John Edwards gets a 9% boost in the polls?!

[BluegrassDem]

I saw Russert talking about that on Today. Apparently, all the media coverage of Elizabeth's cancer has given his campaign a boost in the polls. I'm not sure which poll though and it's kinda higher than I would've guessed.

[Merlot]

1. I don't think it's the coverage of Elizabeths cancer that is giving the boost

IMO it's the way they (the Edwardses) are handling the situation. Showing true "grace under pressure."

[Frances]

2. Could it be the anti-Katie Couric vote?

[ElizabethDC]

5. Too true

though Edwards isn't my first choice for the nomination, he's becoming my solid second. I've always admired the Edwardses, and now I appreciate their commitment to public service even more.

[Bucky]

7. Well, yes and no. The whole issue has put him back in voters' minds.

Within a month the media will be back to ignoring him (and everyone else who isn't corporate approved).

[Learn2Swim]

11. I agree.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Yup. When you think about it, that may be all we have to count on

to pull this country out of the mess we're in and do it with substance and integrity. Reagan did it with showmanship, but no substance, therefore, it was just a very well created bubble.

But managing cancer is exactly what we have to do in this country. Not let it hinder us from doing what we would have been doing, otherwise.

I do have one caveat, and I'll probably post in one day or so, that it's Edward's goodness and strength of character we should be focusing on, and not her illness, because I fear that we're making cancer a sacred cow in this country. Once someone has it, suddenly we dummy up on any criticism, and I hate to tell you, folks, but there are some really bad people out there doing some really bad things and a few of them may end up getting cancer. What do you do then? Let them take off with the booty? What happens if that booty impacts on the future because it sets a bad legal precedent? This isn't conjecture for me. I know it has happened.

[Deja Q]

3. Logical. Remember when 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy' came out in theatres?

A British magazine, SFX, did a poll around the same time period. As a result, the HHGTTG franchise was bolstered a couple points more in their ratings than otherwise would have been.

The new 2005 Doctor Who series - some forums have respondents giving every single story a 5-out-of-5 rating and other polls about "Which Doctor is best?" had the NEWEST one as being the best. (this proves not only such people are thick as a milkshake, but anything new and recently marketed has a psychological influence on its audience.)

Therefore, the fact we have a sob story in the news, the related politician gets a boost. Not an intentional one under these circumstances, but in the psychology industry the same pattern repeats itself.

Whether or not his newfound ratings will stay is another matter.

[Bucky]

8. What a fucking obscure analogy! John Edwards as the new Dr Who?

Elizabeth Edwards as Zaphod? Your mind works in the wierdest damned ways, frogboy.

[Ninja Jordan]

4. Is Edwards becoming the #2 again?

[Mass]

6. No, Obama is clearly ahead in all the recent polls this week.

However, the fact that his name has been in the news in a positive manner made him more present in people's mind and therefore, in such an early stage, undecided, when pushed, will be more likely to give his name.

However, this poll is fairly unrealistic, with only 4 % of undecided people at this stage. I do not think that supporters of any candidate should take it too seriously.

[npincus]

9. it's the newTimes poll: an "Edwards surge"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1604469,00.html

http://www.srbi.com/time_poll_arc39.html

There are other interesting developments in the poll. John Edwards has surged among Democrats since he announced that his wife Elizabeth's cancer had recurred. In a three-way matchup, Clinton polls 38% among registered Democrats, versus 30% for Obama and 26% for Edwards. Edwards received just 17% in mid-March.

[Clarkie1]

10. That's what positive media coverage does....like magic. nt

[senseandsensibility]

12. Take that, Couric!

You phony fluffhead.

[sellitman]

13. He is the only candidate that it seems everyone here could support ..

if he won the primary. I am a Kucinich supporter waiting for Gore to throw his hat in the ring but if John Edwards wins the Primary I will have no problem actively supporting him. I can't say that about anyone else as of now.

[laugle]

18. I think you are right on target! nt

[DaveT]

14. Polls at this point in the election cycle

are almost meaningless.

The poor sap polltaking dweebs have to call people at home in an era when over two thirds of the population screen their calls. When the dialing system finally hooks them up with a live body, they catch someone who probably has not given much if any real thought to the Democratic Primary race.

At first, more people had heard of Hillary, so she was on top. Then, people in general heard a little bit about the tit for tats between her and Obama, getting Obama's name in the daily news -- and he moved ahead. I have no doubt that Obama is attracting some real support, but I don't think that correlates with his specific poll numbers.

Edwards has been in the news lately, getting the random polling call respondent a reason to think about him. Katie Couric's routine was so thoroughly obnoxious, I'm sure it helped boost Edwards in the minds of many.

So he gets the bump of the month.

It will mean nothing come next January.

[MethuenProgressive]

16. So... he's up to 9% now?

He's a nice person. She's a nice person.
But as a candidate, he's little more than Mike Dukakis.

[w4rma]

17. Edwards is building on top of that boost to 17%. His polls are only going to go up. (nt)

[mnhtnbb]

19. It's the Rasmussen polls. See the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3190608&mesg_id=3190608