edwards DID NOT give up his seat to run for Prez!

In fact he refused to give up his seat and it cost us, big time

If he had given up his seat. Erskin Bowles would have been appointed to fill out his term and he would have had a boost in his run for the Senate.

Edwards stared his run for Prez two years into his six year term. He abandoned the people of NC by spending most of his time on the campaign trail, missing votes and then refused to turn over his seat to someone who would have been a full time senator.

[AP]

31. Do you know what the success rate for appointed incumbents is?

When people were arguing that Edwards should drop out, there was an article posted here at DU which showed that appointed incumbents have lower than a 50:50 chance of winning. IIRC, it was much lower than 50:50. The theory was that it really messes with your ability to campaign much worse than if you're already senator, and that it has very little of the upside of incumbency (track record, networks, etc).

What is the motivation of Democrats who are willing to make things up and are inclined to believe the worst of other Democrats who are clearly progressive and capable of winning nationwide elections?

[dad]

43. Thank you, TRILLIAN!

Edwards fucking sucked for the people of NC. He campaigned for Prez right from the get-go. He voted for the war and helped draft the goddam Patriot Act. And he would have LOST if he had run for re-election to the Senate. That is just a fact. Hugely disappointing politician. I hope we never hear from his overly-ambitious ass again.

[berniew1]

32. But a major problem in N. Carolina senate race was fraud & manipulation

Its likely no Democrat could have won there given the amount of fraud and manipulation of the election results in North Carolina, similar to most swing states.
http://www.flcv.com/ussumall.html

[dsc]

37. I think Edwards would have lost

I don't know for sure admittedly but several people down here were very upset over what they saw as Edwards' abadoning his job to seek higher office. It is possible that if Edwards had run just for the Senate his personal charisma would have pulled it out, but I honestly doubt it.

[fujiyama]

38. I don't think he would have kept it

either.

First off, he didn't add much to NC. Kerry lost it by about the same margin Gore lost it by.

Also, Bowles himself lost it by 5 points, about the same margin he lost to Dole. I think we have to simply admit, we have a large problem getting Dems elected to the federal level in southern states...and it's not going away anytime.

[AP]

45. Jan 10, 2004: "Edwards's NC support up {to 55%}" - Raleigh News & Observer

January 10, 2004   Democrats in North Carolina are far more accepting of Sen. John Edwards' presidential bid, but he has made no progress convincing home-state Republicans that he should replace President Bush, according to a new poll commissioned by The News & Observer. The poll, taken less than two weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, found that a majority of North Carolinians -- 55 percent -- approve of Edwards' White House bid, compared with 39 percent when he launched his candidacy a year ago.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/polls / (that was the old link, which no longer works -- it was in post 51 here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=319043#319912)

Edwards was on the upswing in NC.

 

[AP]

46. "93% of NC Democrats approve of Edwards Run" circa Feb 04

93% of NC'ians approve of Edward's run.

http://www.newsobserver.com/edwards/polls/story/3207866...

The link doesn't work -- it was posted here originally: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=345633#345794

I'm not sure if it was the from the same article or a later article.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[ArtVandaley]

42. Edwards left his seat while he was still running for president

It happened before he got the VP spot on the ticket. He could've stayed in the race, but he was sure he'd become president so he dropped out.

[pauliedee]

49. Edwards ignored voters / hurt campain

Edwards hurt Kerry campaign bigtime. Initially I thought Edwards was the best choice. But, he hurt our chances in the south more than helped with sheer stupidity. Several times while campaigning in the south, Edwards bypassed large groups of people waiting to shake hands with him when he was in their town. No waiting hands should ever go untouched especially in Arkansas where we could have won.

Another time, he went to a restaurant to eat with his family, but instead of eating with the other patrons and asking for votes, they cordoned off a section for he and his family to eat. This caused people to swear to vote against him and the local media also had a field day with it.

I hope Kerry wins the primary again in 2008 and chooses a better VP candidate.

[AP]

54. His train passed a crown in MO...

...in the middle of the night. Elizabeth Edwards saw it happen, she made the campaign go back to that town later, and even more people showed up for the second event.

Also, see posts 45 and 46 and check the exit polls on who Dems wanted on the ticket as VP. Then go read the Stanford/UT/PBS Deliberative Poll. All that should settle the question of who was the best VP pick.

And your first two paragraphs are the first time I've ever heard those stories, and I didn't miss much during the campaign. (The Kerry-Edwards campaign barely campaigned outside the swing states, so I'd be surprised if there "several times {that he} campaigned in the south" that would have given him the opportunity to do those things. They sound like the inventions of right wing newspaper editors. Got links?