Why Hillary Clinton is More Electable Than John Edwards

[penguin7]

John Edwards called for decisive action against Iraq before the invasion. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraqi war resolution, but she tried to stay on the fence as best she could. Now John Edwards has changed his stance. John Edwards would be torn to shreds in the general on the Iraq war issue. How can he make the argument that he had lousy judgement six years ago but now he has good judgement? This dog will never hunt.

In this primary, John Edwards has become the ultimate pander bear. He wants to give 2-300 billion in subsidies to the private health insurance companies, He wants to spend tens of billions on New Orleans, tens(hundreds?) of billions to those that are losing their homes in forclosure, a hundred billion for an environmental jobs program, tens of billions more to fight poverty, for every problem John Edwards wants to throw more money at it. The only revenue source for this increased spending is rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthy, and perhaps raising taxes on the well to do.

The GOP candidate will invariably be offering middle class tax cuts and labeling the Democrat a tax and spender. How would John Edwards be able to to justify his tax and spend policy? How is he even going to explain how he is going to pay for it? Hillary Clinton is not promising nearly so much and would be much better placed in the general on the tax and spend issue.

On the environment, the GOP would simply make John Edwards the butt of a joke. They would show Edwards speaking about Americans needing to sacrifice for the environment, and then show Edwards oversized house and the clear cut forest around it. A john Edwards nomination would not be just a disaster for the Democrats but a disaster for the environment.

John Edwards also has his record as Senator which is at odds with his present rhetoric.

The Edwards camp tries to make Edwards trial lawyer days into some kind of crusade against evil corporations. John Edwards sued wealthy corporations for the same reason Jesse James robbed banks, that is where the money is. This will all be a liability for John Edwards as personal injury lawyers(Ambulance Chasers) are not well liked by Americans.

If beating Republicans is the issue, Hillary Clinton is a much better choice than John Edwards.

The only real good choice in this primary is Dennis Kucinich. A vote for Kucinich is a vote against the war in Iraq and a vote for single payer universal not for profit health care. Dennis Kucinich is the only vote for peace.

If electability is the issue, the choice is certainly not John Edwards. John Edwards has too many negatives to have a prayer in this election.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the hedge fund.

[Cameron27]

1. I agree

K&R

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. You forgot to mention the haircut.

:sarcasm:

[liberalhistorian]

3. I happen to think that Obama is more electable t han either

Hillary or Edwards, which is just one of the many reasons why I support him, but that's just me. Of course, not that it really matters, considering that my primary isn't until June 3, and it will have LONG been WAY over by that time.

[Stop Cornyn]

4. She's clearly not. Edwards is the most electable, followed by (I suspect) Richardson, then Obama

(but there's really too little polling on Richardson, so that's just conjecture, but there's a wealth of polling to confirm that Edwards is the most electable, and even Obama is more electable than Hillary.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Arguments in favor of Clinton's electability

For one thing, when push comes to shove. I strongly suspect that the Republicans do not want to run against a woman for President - at least not one who can not easily be painted as a soft "mommy" who isn't tough enough to protect America. Many here maybe don't like how she's done it, but Hillary Clinton has put to rest any concerns that, as a women, she isn't strong enough to lead America. That was always the first line of defense for Republicans against women candidates. That is why they try to refer to Democrats as the "Mommy Party " in a put down sort of way. That type of stereotype simply does not stick on Hillary.

The simple fact is that Women in America are not a minority group, they are a majority group which has always been treated with tokenism in regards to leadership. We now have a Supreme Court with only one female member, and the most there have ever been was two. All women understand this, including Republicans. With Barack Obama in the race the significance of Hillary Clinton being the first female to run for President with a good chance of winning has been diluted by the same being true for an African American. By and large Republican women are more moderate than Republican men, and the National Republican Party will have a needle to thread in attacking Hillary without seeming to assault her. They've done it before of course, but this time will be different because this time, if Hillary is our nominee, she has a readily available platform 24 hours a day to defend herself immediately. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee they can't just "deaden her mike". A presidential campaign is not like the Rush Limbaugh show. They can't just land low blows against Hillary without being held account for them. Republicans risk a backlash from moderate Republican and independent women if they try to savage Hillary Clinton too harshly.

