Electability: John Kerry vs. John Edwards

[adamrsilva]

John Kerry
Pros: Experience, war record, no spending limits
Cons: Voting record - politician with a capital "P"

-Others say Kerry will be called a "Massachusetts liberal" and be hit for his anti-war protesting, and he will, but I believe Kerry can withstand those Republican attacks. No, his main problem is his 19-year voting record of which Republicans, as fellow Democrats have, will use to say Kerry has a history of voting one way and then going against his own position later. Also, Kerry has a lack of big, exciting ideas and his newfound anti-special interests populism doesn't work like it did for Dean or Edwards. These are much greater liabilities.

John Edwards
Pros: Southern, moderate, anti-NAFTA, populist
Cons: No foreign policy experience

-Again, people will say his too young and inexperienced, but so was Kennedy, but he had a military record/foreign policy experience, Edwards doesn't.

People consider jobs the most important issue, but that doesn't mean the war won't be a major issue too (it will be), and Bush will hit Edwards hard on the fact he has no foreign policy experience, and it would work. For this reason, I think Kerry is the best choice and also because of his ability to withstand Republican attacks (and will have the money to back it up). Edwards would be a great help as VP though, and could easily make a run for president later after gaining a little more experience.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Pros....

their opponent is Bush.

[adamrsilva]

2. Right

One could make the argument that this election is solely a referendum on the incumbent and Bush will decide if he wins or not, but it would be foolish to rely on that.

[MrBenchley]

3. Good analysis...

Am I the only one who thinks it's going to be difficult for Rove & Co.. to cry "way out Massachusetts liberal, but he votes with special interests"? Seems to me like those two charges cancel each other out.

I suspect the GOP is going to end up waving Jane Fonda around if its Kerry, and "crooked trial lawyers" if its Edwards....and that neither attack really reverberates.

[DaisyUCSB]

6. "cancels each other out" hardly. There just 2 big negatives

I don't know exactly what you mean by "he votes with the special interests".

"special interests" is a really atrocius buzzword which everyone labels the supporters of their opponents with. However Kerry will look like, and arguably is a hypocrite for using that buzzword as much as he does while being the biggest recipient of lobbyist money of any senator.

And no, that in no way "cancels out" their likely success of painting him as a Massachusetts liberal very easily when you have his left-of-Kennedy ADA rating being frothed at by the RNC

[MrBenchley]

21. Sure they do

He can't be both "too far left for America" and "the darling of corporate America" simultaneously. The GOP is just thrashing around desperately for ANYTHING they think will stick...and the inconsistency shows it.

[Skwmom]

13. They won't use crooked trial lawyers

they will use personal injury attorney with no foreign policy experience and I think that will work.

[DaisyUCSB]

4. Edwards has the same quality of foreign policy experience as Kennedy

they were both in the senate, Kennedy had a greater number(quantity) of that experience, but still the same quality. Edwards served on key committees and subcommittees before, during, and after 9-11, such as the intelligence committee. I'm not sure which committees Kennedy served on.

As far as JFKennedy having military experience, Edwards doesn't, but JFK's military experience was not "foriegn policy" experience. He was a junior officer in the navy for a short period of time during a war. He wasn't a strategist. Although his father was heavily involved at the highest levels, I don't think JFKennedy gets to take credit for that

[adamrsilva]

8. Kennedy was on the foreign relations commitee

As John Kerry was and is. The point is, Edwards has a serious vunerability here, considering the post-9/11 atmosphere.

[DaisyUCSB]

11. He might if the republican nominee were someone other than Bush

But the things that everyone here insists are Edwards weaknesses, are really backfire-ready because Bush is the nominee. And you know exactly what they are, because you can count them on one hand, unlike with Kerry, where you run out of fingers and toes, and most of them won't backfire

[johnlal]

5. Electability is a strange measure of a candidate

It requires an individual voter to ignore his own values and vote for the candidate who, in his opinion, other people will vote for. In this analysis, the voter will seek the opinions of others. Therefore, he may be easily swayed by media reports, advertising, and the more highly visible candidates.

I wouldn't worry about "electability". Vote for who you like. If a lot of people vote for him/her, (s)he's probably electable.

[StClone]

7. Right

Since both appear to be legitimate "Bush Vanquishers" picking the best President should be the goal though earlier panic of ABB were justified, IMO.

[adamrsilva]

9. Well, I don't like either of them too much...

I was a Dean supporter, but I support Kerry more because he has a more liberal record and Edwards STILL supports the war in Iraq.

[emulatorloo]

10. Values and "Electability" aren't mutually exclusive. . .n/t

[John_H]

12. No brainer

Electability is the only reason I like Edwards better than kerry. To me it's just an absolute no brainer that we need a candidate w/ military/foreign policy experience to win.

[OKNancy]

14. I can see it all now

Bush with his 200million....three ads an hour...goes like this.

Black and white photos of a pensive Bush, looking at maps and meeting with advisors. Music swells. Narrator: "Bush, he's been tested in the worst of times. Do we really want to turn our country to John Edwards?"

Or another one with him meeting with soldiers and being cheered on.

----
Forget domestic policy, because Bush loses to every Democrat, but he can't frame the debate on foreign policy if it is Kerry.

I like both of them, but if we want the one who is the strongest agains Bush....the "war president", then it has to be Kerry.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Edwards has had a number of problems

Answering foreign affairs questions satisfactorily7, in particular, those about the Israeli-Palestine question, when these questions have been posed by the media. AS this is the lynchpin in the entire middle east crisis, it is not a good idea to appeas so unscholled n this area.

[poskonig]

16. I see it like this.

Edwards starts the campaign with more, but has less to work with. Kerry starts out with less, but has more to work with.

The populist, southern Edwards begins with a shot at winning Tennessee, Louisiana, Missouri, and so forth. However, he only has $45 million to combat the "newbie ambulance chaser with no security creds" crap that is coming his way.

Kerry's greatest weakness is simultaneously his greatest strength -- being a seasoned politician. He'll be painted as a waffling northeastern elitist, but Kerry rarely makes mistakes, has the heroic bio, unlimited $$$, and plays really dirty while looking very nice, to the chagrin of his opponents.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. Lurch vs. Gomez

I prefer the John Astin version of Gomez, by the way...

Edwards will get every vote Kerry will (save some veterans) and MANY MANY MORE. Edwards gets Southerners, rural voters, facile non-voters and probably more crossovers. Although Edwards is easily as left as Kerry, he's not perceived as such; the independent and Republican vote Edwards got in Wisconsin is a jaw-dropper.

Now, for the unfortunately facile: Edwards is exciting, attractive and engaging; Kerry is dour, opaque and obtuse. Tarred with the tag of eastern intellectual--the traditional death knell in American politics--he will get his ass kicked by the so-called NASCAR dads and many others who should realize how Junior is their enemy.

Edwards can get votes from crossovers and disgruntled conservatives who would never cotton to voting for a Massachusetts Limousine Liberal. Much of this is unfair to Kerry, but it's undeniable truth. What gets one elected in this deeply shallow age is precisely what he lacks and Edwards has in abundance: pizazz, joy, optimism and magnetism.

This is a huge opportunity, and as many a lifelong Democrat, I shake my head with dismay at the idiocy of my party's headlong rush to impractical decisions; John Reid Edwards is quite simply the best candidate this party's had in 40 years. Listen Carville: he's the best stump speaker Corporal Cueball's ever seen run for President; Carville feels the pulse of the nation in a way that few will ever do, and he should be heeded.

Scrape all the emotion aside, sit in a dark room, and then watch a short speech by Kerry and one by Edwards; the contrast is undeniable. Then remember that most people vote on an even more superficial way than this; for most, it's little more than impulse, and by that thrust, Edwards is infinitely better.

How will Kerry explain voting against the '91 Gulf War? That alone is an absolute death-blow on what is supposedly his greatest strength.

[AP]

18. Gomez is a really great band!

[edzontar]

19. This debate is all these guys have going at this point...

How sad.

[Padraig18]

20. A wealthy lawyer with no FP experience saw us through the Civil War.

His name was Abraham Lincoln. The job is what the job is, and one either rises to the occasion, or one doesn't.

Simple as that, folks.

[adamrsilva]

22. The Civil War had nothing to do with foreign nations

Lincoln didn't need foreign policy experience...