Edwards, Not Hillary, is Dems' Best Chance

[babylonsister]

Edwards, Not Hillary, is Dems' Best Chance
By Steven Stark

According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a rout. Key to her current appeal is the assumption that she's the party's most electable candidate. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 54 percent of Democrats described her as their best hope in 2008. (The other candidates lagged behind.)

There's only one problem with this faith in Clinton's electability: it's wrong. On paper, John Edwards is the party's best chance for a victory, even though his latest fundraising difficulties have made it increasingly unlikely that he will ever be the nominee.

Sure, Clinton often runs ahead of the Democratic pack in polls that track the candidates' strengths against possible GOP opponents. But that's because she has already assumed the role of a nominee, and the others have not. If Edwards or Barack Obama won the nomination, that air of certainty would transfer to either of them.

In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her electability probably haven't been reading the latest polls carefully. In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn't looking particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning signs that Clinton's presence at the top of the ticket could be a disaster for her party's congressional candidates in many closely contested races.

more...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_not_hillary_is_dems_be.html

[soleft]

1. After seeing him on Countdown last night, he has my support

[EVDebs]

2. Clinton's stances are a lot like Joe Lieberman's re the Middle East

The best policy tool to beat Bush's base with is Luke 9 : 5 when it comes to the Middle East. Militarily just pull back a bit and 'shake the dust from the sandals' so to speak. When the Arab and Persian world want to discuss things with us, they'll ask and do things under a process of self-determination not by imposition and occupation.

Edwards is the best Democratic candidate overall and deserves to get the nomination. He could make Dennis Kucinich his Labor Sec !

[jsamuel]

12. Great! THANK YOU!

:bounce: :patriot:

http://www.johnedwards.com

[hedgehog]

3. I'm glad Edwards drew the bright shining line between himself and Clinton.

It seems that in every debate, Hillary states that she agreees with all the other candidates, so we should select her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. This Is Rich-From The Article

" Edwards would try to hold the Democratic base, win some of the swing states, and pick off a few Southern border states - such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee "

Kerry-Edwards lost the Tar Heel state by a bigger margin than Gore-Lieberman and he is ruinning 20 points behind Hillary Clinton in that state's primary:

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has fallen sharply behind New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in his home state, according to a new poll.
Clinton was the favorite of 37 percent of self-identified North Carolina Democrats surveyed, compared to 18 percent for Edwards, according to an Elon University Poll released today. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama was the choice of 18 percent of those polled.

"Hillary Clinton has a striking lead over both John Edwards and Barack Obama among North Carolinians," said Hunter Bacot, director of the poll. "This is noteworthy given that this is Edwards' home state."

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/719795.html

[laureloak]

26. I've watched the repub machine at work against Edwards

here in NC. It's easy when you're in a CRIMSON, RED, SCARLET, RED state. Anyone who claims Hillary can carry NC is just full of bull.

[rinsd]

5. Why are we posting columns by rw assholes?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/steven_stark/

[babylonsister]

8. How do you know he's a rw asshole? Because you don't like the topic?

I find some very enlightening articles on realclearpolitics, though I also realize there are rw writers there.

http://starkwriting.com/

Steven D. Stark is a writer and a consultant who teaches courses on writing and speaking to lawyers and other professionals. A former cultural commentator for CNN, National Public Radio, and the Voice of America, he is the author of three books and one e-book and has written frequently for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic Monthly, and the Boston Globe where he was an op-ed columnist. He currently is covering the 2008 presidential race through his “Presidential Tote Board” column and blog for the Boston Phoenix. A lawyer and former Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, he is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. The Proprietor Of The Website Is A Right Winger...

I don't how much we can infer from the fact Mr. Stark works for a right winger...

I keep this bookmarked to remind me what a loon and wing nut the proprietor of that site is:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001110051000/www.realclearpolitics.com/Polls/polls-EC_ALWAYS.html

It shows how our predisposition colors our perception....

I give him credit...I would have pulled it out of embarrassment...

[babylonsister]

11. Doesn't matter; they still post articles by EJ Dionne, Sy Hersh,

Newsweek, Vanity Fair, etc. I can pick and choose which ones I want to read/share.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Yeah

The proprietor of that website has accumulated a lot of valuable information but his assertion that Bush* was going to get 446 EC votes in 00 is laughable...

[rinsd]

18. I only use RCP for their poll compilations. But you're right I should take the article apart.

Edwards is not the Democrat's best chance.

His poll standing won't last long when he goes 3 months from nomination to convention unarmed because of his acceptance of public financing.

I have said this dozens of times but polls are a snapshot of public opinion now.

If the race is hardly inevitable with a 20 pt lead by Clinton, why does an advantage of 5 pts more in national heats make Edwards the best candidate?

Other problems with the article include

"Clinton's problem is that, according to some polls, Rudy Giuliani is currently running even or only slightly behind her in New Jersey, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - up-for-grabs states Clinton has to sweep in order to win. Given his current showing, it's likely Giuliani will win some of those contests in November 2008 and deny Clinton a majority."