Point two. This year the Presidency is ours to lose. The National Republican Party has been an 8 year disaster for America; from the war in Iraq, to massive budget deficits, to making no real progress on health care, to Katrina, to ruling over the debt and mortgage crisis, to sex scandals, to fiscal corruption, to moral hypocrisy of every stripe imaginable, etc etc etc. The only real way for us to be defeated is if we defeat ourselves. Republicans have two cards to play and that is all. The first is the fear card that we live in a dangerous world - which they will certainly play regardless, and they will play it even harder should some new bomb go off in a British underground, let alone on a NYC Subway. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the two candidates who we could run who can best throw the Republican fear card in their face. The public is already predisposed to believe that Clinton and Biden are knowledgeable and tough. If either is our nominee the Republicans have much less to work with in that regard.

The only other real way for Republicans to win is if they go massively on a personal offensive against perceived weaknesses of the Democratic candidate, and that candidate proves ineffective at defending him or herself from Republican attacks. If the Democratic candidate can take a hard punch, either above or below the belt as the case may be, and punch right back as hard or harder, we win in November. I have more reason to feel confident of Hillary Clinton's ability to pass that test than I do for any other Democrat running. They already spent over 50 million dollars investigating all aspects of Hillary's life with full subpoena power. What they might still find to throw at her now will not seem shocking, it will not seem fresh, and it will not seem as compelling as some brand new line of attack that can be trotted out against another Democrat running who hasn't bee n subject to that type of scrutiny yet.

Point 3 is the contrast between the last 8 years and the 8 years before them. The question has become a political classic; "Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?" The answer for almost everyone is "NO". Who were in the White House 8 years ago? The Clintons. Which of our nominees can most powerfully pose that question? Hillary Clinton. It is simple and it will be a politically devastating line to use against the Republicans by Hillary because it is so simple and so clear.

Point 4 is Hillary Clinton's obvious intelligence and familiarity with the nuances of many issues. She may not come off warm enough to some but she never comes off wooden, and she displays a familiarity with the issues facing America that gives her an air of competency and assuredness. Americans don't have to love Hillary to elect her, they have to trust her ability to do the job and I think she scores well in that critical regard, better than most of our candidates - especially when one considers that in the General Election it isn't sniping from the left that a Democrat most has to worry about.

I have mentioned on DU this guy I know from outside of politics before - he actually is one of the 5,000 wealthiest people in the world and (no surprise here) he's a Republican. He is also disgusted by the mess the Republican Party has made of America over the last 8 years. For at least 6 years I have listened to him tell me how much he doesn't like Hillary Clinton. Now he thinks she may be the only person running on both sides with the intelligence and the toughness needed to understand the problems facing American and to tackle them. He still doesn't like her, he doesn't have to in order to respect and back her.

Point 5 is the boon of lowered expectations. Hillary Clinton has huge name and identity recognition already, it won't be easy to move her negatives any further than they are, but outside of New York State prior to the primary campaign, she hasn't had as much direct access to voters to make her own case as the national Republican hit machine has had to relentlessly paint her as some kind of witch for 15 years and counting. As the Democratic Candidate for President Hillary Clinton will finally get a lot of direct "face time" with voters who never actually "spent much time" with her personally. If they start out with a falsely and garishly painted image of Hillary Clinton as a total bitch/witch, let's just say that the real woman who they will meet has a lot of room for a real upside surprise.

[MilesColtrane]

6. "John Edwards has too many negatives to have a prayer in this election."

Your opinion doesn't jibe with the averaged results of the latest national polls.

In fact, Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who can beat ALL of the Republican contenders.

Read and learn.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

[Drunken Irishman]

8. That may be at this point, but the campaign hasn't started.

The Republican machine has pretty much ignored Edwards this election cycle and if he were to win the nomination, expect to hear pretty much everything the above poster mentioned. That will drive his numbers down, especially if he's going up against a candidate who proposes more tax cuts for the middle class.

When the race actually heats up and it's not just in-party fighting, these numbers will change. In fact, it'll happen to every candidate, whether it's Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Now we just need to find out which candidate has the less fodder to throw at them.

[nolabels]

24. "we just need to find out which candidate has the less fodder to throw at them"

Last time i checked tucking tail and crying uncle did not generate large followings. I will take any of them, they all mostly have the credentials and seem up to the fight.

A democratic following winning the election is only the start. Eight years of * and all them extra years with a republican congress will take much effort to unravel. The entrenched pro-corporate-screw-the-public thinking seems to me the biggest challenge.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. Trust me, I'll take any Democrat, but let's be honest, not all have the ability to win.

I also don't know if Edwards has the money to run a national campaign, while the Republicans will have a bottomless pit of it.

You know, I just want to win. Obviously there are candidates I would rather have elected than others, but when it comes down to it, I just want to win. Edwards, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kucinich, Dodd and Richardson are all fine by me IF WE WIN. But if we don't and it's another 4 years and possibly 8 of Republican rule, well then fuck me sideways.

[nolabels]

29. It's not going to be 'if' but how well and by what margins

A super-majority in the senate would be nice. The idea of primaries being held so early is also going to be good.
Just think of what it will be like with all those federal agencies fielded by new appointments.

[ChiciB1]

18. HOW They Get Their Numbers I Don't Know... But The Numbers Have

stayed consistent. I'm not one that depends on polls, but stats of this sort aren't actually what I call a poll! I have ALWAYS felt that John Edwards was the one that could take them on!

However, he does have a problem... D.C. Elites are working HARD against him and THEY have GOBS of money and it's despicable that its' "all about the money" and WHAT influence it can buy!

But to those of us who support John Edwards, I'm glad to be associated with many who are extremely loyal and dedicated and believe he's genuine and wants to make Americans feel like Americans again!

If you can, please donate to his campaign and.... Go, Johnny, GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Drunken Irishman]

7. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but there are some valid points.

Especially the spending which Edwards has promised. Remember Mondale saying we need to raise taxes? Well that was his death knell to his campaign. The Democratic Party and many of its candidates tap into the idealistic aspect of the American population. The Republicans have always been able to tap into the responsible, Me first attitude of America. The problem? That generally wins out over idealism because most of us are selfish and only think of ourselves, or just our family. They understand the plight of the poor, but unless they are directly impacted by it, it's a foreign issue.

"Well I care about the poor (_environment_blue collar jobs_inner-city_America)..."

"...But I can't afford a tax hike."

There is a great episode of The Simpsons where Lisa becomes president and talks about a tax increase to better the nation. She's nearly booed out of office until she comes up with a way to fool the American people into supporting her tax hike through renaming it. That's probably closer to reality than the Democrats getting a president elected who talks about throwing money at every major issue...especially if it's tax payer dollars. And yes it's unfortunate, but it's reality. That doesn't mean we need to not discuss the poor, or the environment, but the less specific you are, the better chance you have of winning an election. Especially when it comes to money.

[JDPriestly]

13. You have no idea how angry people are.

Gas prices have gone up. Housing prices are going down, and wages remain stagnant. Those who have lost jobs and gotten new ones over the past seven years have taken pay cuts, sometimes very sizable. And to top it all off, the value of the dollar has declined perilously. Voters are angry now and going to get angrier. Hillary's message is more of the same. Edwards is proposing very specific ideas to change things. The only reason Hillary is ahead in the Democratic polls is that a lot of people are not yet thinking about the candidates.

The one thin Hillary has on her side is the fact that the primaries are being held early this year. People are going to pull levers without really having studied the candidates. And Hillary's name recognition gives her an edge in that game.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. But his plans cost money and that scares the shit out of Americans.

Unless Edwards comes out with a complex plan that proves to the American people he will not need to raise any type of tax to pay for what he wants to do, the Republicans will hammer the point home that Edwards is going to throw money at every problem America faces. That will scare the shit out of many moderate voters. If the Republicans nominate a moderate, or someone who is out there discussing fiscal responsibility, along with tax cuts, it will be an uphill battle for Edwards to overcome the complexities of that match-up.

But I'll say this, I don't think Clinton is more electable than Edwards. In fact, I do think Edwards would do a lot better than Clinton in the GE. However, there are some major issues here that could cost him the election.

[JDPriestly]

47. Republicans and fiscal conservatism are two different things,

and Americans know that. All Edwards has to do is tell Americans the truth about the current economy. The whole Homeland Security thing is basically a welfare program for right-wingers. How many security guards does it really take to guard an airport? Do they really need to check the luggage of people like me? Hardly! At 5' tall and 64 years old, I do not pose a security threat to anyone. It's just a full employment on the government dime program. And it is thoroughly Republican. So is the whole contractors in Iraq business. Just a government hand-out scheme. That's how Republicans waste taxpayers money. Better to spend the money here at home. Think how much Bush has spent on the unpopular War in Iraq in one day. Republicans are going to have a very hard time explaining why we should be spending so much for so little. The Republican Party cannot boast of itself as the party of fiscal conservatism ever again. Not if we have a candidate like John Edwards who can explain the truth to juries and win. Edwards can easily handle something like this. He got an amazing number of million dollar verdicts. Check it out on Findlaw. Explaining complex financial dealings is easy for him.

[MilesColtrane]

19. Regarding Republicans attacking Edwards' spending plan.

Less people are going to buy that load after 8 years of Bush.

Bush is the face of the Republican party and the same guy who pissed away the 127 billion dollar budget surplus, then took this country more than a half trillion dollars in debt for no good reason.

Edwards counters this by telling people that Democrats want to invest in America, not in Iraq (or Halliburton).

[Drunken Irishman]

21. I hope you're right, but I think you put too much faith in voters.

'Cause I'm still trying to figure out how the hell Bush was even competitive with Kerry in 2004. That election should have been to the Democrats as 1980 was to the Republicans. Also, for all the shit Bush has caused, it doesn't seem like his minions (the GOP candidates) are taking much of a hit, I mean, all the major ones are running neck and neck with the Democratic candidates. I'm not expecting that to change when Obama, Clinton or Edwards wins the nomination. It will be another close election where ONE issue could define the entire campaign. And if the Republicans successfully paint Edwards as a tax and spend liberal, he might not be able to overcome that.

[MilesColtrane]

26. We agree that whoever emerges to win the Democratic nomination will get the whole shitbag thrown...

...at them, and that includes the tax and spend label.

The winner will also have to fight through The Corporation's death grip on the media and it's partial ownership of this country's election apparatus. (hence 2004)

Fear of tax raises is certainly the one or two issues most important to Republicans, but not for undecided voters.

For them, it's still "the economy stupid" (healthcare being a big part), and the war.

Fortunately, almost all of the Dems are on the right side of these issues.

[JDPriestly]

9. Edwards is far more electable.

The last Democrat from north of the Mason-Dixon line to be elected president was John F. Kennedy in 1960. No chance Hillary can be elected.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. And the dynamics have changed a lot over the past 40 years.

While LJB won, much of that had to do with the fact he was running only a year out from Kennedy's assassination and the Republicans nominated the worst possible choice at the time. Had the Republicans nominated a more moderate candidate who was not going around discussing nuclear war, then they would have fared a lot better in that election. However, let's face it, Johnson had that election delivered to him the second Kennedy's head blew off.

After that, the next Democratic candidate was Carter, who won because Nixon had nearly ran the Republican Party into the ground. The Republicans were DOA for that election the second Nixon was forced to resign. And of course, there's Clinton, who ran a very moderate to conservative campaign talking about fiscal responsibility. Edwards is running as a populace, left of center candidate that wants to spend a lot of money on social programs. That makes him a big target for Republicans who love to use the "tax and spend liberal" line. And it works, because Americans buy that kind of crap.

[JDPriestly]

46. The Republicans can't really say much about tax and spend

since they have shown that they are the borrow and spend party.

Also, we are about to see some serious economic problems. Christmas was not good for retail trade, and the after Christmas sales are not going to be much better. Gold is going up, up, up. That's because people who follow the markets and invest know that everything else is about to go down, down, down. Oh, except for gas prices, which are about to go up, up, up. It is not going to be a good year for the Republicans.

The whole country seems to be suffering from ADD these days. Nobody can concentrate for long. We jump from one thought to the next never focusing for long on anything. The fear of terrorism is being displaced by the fear of poverty or at least hard times. The Republicans have no answers for what ails average Americans. No answers for the economic fears that have displaced the fears of terror.

The Bhutto assassination will be forgotten in a few weeks if not sooner. Who knows? If the outcome of the Iowa primary brings any surprises, that could even push Pakistan out of the headlines.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Neither is my candidate but I do feel Edwards would be devoured in the GE

his personal and political narratives just don't hang together at all. A big part of the country would learn to distrust and dislike him in a hurry.

[Maven]

11. Kicked for the phrase "pander bear"

:evilgrin:

[mtnsnake]

12. K&R for the OP and post #5

It all makes sense

[madrchsod]

14. because she is.

[More Than A Feeling]

15. Thank you for your concern.

Enjoy your stay on DU.

[FrenchieCat]

20. You didn't mention the Spending Limits that Edwards will have to

operate under while attempting to defend himself as he is defined by the Republicans and their media noise machine.....so I am mentioning it as an added reason that John Edwards is not as electable as he wants us to think.

[MilesColtrane]

22. ...and another thing...

"If electability is the issue," ?

Electability is an issue with anyone who is interested in having some control over their environment.
Otherwise, all you're looking for sounds like plausible deniability, "don't blame me, I voted for X".

Most people weigh a candidate's ability to actually assume some power by being elected AND the affinity they have for a candidate's positions.

Otherwise, why wouldn't I just vote for myself? I agree with myself 100% on all positions!

[Beaverhausen]

23. You could come up with a similar list about Clinton

I happen to think her negatives are far greater than those of Edwards. I hear it everywhere I go - which I know is anecdotal but I don't hear many people who are paying attention talk about these negatives of Edwards. They know all about Hillary's negs.

[cali]

27. They all have negatives and they're all electable

The supporters of all candidates play up the electability of their fave, and play down the electability of the others

[GreenTea]

28. Hillary robots haven't been told that the only Dem, Edwards, beats every republican

nominee, decisively....But the bots ignore this and keep plugging away with the same Hillary bullshit - line for line, quote for quote just as television and the corporate media tells them to.

[kenfrequed]

30. Uhm...huh???

This post seems a bit strange.

It rails against Edwards, talks about how much better Hillary would be than Edwards, and then shoots in one line in favor of Kucinich.

Are you trying to affect the Kucinich supporters second choices? Are you trying to deflect them away from Edwards, I mena I am not a big supporter of Edwards, but as a Kucinich supporter I would say Hillary is about dead last on my list as a back up candidate.

[DemKR]

31. K&R

[bvar22]

32. None of this speculation considers the effect of a 3rd Party challenge.

A Hillary nomination will catalyze a challenge from a 3RD Party AntiWAR/ProLABOR Populist (funded with Republican Money?) which WILL siphon off a good percentage of antiWAR/AntiNAFTA/AntiHillary Democrats, and get almost ALL of the Independents. Nader has already promised to run if Hillary (or Obama) is the nominee.
Hillary does NOT stand a chance in the GE. It will be much worse than 2000.

OTOH, Edwards, with his Populist Platform would NOT be damaged as much (if at all).
Edwards is the most unifying of ALL the candidates.

I am a Kucinich supporter, but I will compromise for Edwards.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Inspired]

33. What a stupid fucking thread from a Kucinich supporter!!! n/t

[saltpoint]

35. Hi, Inspired. Almost to a person, the Kucinich group on DU is a class act.

Overwhelmingly, they post intelligent stuff and readable stuff and stuff that stays with me. I like them and respect them, and have liked and respected their candidate since his days as Cleveland's mayor.

Despite the slanderous crap slung by the lone exception.

[Inspired]

37. Yes, they are.

Especially those who understand that Kucinich is simply not electable. I forgot to add that most Republicans could give a rip about the hedge fund. In fact, they think Dems are lame for letting such a non-issue rent space in their heads. This will not hurt Edwards in a general election at all.

[saltpoint]

34. "O my," said the fox. "The stream is far swifter here. Best to slide on

down to my nose lest you fall away into the torrent."

And the gingerbread man did so.

Snap! Went the fox's mouth, and in went the gingerbread man.

The fox climbed onto the far shore and wandered through the green, dark woods all afternoon.

[ShadesOfGrey]

36. If beating Republicans is the issue...

"If beating Republicans is the issue, Hillary Clinton is a much better choice than John Edwards."

Funny, in my reality, the exact opposite is true. The Republican party is scared shitless of JE for a reason. They're pushing HRC as their preferred opponent for a reason too. It doesn't matter how far to the right she moves, they won't lose many votes to her. In fact, their base will show up at the polls in record numbers just to cast their vote against the Clintons.

[elizm]

38. And Obama is more electable than BOTH of them. nt

[Carrieyazel]

45. No he isn't. Sitting senator; no executive experience.

Can't win in the battlegrounds. He needs to go back to IL and run for governor. Then he can make the run for President.

[EVDebs]

39. HRC + M$M + Globalizationist Corporations

The whole 'globalizationist' movement of jobs offshore and corporate profits offshore and importation of jobs to lower-cost immigrants on H1b's while our own education system is set up to profit off importing students to phd programs on student visas. Hell, even the DoD is now fully dependent upon electronic parts imported from overseas !

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

This information alone should get JE the nod. Instead, HRC takes the money and that, along with 'sucking the oxygen outta the room' by doing so (the Des Moines Register is a NBC affiliate that endorses HRC) makes the M$M's choice a no-brainer.

[ecstatic]

40. I remember clearly how hawkish John Edwards was... even during the 2004 debates nt

[LSK]

41. do you think E.G Sawyer thinks Edwards is an ambulance chaser?

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/excerpts/2004-01-12-four-trials_x.htm

[HughBeaumont]

42. Hillary has a better chance in rural America than John Edwards does?

Hillary has a better chance of uniting the left and center than John Edwards does?

Hillary, with her free-trader, "there are positives to outsourcing", "I will increase h1-b/L-1 visas" message is going to win over people who've lost their jobs by the metric ton (especially in Ohio) before John Edwards will by standing up to big business and unbridled corporatists??

Hillary, who's votes not only FOR the IWR, but Kyl/Lieberman, making her an unapologetic believer in the worst president this country has ever had, is going to get a pass from the MSM and the left and center before John Edwards will with his vote (which he's since apologized for)?

Hillary, who thinks national security is more important than civil rights, is going to unite Constitutionalists and those who value their freedom moreso than John Edwards will?

The Republicans, with their shit-lousy record on borrowing and wasting (because spending sometimes yields a tangible result) these past 7 years (well, way longer than that), plundering the treasury for Bewsh's useless terr occupations while letting the infrastructure, education, health care, etc etc go straight in the dumper, are actually going to parade this old "tax and spend" chestnut on ANYONE?

You're going to tell me all of this with a straight face, now?

If one wants to know how he's going to pay for it, a simple . .. REEEEEAAAALLLY simple suggestion would be to reduce the Pentasewer War Machine's share of the Discretionary Budget, stop issuing blank checks to Hallibechtol & Root and wipe out a ton of wasteful pork.

[Carrieyazel]

43. All three of our "frontrunners" are essentially unelectable.

Hillary hated by half the electorate. Sitting senator no official executive experience.

Obama unqualified, untested, and soft. Sitting senator with no executive experience.

Edwards a former Senator with no executive experience. Running a populist campaign that has rarely been successful for winning the White House.

[bunnies]

44. I simply dont care.

I will not vote for her in the primary. period.

[frankenforpres]

48. Id rather his wife run

but he is good enough to vote for in the general

[kurth]

49. Hillary will lose in the general election

if she is all the Democrats have to offer.