Will Edwards fall out of the top three in the polls by January 2008...?

[SaveElmer]

Poll question: Will Edwards fall out of the top three in the polls by January 2008...?

Latest polls show further erosion in his support, in New Hampshire he can only manage a tie with a man not running(Gore), and Richardson is breathing down his neck (only two back). Hillary is within the MoE of him in North Carolina, and isn't making any headway in national polls. Meanwhile Richardson's support is showing signs of picking up, he is within 4 of Edwards in Texas for example...

Looks to me like it will be a Hillary, Obama, Richardson race by January...

[rinsd]

1. I think the 2nd Q fundraising numbers will be a factor.

Edwards made a big push for a large amount of donors doing small donations this quarter in addition to his regular fundraising.

Now if Richardson does as well as Edwards in fundraising, youy will see news reports about Edwards flagging camapign and Richardson's rising star though on a lesser scale than when Obama euqalled Hillary in the 1st Q.

After that there are few big moments for candidates to seize upon, though I bet Edwards, in a completely hypocritical move, bashes Obama for his non vote in the Gonzalez move.

[venable]

27. why would that criticism by hypocritical???

Edwards has been calling for Gonzalez' head since the DOJ thing started.

[abburdlen]

54. Once upon a time

Edwards was a Senator running for President and he missed a few votes as well.

[snowbear]

2. I think Edwards will be in the race long after Clinton has bagged her run..

The early frontrunner generally caves after Iowa, NH, and SC when we're reminded that early polls mean zip.

But dayum.. you sure like polls Elmer..

[SaveElmer]

5. I like political news...

And polls are big political news...

And given there is a significant contingent here at DU who advocate basing our decision on who to support based on polling...it seems perfectly relevant...

[snowbear]

7. Oh bull hockey Elmer. You're giving DU'ers ZERO credit.....

"there is a significant contingent here at DU who advocate basing our decision on who to support based on polling"

In my time on DU anyway... I have never seen a time when DU'ers are swayed to a particular candidate because Rasmussen, Gallup or Zogby!

Remember when Lieberman was the top dawg in the national polls? The gang here was in pretty much in shock and disbelief. (And that's long before he was even despised) Same thing during Gep's brief stint at the top. I'll bet we could've counted the Joe or Gep supporters on one hand.

Polls didn't mean diddly squat then, and I'll bet they mean very little in selecting a candidate (at this time) right now.

Just because you hear someone on here say in a disgruntled manner: ..... "it doesn't matter, they're going to win anyway" doesn't mean they plan on supporting that person.

It's June. It's summertime.. and there's only one thing driving the polls: Name Recognition.

[SaveElmer]

9. Larissa...

You and I must not be inhabiting the same thread space...there is a thread on the front page of GD:Politics right now by one of the prime advocates of that approach!

[snowbear]

13. Oh good grief...

If this is "top page" stuff.. we're in serious trouble...

[thethinker]

3. No

Edwards did a lot better in the last presidential election than anyone expected him to. He is especially good at making speeches that the public relates to. If he does a lot of campaigning in person he will survive. He is very good at getting his message out.

We have a long time to go before we see the vote. Many things will change between now and then.

[tammywammy]

4. Richardson

can get a lot of support. I can envision Edwards falling out of the top three. But I'm not will to bet on who exactly will hold the number 3 spot. :)

I have a few friends that are big Richardson supporters.

[monkeyhq]

19. I can see this as well.

The fact of the matter is that Richardson and Biden are far more "qualified" than Edwards to actually be president. In fact, on paper, Richardson is the MOST qualified of all the contenders. I can easily see a swap for the #3 spot with Edwards falling and Richardson (or possibly Biden) rising. It doesn't mean I think either of them actually have a shot to win the deal (at this point), but I do see the momentum shifting towards Richardson and the tide quickly ebbing away from Edwards. In my opinion, this is a good thing. I do believe JE would be spanked senseless by the GOP nominee.

I am hoping a hero enters the race who is a sure shot to beat the GOP nominee. Sadly, I hear no horses rounding the bend.

[calteacherguy]

6. Hard to say, but he's definitely not going to be the nominee, imo.

There are a variety of reasons I just don't see it happening for him.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager a lot against an Edwards win.

Edit: Does anyone know if it's possible to bet on this with the Vegas oddsmakers or whatever? I wonder what the *odds* are now for the various candidates.

[Yukari Yakumo]

41. What I could find...

Hillary: 2-1
Obama: 7-2

Giuliani: 3-1
McCain: 5-1
Romney: 8-1
Ron Paul: 15-1

Couldn't find anything on Edwards.
-

Source: http://www.gambling911.com/

[Awsi Dooger]

43. You can't wager on politics in Nevada

That's what made Jim Lampley's claim so hysterical on Huffingtonpost a couple of years ago. He said he checked Las Vegas sportsbook odds in mid-afternoon of election day and Kerry was a big favorite based on exit polls. I like Lampley quite a bit but that one was a pure invention. You can't even wager on sporting elections like the Heisman Trophy or MVP awards. It has to be something decided on the field of play.

However, there are offshore sites that offer political betting. You wouldn't get anywhere wagering against Edwards. The odds would be prohibitive. They would make you give 15/1, or thereabouts, that he doesn't win the nomination.

They don't have two-way wagering. In other words, you can only bet someone WILL be the nominee, or president, not someone WON'T be. Some offshore site might offer a NO option down the line when the situation is more clear, but not now.

For reference purposes, here's a link to odds from politicalbetting.com:

http://politicalbetting.bestbetting.com/Default.aspx?market=14041317

Hillary is now an odds-on favorite to be the nominee. She is quoted at 91/100, which means bet 100 to win 91. Obama is next at 3/1, followed by Gore at 11/2. Edwards is 10/1 and Richardson way down at 25/1.

So the theoretical gap between Hillary and Edwards is significantly less than the gap between Edwards and Richardson. That's real world. There are a few posters on this site who have an obsession with knocking Edwards and boosting Richardson. As I've said before, I just wish they made the betting odds. The biggest problem would be not to laugh.

[OHdem10]

8. Here is one thing to keep in mind

Richardson is favored by Media .

Edwards is not favored by Media

[calteacherguy]

10. Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Richarson gets hardly any media attention at all.

[SaveElmer]

15. That is definitely true, which makes his gains more impressive...

He must be running a good campaign in some of these places given he gets almost no media coverage, and he has generally sucked in the debates so far...

[calteacherguy]

18. I am underwhelmed by Richardson.

I looked at him for awhile; he does have an impressive resume. But there are various things I don't like about him. I think he is using Iraq for his own political gain and pandering to the base much like Edwards does, and I don't like his statements on immigration. The MTP interview was a castastrophe. He's off my list, and is definitely not going to be the next President of the U.S., imo.

Unfortunately, we are left with Obama and Clinton, both of which have serious shortcomings as candidates despite their individual strengths.

It's going to be hard for a Democrat to win in 08'.

[SaveElmer]

24. I am impressed by Richardson...

But not by his performance so far. But he does have some cash to play with, he is a smart guy, and like is often pointed out, it is early. Right now I have him as my second choice, but need to see him improve his communication skills as we go along...

[calteacherguy]

28. When I said underwhelmed I was referring to his performance.

Which is the only thing that counts in a leadership role. I imagine you would like to see Richardson threaten Edwards and then Obama, because that would probably aid Clinton. He might move ahead of Edwards at some point, but he'll never overtake Obama.

He is not going to be the nominee. The only two that have a chance unless someone else gets in are Clinton and Obama.

[SaveElmer]

30. Well as much as I think Clinton will be the nominee...

I would never discount the possibility of something unexpected happening. RIchardson is certainly an outside shot at this point...but I wouldn't count him out quite yet...time is on his side at this point...

[calteacherguy]

34. You any I have different opinions of what is possible.

I don't think it's possible for anyone but Obama or Clinton to win unless someone else gets in the race with an outside shot.

Just a difference of opinion...and as a Clinton supporter, it would look bad for you to discount the other candidates. :-)

[BlueStater]

11. Here is something else to consider

Richardson was really pathetic in both debates he participated in.

[SaveElmer]

14. That's true...yet he is gaining ground...

He must be doing something right...he tightens up his debate performances, he could get even more formidable...

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I suspect that it's mostly Democrats looking for an alternative candidate

to Clinton who has a Presidential worthy resume. Richardson will crash if either Gore or Clark enter. If neither of them do, he has a long shot chance of winning.

[snowbear]

16. Kerry mopped the floor with Bush during all 3 debates....

And look who's ass is sitting in the Whitehouse.

[mnhtnbb]

31. If the Dems don't get rid of voting on machines controlled by Republican corporations

you will see the same result as 04.

[waiting for hope]

12. Edwards is doing better

than some of "these" polls are showing - here is the key factor:

Edwards Dominates Money Race in South
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

North Carolina's John Edwards says he's the only Democratic presidential candidate with any chance of winning the coveted South.

If early fundraising is any indication, he might be right.

Edwards placed a distant third behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama in first quarter fundraising, tallying $14 million compared to Clinton's $26 million and Obama's $25 million.

But in money raised in the South, Edwards was the leader. From Louisiana to the Carolinas, Edwards easily beat his Democratic rivals and — perhaps more importantly — raised more money than the top three Republican candidates combined.

The two New Yorkers considered front-runners in the 2008 race — Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani — fared particularly poorly in the region.

~Snip~

But experts said the money does provide early clues to the candidates' traction among the South's opinion shapers and political establishments, while also pointing out potential weaknesses.

~Snip~

"They see Edwards as the true Southerner and the one who can win," said Dent, who worked on former Georgia Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor's losing campaign for governor last year.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/politics/p121440D97.DTL&type=politics

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. If Clark or Gore enter the race, Yes. If not, No, but...

I believe that his polling numbers would at that point group him closer with a middle tier of candidates, including Richardson and Biden, than it will to the top two pollers, who if Gore and/or Clark are not in the race will continue to be Clinton and Obama. Richardson will get more negative attention also if his numbers continue to rise. It's not just a gravy train running one way only. So I serously doubt Richardson will actually pull ahead of Edwards in the polls by January. If Richardson wins Nevada, that could change then.

But January of a Presidential year is usually very volatile. Virtually anything can happan during those final weeks before the first votes are cast. That's part of why the current MEME that we already have a solid big three group of candidates that can not seriously be challanged is such a joke to me.

[monkeyhq]

20. I agree.

I think JE is on the downward spiral in public polling. I just don't think, in today's world, he comes off as able to keep the United States 'safe', and he doesn't really come off as experienced.

Hillary passed him in the latest Iowa polls. He no longer holds the lead. (ARG).

[waiting for hope]

26. Really? Just based on that one (??)

poll? I'd look into that one a bit more carefully:

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic caucus goers living in Iowa (461 Democrats and 139 no party (independent) voters).

Sample Dates: May 23-26, 2007

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-706.shtml

600 likely (???) Democratic caucus goers does not stand as a solid number to poll from to me.

[rinsd]

50. 600 is actually on the high side for a single state poll dealing with one party.

Most have been between 400 and 500.

Here is a fairly comprehensive list of state polls conducted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_2008_presidential_candidates

Simply scroll down to state polls and hit the link. I apologize for not having a direct but DU cuts links off when they are that long.

[monkeyhq]

51. National polls today also have Edwards losing about the same.

5 to 6 percentage points. WSJ poll and American Research Group polls, both out today.

[venable]

29. incorrect - Edwards still leads in Iowa.

There are a zillion polls all over the map.

they matter, because they register something, but it is all so fluid.

finally, Edwards will not only not fade, but will come on strong and get the nomination for a simple reason - his message, and his oratory.

[monkeyhq]

52. Cite your souce.

Here is mine:

www.americanresearchgroup.com

This is the most recent IOWA poll, unless you can site a later poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Edwards is the only candidate with a comphrensive anti-terror plan

The others--including Mr. 9/11, have not spelled out an actual strategy to defeat terrorism.

[calteacherguy]

40. He seems to think he can win by writing the most plans the fastest.

We don't elect either plans or speed typists, we elect leaders.

think about that one...

[monkeyhq]

53. I disagree.

A plan doesn't make him able to lead. Others in the race, and others who may get in the race, are far more qualified to draft and implement a plan.