What the author apparently does not realize is Edwards is losing to Rudy in quite a few of states he mentions Hillary having a slight lead in(forget about competitive, he's losing big in some of these states),

Using SurveyUSA and Quinnipiac:

NJ - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1299.xml?ReleaseID=1106

In FL, http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1297.xml?ReleaseID=1104

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=13940d24-fd93-4086-8874-693723634885&q=42720

in NY(slight edge to Rudy), - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1108

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=a664ac38-9086-4716-ac4b-474af4d78468&q=42720

in PA, (slight edge to Rudy) - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseID=1095

Both Edwards and Clinton kick Rudy's ass in OH in Q poll (SurveyUSA has both losing by a single pt to Rudy) - http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?ReleaseID=1102

So basically the author is claiming that Hillary won't be able to hold on to these states but Edwards will while picking up swing states and he is doing so based on assumption since Hillary is outperforming Edwards head to head in the states he mentioned as critical. A Rudy candidacy puts NY in play with everyone but Hillary and in NJ she's the only one close to him. For all of Edwards southern appeal he puts much of the NorthEast in play and therefore will have to spend money and time there making his ability to make inroads in the south all the more difficult.

[babylonsister]

19. Wow. But how is he a r/w er? And you know what they say about opinions... nt

[rinsd]

21. Brief perusal of his other articles

Perhaps my reading was too superficial but the framing of articles about Hillary and the others came off as right wing.

[Froward69]

6. I Agree

Clinton is bad for us, however so is Edwards. He comes across as Too polished, Two faced, His package seems too good for belief. as well as having met him my view is reinforced by that meeting. he is a salesman. he most likely could sell ice to an Eskimo. I don't want to be sold a bad bill of goods. Thats what Busheyboy did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Like Edwards...

No need to go ad hominem on him... I just don't think he would be that much stronger a candidate than Clinton...

Why don't you build up your candidate instead of tearing other candidates down...

[Froward69]

10. I'mm

Trying to point out to others there is a better choice than the "Top tier". Woulden't you agree The best choice For America isn't one who is bought by donations from Big business? or Candidates who lead in the polls because they have name recognition? Or say what is Leading in the latest poll?. How about a clear straight shooter?

[babylonsister]

15. And who would that be? Nevermind! Let me guess! nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. The One He Likes I Presume

eom

[jsamuel]

14. He is our best chance in a very long time.

For much more than just winning the election.

[gasperc]

17. I'm a huge Edwards fan, but this electibility shit is crap

I just don't follow it, if there are voters that use it exclusively to make their choice than God help us.

I've been supporting Edwards since early this year. There are several equivocations that I seriously dislike about Clinton and on several substantive issues I prefer Edwards over Clinton.
Clinton is running a clever, triangulating type of campaign. I expected no less. But I want a progressive realignment in 2008 and Hillary will not deliver a progressive realignment. Clinton, at first, tried and failed. And it appears that Hillary will be similarly cautious as president. And I am a big supporter of Bill Clinton, alot of great things came out of his presidency. But alot of bad things happened too. His political miscalculations over NAFTA and embracing corrupted members of congress galvanized the right and allowed their take over of congress. This has stalled important legislation needed to deal with global warming and other issues. Clinton's oil price band ($20-$30) policy has proven to be counter productive in the long run, great for short term economics but poor for the long term. Now we have the polor opposite of super high unchecked $80 oil.
So there is alot of meat to chew for Edwards's supporters to chip away at Clinton policies. Edwards would deliver a progressive revolution, Clinton would maintain the status quo which will prove diasterous.

[laureloak]

20. I look at all the candidates but...

I keep coming back to Edwards.

[progpen]

23. Agree...

but I can also see where the others are coming from as well. We have candidates who run the gamut of experience and stances on the issues. I see that as a damn good thing. I don't really see that on the Repug side of the canyon.

[Donnachaidh]

22. the irony factor in these *polls*

Wasn't it just as little as 6 months ago, when the WSJ and ABC and all the other water-carriers for the White house were bloviating about Bush's *numbers being so good, etc? And many here on this board were calling bullshit on those polls.

But now, all of a sudden these very same water-carriers and their polls are *credible* as to who is going to be the Democratic nominee? What's changed? Did they go through bullshit detox? Did they get a series of "I'm no longer a lying propagandist* cootie shots? Did they place their collective hands over their hearts and pledge to never, NEVER *poll* only selective areas that might just give them the numbers *they* want?

So now we get daily shrillfests of "ABC's latest poll puts ---- out in front by 750,000 points" and all of a sudden they are credible? Credible, yeah -- riiiiigghhhhttt.

Edwards is the right guy for the country. Too bad the water-carriers slapped the wrong sticker on their buckets this time.

[Ninga]

24. If as you say, "Edwards is the right guy for the country.." Then it is up to us to over ride the

the "water-carriers" and MSM on our own.

Hard work for sure.... grassroots at it's very best.

[Donnachaidh]

28. yep - it is.

And I do believe it is being done. The MSM is trying hard to ignore it, because they've already "annointed" HRC. Let's see what happens when the primaries fire up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Hill Polls Were Pretty Much The Same In April

"Wasn't it just as little as 6 months ago, when the WSJ and ABC and all the other water-carriers for the White house were bloviating about Bush's *numbers being so good, etc? And many here on this board were calling bullshit on those polls."




http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Donnachaidh]

27. yeah, and of course you don't get the point of the posting, do you?

:rofl: why should you? It would point out the hypocrisy of the Hillary bots. Can't see the forest for the trees :rofl: