Edwards is no more electable than any of the others

[cali]

I believe that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all electable, and it's absurd to be leaning heavily on a poll that indicates that Edwards beats the repuke candidates by a greater margin. Here's why:

Most people remember Edwards as a centrist/conservative dem with a sunny personality, not as the crusading progressive he's morphed into. The press, the RNC, 527s and his opponent will paint him as angry, far left, hypocritical and a flip flopper. The ads write themselves. If he gets the nomination, the picture the average voter has of him now, will be quite different. National polls now are pretty meaningless as far as forecasting the future.

He's got money problems. He's accepted public funding for the primaries. That season lasts until the Convention. And that means he'll have to rely on the DNC and 527's. Unfortunately, campaigns can't coordinate with those entities. That doesn't mean that the situation is deadly for him if he gets the nomination, but it's not great.

Edwards is electable, but he's not more electable than Obama. And I'm not sure, given the circumstances, that he's even more electable than Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

1. Let's just see what happens.

From your post, I would say you are a worried Clinton supporter. Clinton has been bought and sold by the same folks that own the Bushies. I'm working for Edwards. We will see if people power can beat corporate power. Whether it does or does not today, you can count on it, as long as human kind exists, there will be another day. Just hold your horses on this one.

I would like to point out that Clinton's big problem is her negatives. More voters state NOW that they would never, ever vote for Hillary than for any other candidate. So Hillary starts out with a huge minus in her column of potential voters, a minus that no other candidate has at this point.

A lot of Hillary fans complain about the Hillary bashing here on DU. They ain't seen nothin' yet. The Hillary bashing on the Republican side is very likely to drown out Hillary's campaign, regardless of how much money she has. Much of the bashing is a response to Hillary's personality.

Edwards does not have that problem. Edwards submitted himself to the bashing of opposing counsel and judges for some 30 years. If you watch his interviews with newscasters, you will see that he handles criticism, whether personal or professional, very skillfully and without anger. That is his greatest plus. It is that quality that makes Edwards more electable (and ultimately over time more likable) than the other candidates. He does not get mired down into arguments about who is bashing him. Thanks to his humility and ability to laugh at himself, he quickly refocuses the discussion to his reasons for running -- which are to represent the interests of ordinary working Americans.

[Clark2008]

6. Edwards fans think anyone who opposes him must be a Clinton supporter.

Not true. I don't have a candidate, but I've completely and totally ruled out Edwards. I did that back in 2003.

[cali]

16. And I'd say your powers of deduction are lousy. Sorry, definitely not

a Clinton supporter. In fact, much as I think JE's a phony, I'd rather take a chance on him than Clinton, though I'll vote for whoever gets the nom.

If you don't understand that Edwards has put himself in a tenuous situation by going with public funding in the primaries, you don't understand how things work. And it doesn't matter that he was an effective trial attorney. You perceive him as being some sort of super hero. I see him as being just as vulnerable to the puke attacks as the other two.

[Radical Activist]

2. Anyone who voted for the war in Iraq will be hard to elect.

We saw how that worked with Kerry. All Republicans had to do was point out that Kerry voted for the war and that he's a flip-flopper. It makes the candidate look like an indecisive, weak leader without the ability to stand by their convictions. It may not be fair but that's the reality of how people view things. Its very hard to have an anti-war candidate who voted for the war.

[cali]

7. Nah, it's not 2004. I think that's far less of an issue

Most voters who supported the war initially have turned against it. People relate to changing your mind on the war in a way they didn't 4 years ago.

[Radical Activist]

10. It has been the same issue Republicans used in the last three elctions.

Flip-flopper. No conviction. When are we going to stop playing into their hands? Clinton and Edwards will fit right into the flip-flopper mold Republican love to exploit.

[cali]

12. Again, it's a different time. We're facing weaker repukes

Repuke registration is way down. Dem registration is up. Any of these candidates can win next year.

[Radical Activist]

25. So we have to count on Republicans imploding?

I'm not comfortable with that risk. I want to win with a strong candidate instead of counting on the Republicans to be weak.

[JDPriestly]

13. I originally supported the war. Even though you may not have

supported the war, people like me who did support it (and that is by far the majority of voters) will not care about Edwards' initial support, provided that he has stated clearly that he changed his mind and why.

[cali]

14. I agree with that

and that's what I said. I was adamently against the war, but I do understand that many people supported it.

[Radical Activist]

26. I heard a lot of that in '04

It never seemed to resonate with the public so well. People want conviction and leadership.

[Andy823]

9. Yes, but

What about someone who claims to be anti-war, but voted to keep funding that war in congress? Doesn't that bother you also? It should.

[Radical Activist]

11. Defunding troops in the battlefield

does not resonate with most of the public. Its not how the war is going to be ended. Obama is now voting against funding for the war anyway.

[sniffa]

3. is this different from your other thread?

[cali]

8. completely different. The other thread was about

not using racist/sexist arguments to promote Edwards (or anyone else). This thread is about why it's nonsense to assume that Edwards is the most electable.

[aquart]

4. Whomever the Democrats choose, will win. Vote your heart.

Do NOT vote for anyone's choice but your own. Do NOT assume that anyone else is smarter or dumber than you are about the candidates. The primary vote is YOURS. The general election is the party's. Don't let anyone talk you out of YOUR choice.

72 million Democrats
55 million Republicans
42 million independents

If the votes are counted, we win.

[provis99]

21. those figures are deceptive

Virtually all Republicans (90%+) vote for Republican candidates. But millions of Democrats routinely vote Republican (Reagan Democrats, yellow dog Democrats, et al). Democrats have always outnumbered Republicans since the 1930's, but the presidency has been dominated by Republicans, because too many Democrats don't vote Democrat.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. The funding issue is a legitimate concern for Edwards and Biden

[frogmarch]

15. If Edwards wins the nomination

he stands a better chance of beating the repub machine than do Obama and Clinton, despite the new attacks on him that will surely come. Instead of being #3 and in the media shadows, he'll be in the forefront. The public will finally get to know him. I believe they'll like him and appreciate what he stands for.

[onehandle]

18. Yep. nt

[cali]

24. They won't get the chance to know him

They'll know the Edwards that the pukes create. And he'll be at a distinct disadvantage until the Convention.

[frogmarch]

27. Well, then, why do some DUers give the repukes ammo

to use against him (and the other Dem candidates)?

Anything negative the repukes might look for to use against our candidates can be found right here at DU.

[cali]

28. if you really believe that they don't know all this and much more

you should stick to reading fairy tales instead of political sites. That's just lame.

[frogmarch]

29. No, what's lame is your dissing the candidates w/o letup n/t

[jillan]

17. When Edwards was a trial lawyer - he never once did pro-bono cases.

Curious - isn't it?

[maximusveritas]

19. Exactly. That's why he does better in GE polls than Democratic polls

It's because many voters still see him as a centrist/conservative.
In this sense, Edwards not getting attention from the MSM have actually been a blessing. If he can get enough idiots to fall for his electability argument, he can win the Democratic primary before getting destroyed in the General Election.

[onehandle]

20. So they're all exactly as "electable" as one another?

That seems unlikely. One of them must be capable of the greatest margin.

Unless the only reason you posted this was to "prove" Edwards is less electable.

Nice try.

[venable]

22. sigh. give it a rest. the polls and common sense (to many) say otherwise.

what will you do if he gets the nomination? serious question.

[cali]

23. *sigh*. So you're big on the nationaL polls that show Clinton to be the

the prohiibitive favorite? *sigh* so much for your own common sense.

And I've explained- as have kos and many others why he's no more electable than others.

And I've said repeatedly that if JE gets the nom, I'll gladly vote for him. You would have known that if you read this thread.

[venable]

30. which poll matters?

the wildly popular hrc winning the national dem poll, or the truly significant poll which says edwards beat the republicans, as mudcat saunders says, 'like a tied up billy-goat?

if she is so popular, really, then why does she not fare as well as edwards against republicans. can you try to answer that?

the thread is not about whether hrc or edwards will win the nomination, it's about who is more electable. the answer to that, according to polls, is edwards. what part of this don't you understand?

[ingac70]

31. Wide margins on election day would be nice, though....

I want the Republicans humiliated!!!

:evilgrin: