JOHN EDWARDS is INEVITABLE to WIN Iowa

[FrenchieCat]

As one of Edwards supporters' least favored poster, I nevertheless predict that John Edwards will win Iowa.

Unless something happens at the last minute that would be to John Edwards' detriment, I believe that he has the edge there. He is the "darkhorse" currently getting plenty press traction, and media reports on him are overwhelmingly positive (no smears being discussed in the electronic media).

Edwards who has been flying low on the radar of the national media up to this point but has been saying the right things in reference to the Iowa electorate, and he fits the Presidential quality blueprint that many Democratic voters believe are the only ones that can win.

Congratulations to all of you Edwards supporters!

Other Predictions:
Biden will come in 2nd.
Hillary Clinton will come in 3rd
Barack Obama will come in 4th
Richardson will come in 5th

Please feel free to do your own ranking.

[flvegan]

1. Nice post, Kreskin.

[FrenchieCat]

You are blowing my cover! Quit it!

[MadBadger]

2. Id be willing to bet my house that Obama doesnt finish in fourth

[ronnykmarshall]

5. How much square feet?

[FrenchieCat]

6. I would like that to be the case, but I have little faith

in Democratic caucus system to understand what gives Obama an edge. I think that the argument against Obama is more obvious.....unfortunately.

At this point, I don't even think that MLK could win Iowa if he were running today, and of course, Obama is no MLK. :(

[petersjo02]

3. As an Iowan who will be caucasing for Edwards on January 3,

I sure hope you're right.

[FrenchieCat]

21. I would prefer to be wrong,

but this thread subject is not based on what I would prefer.

[ChiciB1]

28. I NEVER Use the Word HOPE Anymore... But I Can WISH You're Correct!

I also try to avoid using the word "right" too!

[ronnykmarshall]

4. That's pretty interesting

Biden 2nd??

I agree with you on Edwards. I think he'll win in Iowa.

The media attention he's getting and with new polls showing him with the highest numbers against the GOP is a big plus for him.

I think my SO is leaning towards him in the California primary.

[asdjrocky]

7. I don't like the word "Inevitable"-

We'll just keep working hard, telling the truth, and we'll hope for the best.

Good luck to all candidates!

[FrenchieCat]

9. I am looking at the trends, the chatter, the arguments that will be presented

in a caucus setting, and I believe that he is inevitable.....whether the word is pleasing or not, it is the word that I believe applies.

[asdjrocky]

14. I do believe he'll win... I believe very few things in life are "inevitable".

Just the way I look at things.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well this word has been used on other candidates........

and I do believe that it applies here.

[asdjrocky]

19. Perhaps that's the reason I don't like the word. nt

[Cha]

17. You're so wise..Edwards has

some really Great Supporters!

[librechik]

8. Edwards has NONE of "the negatives" which Hill and O have

his only negative that I can see is that he is a trial lawyer.

But that is what we need, right now.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I disagree with your assessment of Edwards' negatives,

but that is not why I posted this thread....and so I will refrain.

[cali]

15. He has plenty of negatives. And the repukes will be glad to magnify and twist them.

You're kidding yourself if you believe that he can't be swift boated.

[Flarney]

24. anyone can be swiftboated because the truth is irrelevant in that regard... n/t

(just adding to what I interpreted to be your point)

[cali]

25. yes, but he also has some obvious weaknesses that the repukes

will exploit if he's the candidate.

[Mythsaje]

37. Which of the candidates, then, are immune from this?

None.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Please know that not all Swiftboatings are equal......

so the question will never be who is immune from Swiftboating as much as what specifics will be used to Swiftboat each

and what are the counter arguments that will be made to deconstruct whatever attacks are used

and who will the public believe

and how will the media feed into all of it.

[Flarney]

53. doesn't that also apply to all candidates?

Or do you think that Edwards is more flawed than Hillary and Obama?

[Clark2008]

41. But there's no need to swiftboat Edwards. The truth is bad enough.

[FrenchieCat]

44. The facts (and then some) will eventually come to the fore.......

but timing is everything.

Whatever drawbacks Edwards has will not be discussed till after-the-fact.

[Think82]

56. Exactly. Edwards is the most liberal candidate and combative to the establishment

These can be used against him in the general, though it makes him very appealing to dem primary voters. Plus, his record in the Senate doesn't match his policies now, which I'm sure can be used against him. Negatives? Yeah, he has them. But so does everybody. Some are worse than others.

[Clark2008]

59. ROFLMAO

Edwards is NOT the most liberal candidate - not by a longshot.

Edwards was and still is a conservative Democrat who was a member of the DLC.

Please stop believing the rhetoric. Look at his actual record.

[youthere]

10. I pretty much agree with your rankings ...

I would switch Clinton and Obama though.

[Eurobabe]

12. Oooh I like Biden in 2nd!

I say:

Edwards, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Richardson.

[ChiciB1]

30. Biden's My 2nd Too!! n/t

[Eurobabe]

33. No Biden's my first, Edwards or Obama 2nd

Who's on 3rd?

[ChiciB1]

48. Yogi Berra??? For Me?? Edwards/Biden/Obama.. For Me... I Could Do

Obama as VP, but really do like Biden and think he has lots of SMARTS! Obama because I really DO want to see a Black president, just don't think it's his time yet.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Maybe in another 100 years, huh? Well, One can watch reruns of "24"

to keep them going with the image till then. :(

Actually, you've perfectly phrased the "I really want...., but am afraid that it can't be this time because I am afraid of what everyone else is gonna not want" argument that will certainly have a starring role in the Iowa Caucus...whether explicitely stated or simply implied. It is a disappointing stance in 2007, but very much expected and banked on by other candidates.

[ChiciB1]

63. I Understand PERFECTLY! n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Bookmarking so I can congratulate you after the returns are in...

[FrenchieCat]

18. !

:headbang:

[K Gardner]

20. I wouldn't say that too loudly.. or he'll be next to be "vetted"...

(I do like your assessment, however! )

[FrenchieCat]

22. I just think that Iowa voters will do for Biden what they did for Edwards

in 2004.

However, I can only keep Biden in the No.2 spot if his press reporting picks up in the last week.....if not, I might switch him with Hillary's position in my ranking.

[polichick]

23. Sure would be an optimistic way for the U.S. to begin the new year! nt

[Lucinda]

26. I thought about our discussion yesterday when I read this article

posted on DU last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22285623/

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
updated 7:37 a.m. ET, Mon., Dec. 17, 2007

The Obama racial subtext surfaces in Iowa
Edwards parries a voter's question about Obama and the O.J. verdict

ELKADER, Iowa - As Democratic presidential contender John Edwards fielded questions from a crowd of about 100 people in Elkader, Iowa (population 1,374) Friday night, he got one of those out-of-left-field queries for which a candidate needs his sharpest wits.

An elderly man told Edwards that “something has been sticking in my craw” and explained that “a certain fella committed two murders in California and the jury found him not guilty. And all they said was, ‘It’s payback time.’ How are you going to have that come out in this election to combat one of your competitors?”

Edwards seemed puzzled, as most people in the audience seemed to be.


“The black jury in Los Angeles, the reason they found O.J. not guilty was ‘payback,’” the older gent explained.

“Payback for what?” Edwards asked.

For mistreatment by white America, the man said.

“What do you want the president to do about that?” Edwards asked.

“How are you going to get that brought out in your campaign? Will the same thing happen? If he should become elected, you think Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey are going to let him forget about that and their obligation?” the man said, not identifying who he meant by “he” and “him.”

“I’m still not sure what it is that you’re asking,” Edwards said, a bit uneasily..."


Edwards response and much more at link.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Thank you for that article, and yes........it says what is not being said much of anywhere......

although in many ways, it has been implied.

Edwards is certainly being called "most electable" for a reason that's not clearly outlined, and the press has just now picked up on that meme without asking why that is......although I will say that they are attributing it to the Edwards' campaign more than just saying it outright, for the moment. It will be the selling point for Edwards at the caucuses, I am sure......as it has been posted here many times over many months.

But yes, there are some quotes from the article that highlight why John Edwards will win Iowa, and why I predict that Obama will not finish that well as might otherwise be expected....

"She added that she does believe that Obama can win and that his Kenya-Kansas parentage would not be a liability in an election. “But you hear a lot the other way; we’re pretty white around here, you know,” she said.

Iowa is indeed “pretty white.” According to exit poll interviews in 2004, only 1 percent of the state’s electorate was black."

The article concludes with this quote:
Whether some Iowa voters on the night of the caucuses end up sheering off from Obama due to racial fears is a question that will probably never be answered in a definitive way.

Ironically, it is not the racism that might win the day, but rather the fear of racism. :(

[onehandle]

27. Edwards will win. And then we'll have a whole new game. nt

[ChiciB1]

29. And The Media Can Keep The Excitement Going... It's Kind Of What I

feel is behind this. But I have a "hinky" feeling that "they" got the word from other places to make this happen for Edwards!

Yes, I AM a CYNIC! But, who can blame me after what has happened to this country??

[Orangepeel]

32. 1. Edwards, 2. Clinton, 3. Obama, 4. Biden

Obama is the Howard Dean of 2008 (and I say that as someone who worked my ass off for Dean). He generates a lot of enthusiasm, especially among young people. But Iowa is a caucus, not a primary, and a candidate needs experienced political insiders in their corner to win.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Interesting Ranking.......

and certainly as good as mine.

and yes, I may be underestimating Hillary

and giving more confidence to Biden than will be present at the caucuses. Biden does have a name recognition issue, and many folks don't totally know what he stands for beyond his expertise in Foreign policy....and his affirmative Iraq vote kind of neutralizes his strength on the very issue, rather than reinforces it.

It will be interest, that much is certain!

Thanks

[racaulk]

62. That's my prediction as well. nt

[FrenchieCat]

35. Just saw TeeVee footage of John Edwards holding a Black Baby

while sitting in a chair in Iowa!

Interesting.

[dmosh42]

36. He's the only one talking serious 'fight the corporations....

and the system'. In this 'year of frustration', it's getting attention lately. We need a 'real' change in the way the government is working, and sometimes the voters get it!

[FrenchieCat]

39. Like I said in the OP......He's been saying all of the right things

in reference to Iowans caucus goers.

However, whether this call for "warfare against the corporation" would be as effective in the GE is another question.

In particular if Edwards goes up against McCain....

[Occam Bandage]

38. Inevitable? And yet one more word is brutally stripped of all meaning.

OCERB.

[Clark2008]

40. And I will puke.

I'm still at a complete loss as to how a PATRIOT Act-writing, Iraqi War co-sponsoring, NCLB-supporting, Yucca Mountain destroying, hedge-fund-investing snakeoil sales ranks at all on a populist meter.

:crazy:

[FrenchieCat]

42. Doesn't matter.......about those things right now......

and if you watched MSNBC when Trippi was asked about Edwards' senate record, you would have noticed that Trippi did not address the question directly, and the reporter did not pursue with any follow-ups.

Frankly, the Democrats' concern appear to be more leaning towards believing that Obama and Hillary will have a more difficult time in the GE than Edwards ever will. I don't subscribe to that notion at all, and actually see it all quite in the opposite.

This record will most likely become an issue for the General Election if John Edwards makes it that far, but not in the primaries; Democratic opponents have brought it up recently but because John Edwards is not the frontrunner, it hasn't received any traction.

In otherwords, this will not be an issue in the Iowa Caucus....and many will not be making the connection between whether it could be used in the General Election against John Edwards or not.

[Clark2008]

51. But that concerns me, as well.

When I make a decision to vote in the primaries, I also think ahead to what the general election would be like.

I guess I'm weird. :)

[FrenchieCat]

55. No you are not weird....

or could be, doesn't have to be.....and oftentimes, what they thought couldn't possibly.... ends up it's just that believe that it is the obvious that will be the issue in the GE, although that has rarely been the case......

But in order to KISS (keep it simple stupid), many choose to deal with direct candidate positives and negatives in a vacuum....

Sure, because of this, they oftentime miss the history that says that candidates' strengths usually turn out to become the candidates' weaknesses and visa versa in the GE. This type of political, exercise is too sophisticated and calculating to be used by candidates supporters at caucus.

So...it is easier to simply say the obvious, e.g., Obama would lose because we are not ready for a Black President; too much racism still exists....than to reason that the GOP will not be able to attack Obama so obviously Due to his race (look what happened to the Clinton campaign for trying)providing Obama with an additional shield. Since that would be arguing that Obama's obvious "weakness" actually provides him with an advantage, it won't be comprehended till wayyyyy after the fact.

This is just one example.

[More Than A Feeling]

60. Ok, let me ask you this:

Assuming arguendo that, as Clarkie2008 put it, Edwards is a snake oil salesman, a world-class bullshit artist...why would that success end in the general, among people less politically tuned in than DU is?

[FrenchieCat]

64. I'm not saying it would....

What I am saying is that Edwards positives in the primary, may not be positives in the GE...where one speaks to way more people, including many who are misinformed and buy Media soundbytes and what the media sells (see Kerry quote last year on troops and education turned into a "scandalous" thing to have said).

Example of a Positive = Edwards will fight corporate interest for you.
Example of what that could turn to = Edwards proclaims war against coporations and advocates socialism.

I'm not the one who would do the change in slant....but the media sure can, and the GOP sure will. It is a well known phenomenon seen in every campaign. :shrug:

[Stop Cornyn]

43. I can see how Edwards could win, but how does Biden come in second?

I agree that Edwards has something better than a 33% chance of winning.

He's got a great organization, he has very strong support among prior caucus attendees, he's got very strong second choice support, he's got support in all 99 counties, he's got upward momentum, he has good support among would-be first-time caucus participants but he isn't depending them. I like his chances.

But Obama is also very strong. He's leading most polls, he has upward momentum, he's got fairly strong second choice support, he's outspent Edwards by more than 2-to-1 in Iowa. I put his chances at pretty close to 33%.

Hillary is not to be discounted. She leads an occasional poll, she has good support among prior caucus attendees, she's outspent Edwards by more than 2-to-1 in Iowa. I put her chances at winning not very far below 33%.

Among the rest of the field, Richardson has the most polling support and he's spent the most among the second-tier candidates. Biden has some very passionate supporters. Dodd just made a huge splash in Washington doing his job well and against strong opposition and without much help and that has won him the admiration of all true progressive voters. Kucinich has a small but very loyal group of supporters and he has great positions on a large number of issues. If three of these four second tier candidates crater, and one rises up, I could see the one who rises up winning perhaps 15%. If Hillary really collapses, maybe the top second tier candidate could bust through to 20% -- if and only if the other three second-tier candidates don't split his vote -- but it's hard for me to imagine Hillary falling below 20%.

I see Dodd's heroic efforts this week, plus Richardson base, plus no collapse so severe that either of the top tier candidates falls below 20%, and it all adds up to a scenario where none of the second-tier candidates can finish as high as third.

How can Biden come in second? Where do we disagree about the mathematics of the results?

[FrenchieCat]

45. This is just what I feel based on what I understand to be the general mentality

of the Iowa caucus as a whole.

So in looking at the possible arguments that will be made in Iowa by the candidates' supporters....that is how I come up with my rankings; the compelling nature of those arguments in a vaccum, because that has a lot to do with how Iowans decide, IMO.

If you might recall, the math for the '04 2nd place showing for Edwards in Iowa was not evident in prior to that caucus either......and yet.....

The 2004 race was calling for experience in National Security considering that the GE was against a sitting war President. Edwards did not really "fit" what one would have thought would win the GE, and yet the fact that Edwards was the self made southern "2 America" positive campaigner still carried him to that 2nd place spot.

in 2008, the argument for Biden will be that he's got the strength on foreign policy with the authenticity edge and a compelling life story. Also, the "electability" argument currently shoring up Edwards can be used by Biden supporters to a point...and although Biden is not from the South (one of Edwards' "electable" qualities), Biden will be touted as someone that the Republicans don't have a lot of dirt on will substitute in its place (while it will be argued that Hillary and Obama are the most vunerable in that area).

Of course, I could be totally offbase. :shrug:

[Stop Cornyn]

61. We agree that a compelling argument can easily be made for why people OUGHT to support Biden; I just

disagree about the likelihood that this is actually happening on the ground as we exchange these thoughts.

You say "the math for the '04 2nd place showing for Edwards in Iowa was not evident in prior to that caucus either," but the last pre-caucus Iowa polling had Edwards in second place right before the caucus, and in other Iowa polling, Edwards had pulled within the MoE of then second place Dean (Kerry was leading in the polls going into Iowa) in the weeks before the caucus.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled with an Edwards-1, Biden-2, Obama-3 finish.

[FrenchieCat]

65. Well, certainly the polls a couple of days prior to the caucus will

tell much more than what we now know.

[Stop Cornyn]

66. Then I guess we are in agreement. If the polls right before the caucus show Biden charging from 4%

to something like 15%, then I would totally agree that if he's at 15% in the polls right before the caucus, then he could get as much as 25% or even 30% in the caucus and enough to come in second.

But if the polls don't start reflecting some serious movement for Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, or Richardson very soon (like last week soon) they aren't going to reach third place let alone second.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Yes.... we are in agreement. n/t

[monmouth]

46. Very easily....

[Armstead]

49. I'd like to see Edwards win, but I doubt Obama will come in 4th or Hillary 3rd

[DaLittle Kitty]

52. The John Edwards Landslide... (is becoming inevitable) Even the MSM is Covering Their Bases

The John Edwards Landslide By Michael Fox

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071216...


Back in October, I wrote that it was critical that Democrats select a surefire winner in our Presidential primary. At that time I made the case fore John Edwards’ win-ability. My prognostication has now been made official in the form of this week’s CNN poll, which pitted Clinton, Obama, and Edwards individually and Head-to head with each major Republican contender.
Once again, in every one of those match-ups, Edwards wins by the largest margin against any of the Republicans. And what could be more valuable a statement in the 2008 general election than a landslide?

Remember, after the 2004 election, George Bush made his bloviating statement about his perceived “political capital” – which, of course he squandered on a 60-city tour to sell his dead-on-arrival Social Security privatization scheme. That, with a 2-point “win” But, given (as in CNN’s Edwards vs. Huckabee race) a 25-point true landslide, the political capital would be palpable and spendable. Edwards, winning with a foreseeable 65% of the vote, would be coming in with that sort of long-unseen approval rating that would enable him to embark on populist policies with the actual backing of the populace (unlike the elitist policies of Bush ineptly attempted to be served to his handpicked audiences – and even they didn’t bite!).

Much has been written about Edwards as the worst nightmare of the corporate crowd. Just this week, on Bill Moyers’ Journal, Dr. Ronald Walters (director of Jesse Jackson’s Presidential bids) pointed out that only Edwards, of the three leading contenders, is speaking of poverty and universal healthcare; this from a leading Black academic who clearly sees Obama as not having policies that serve the larger Black community, those in the middle and lower middle classes and the poor.

Only Edwards (again, of the three leading contenders) has eschewed PAC and corporate donations. Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have law degrees. Clinton used hers, aside from early-career service on the congressional committee investigating Richard Nixon, as a partner in a law firm representing corporate clients; Obama was an Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard (this is the resume item I like best about him, as I think he may best be equipped to assess the damage done by Bush and his Republican Congresses); but only Edwards used his to take on corporations which have fought regulation and responsibility to consumers. Only Edwards is proposing immediate universal healthcare... Additionally, he has made it clear that the mistakes he has made, legislatively, are mistakes from which he has learned, and he is opposed to “free” trade expansion.



Michael Fox is not connected to the Edwards campaign - or any other.



Authors Bio: Michael Fox is a writer based in Los Angeles. Even MSM is Beginning to Take Action To Cover Their Bases:woohoo:

[Politicub]

54. That would be quite a surprise!

As Kerry was quite a surprise in 2004. I'll support whichever eventual dem nominee, but it will be very easy for me to throw my support to Edwards.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Well, thank you kindly, Frenchie!

You better be careful, or you might lose your coveted "least favorite" spot!:hug:

My ranking is Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd, which is sad because Dodd totally deserves to at least beat Clinton.

[polichick]

58. That's how I see it happening too. nt

[Caseman]

67. I won't argue with you because you have Biden as your 2nd ;)

I pray to my magic chicken bones that he places in the top tier.