Reply #15: Yes and No... [View All]

[AmericanDream]

I agree, that many people don't vote based on issues. In fact, most people don't vote based on issues. They vote based on a visceral sense - a vibe they get from the candidate, and that vibe might contain that candidate's resume as a component, or not. Let me explain: Edwards did not run on his senate term; he ran on the story of his life, he invoked his legal career, his rise from a son of a mill worker to a grishamesque lawyer more than he invoked his very short political career. The story with Warner is exactly the opposite: if you have seen his stump for now, you'll see him trumpet his achievements as a governor; Warner is running as a competent one-term red state governor; Edwards ran (and will again) as a champion of the underdog as a lawyer, poverty expert (he worked on poverty issues before getting into politics and is the head of the UNC poverty,work,opportunity center), and as a senator.

People voted for Reagan because of his personality - he radiated an optmistic, hopeful vision of America. They did not vote for Reagan because he was a two term governor of a liberal state called California. And, that is why I think you are wrong. The connection you are making is that Warner and Edwards are both from red states and they served one term in their respective public offices. Your contention is that this will make them look alike to the voters. But those voters who do not vote based on the issues, vote based on personalities and that is what is "something larger, something more transcendent." If you've heard Edwards and Warner talk, you'll realize why they give such different vibes - for those non-issue voters, Warner is the personable - but not terribly charismatic - moderate who was a competent governor from a conservative state; Edwards is a charismatic progressive with little experience but a lot of ideas and a passion to fight for them. Edwards gives a folksy, passionate vibe; Warner gives a more matter-of-fact but still likable vibe. And, I think they do fill two different slots.

I also think you are wrong that most people do not know squat about either man - Edwards has been to 35 states since the election, holding minimum wage increase rallies, poverty discussion rallies, candidate fundraisers, etc. Edwards doesn't get national coverage, but he is smart because he is going local. Even in '04, in the general, he didn't get much national coverage... but he stormed local newspapers and still gets glowing local coverage whereever he goes. After the '04 election, he had the highest favorable ratings of all four guys on the national ticket and he is still the most likable democrat around the country, followed by Bill Clinton (that in my opinion, is a huge achievement... that means people know him enough to like him.. you can check this at the polling report... he has about 73% favorable ratings).

And, that is being ignored by the washington media and consultants - edwards is going for the grassroots on this. He has been on a full scale campaign mode for the last few months (not full scale, but close)... warner on the other hand is an unknown quantity. And I think that come primary season, this is going to count a lot - Edwards will have ready contacts and activist support (he has teamed up with unions and ACORN and other progressive sources) in all states and he won't have to introduce himself to the people because they know him enough after a national campaign and thousands of local rallies; Warner won't, he'll have to spend the time building his network of support and introducing himself to the electorate.

Do they fulfill a common role in the collective public consciousness? NO. I think they have very different presentations. Edwards likes to exhort bigger themes and relies on narrative rhetoric as much as he does on substantive policies. Warner goes straight for just the policy - in that regards, Warner gives the impression of being more like Kerry, just less experienced and much more likable. Edwards on the other hand juxtaposes anecdotes with policy, which is a mix of Reagan and Clinton. So, after listening to both of them, let me tell you that they leave distinctly different impressions on the viewer/listener. And, most people (in the primaries) will at least listen to each of them once before casting their vote... the profiles that you talk about are cast much more by the themes and styles of each candidate's campaign than their past. And, the themes and styles of Edwards and Warner's appeal are very different... and the non-issue voters will have very different visceral reactions to both.


My prediction is that Warner will be the moderate favorite followed by some support for Richardson, Edwards/Feingold will fight for the liberal/progressive base, Bayh will appeal to the conservative democrats. Hillary will run as the frontrunner and Biden/Clark are going to be the wildcards with foreign policy prowess.