I don't have a choice yet, but I know it will be someone qualified in all areas.

[frogcycle]

22. damn the op reads like calling a horse race

aaaaand rounding the first turn its clinton by a neck...

cant we just settle down and wait it out, for cripes sakes?

[illinoisprogressive]

23. With Edwards strong netroots support, I think it will be Obama, Edwards and Richardson

hillary has a real problem with likability and this will erode support over time.

[demokatgurrl]

47. I don't see it-

Hillary leads in most polls. Do you really think she's going to drop that much?

[polichick]

25. imo it'll depend on how Elizabeth is doing...

He won't be able to focus if she's not doing well ~ seems a little dazed at times even now. Bless them!

[mnhtnbb]

32. Not if Democrats have any sense. See link to Rasmussen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3311058&mesg_id=3312147

[w4rma]

33. Richardson is *definitely not* going anywhere. I can honestly with 100% assurance state that now. nt

[Czolgosz]

35. No, but If Gore runs (although I doubt he will) Hillary will fall to 4th in Iowa which will sting.

[LBJDemocrat]

36. Edwards will be the nominee

Sooner or later, the voters will find out that he's the only substantial candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Or they will be made to understand that Edwards is

The "conventional Wisdom" "electable" candidate who will go on to lose the General Election....again.

[LBJDemocrat]

45. Hahahahha. Right.

Because it happens so often that the most liberal candidate wins the nomination.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. A rising Richardson will hurt HRC

Why? Because they are both competing for the same type of voters. They are both primarily aiming for conservative DLC Democrats and those looking for an experienced candidate. HRC can match Richardson on DLCism but the latter poses a threat to her. Those voting based on experience may defect in large numbers to Richardson once they hear of his resume, which dwarfs that of anyone in the race or any possible candidate aside from Gore. If the choices are HRC, Obama, and Edwards, she is perceived as having an edge in experience. Throw Richardson in the mix, with concomitant media coverage that will put his resume on the table for voters, and suddenly HRC's biggest advantage aside from her last name vanishes.

Be careful what you wish for... ;)

[Yukari Yakumo]

42. Leaning "No" here.

I do see him losing momentum in Iowa, possibly losing the caucus there. I'd bet he'd drop out shortly after the New Hampshire primary.

[MasterDarkNinja]

44. I don't think so

I don't think Richardson can keep his gains, I wasn't that impressed with him when I saw him on meet the press a few weeks ago, and didn't think a lot of people were either.

For the moment Edwards is getting flack still over the hair cut thing, but people will stop caring about it eventually and it'll stop hurting him.

I think Edwards is still in the lead in Iowa, or at least tied with someone, I think that if anything Edwards could be a surprise winner in January 2008 if he manages to gain enough momtenum from the early states to carry him to victory in the primaries.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. Ask President Howard Dean...

In the spring of 2003, the Dean campaign was an insurgency. I still have a Dean placard that a supporter used as at a campaign event -- it was nailed to a stick, literally a tree branch. That's how rough and raw the campaign was back then. A cadre of hard-core supporters spread across the country and linked by the internet. By winter of 2003, it was nearly a done deal that the Dean campaign had captured the nomination, with the primaries being little more than a victory lap for a candidate who had shattered fund-raising records. At my county's nominating convention, everybody in the room wanted to be selected as the Dean delegate to the 2004 Democratic Convention. John Kerry? Who? But within eight weeks, the wheels fell off the Dean campaign, and the candidate who was (and still is) too stuffy and boring to be elected president received the Democratic Nomination.

My point here is that there's more than seven months until the first primary. In early September of 2003, John Kerry was trailing Howard Dean by 21 points in the New Hampshire primary. He eneded up defeating Dean by 13 points. That's a 34-point turnaround. If you're declaring victory today, you'll probably end up eating your words by next March.

[BlueStater]

48. He's down right now but far from out

The first primary isn't for another seven months. He has plenty of time to turn his campaign around before then.

[Radical Activist]

49. Realistically, this is a two way race between Obama and Edwards.

Hillary's celebrity and status will only carry her so far once people start voting. New Hampshire is the only early primary state Clinton has a chance at winning and that's not enough for the declared front-runner.