John Edwards is the Most Electable Democrat

[Nutmegger]

In the wake of the latest New Hampshire Democratic primary poll by the Boston Globe in which 53% of voters said they felt Hillary Clinton was the most electable, we decided to look at past polling data to either confirm or repudiate those claims. Hillary Clinton's high "electability" in the New Hampshire poll is nothing more than an acknowledgement by voters that she is leading in the polls thus looks like she can win. When a candidate is winning their primary, he/she will look electable to voters -- an obvious correlation isn't it?

But what's not obvious is how those candidates would fare in a hypothetical general election matchup when pitted against Republican rivals.

One word of caution we feel is important to make is that any single general election matchup poll should be deemed highly innacurate because the general election is almost a full year away. Not only are polls the least accurate as you poll further away from an election but voters are making their decisions from either not paying attention to the election or to seeing how the candidates are doing in their respective nomination bids. Yet we still feel that analyzing the trends of several polls lumped together can be done.

Clinton, due to her high poll numbers in her bid for the Democratic nomination will get positive vibes from voters and would likely be strong in general election matchups. But can she count on those votes come Election 2008?

Full article: http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-electable-democrat.html

[orpupilofnature57]

1. The most Trustworthy , which could be to his detriment in a country with..

no impeachment ,unwarranted invasion of privacy ,and a Corporate dictated Media.

[Xipe Totec]

2. Please don't say that

I like Edwards. Period.

But the phrase "Most Electable Democrat" gives me nightmarish flash backs of when Kerry was running for the Democratic nomination.

[Think82]

3. WRONG! Biden is.

On the Biden blog we got a LOT of Republicans eager to vote for Joe.

[jillan]

7. Who are you over there?

[Think82]

12. I'm...

"Billy" but I don't blog over there too much... just observe. Feel like I'm preachin' to the choir. I prefer to work over here or huffpost, where all the psychos go to blog. Although it's been getting better of late. How about that Randi Rhodes today fawning over Biden?! She did like a whole hour on him and played his clips exclusively.

[jillan]

13. Not the first time Randi has promoted Biden - I was listening to her last week and she was going

full blast for Biden for him talking to Musharraf and Bhutto before Bush...and for warning us about Pakistan before this all happened.
She played clips of him and kept saying "I am more and more impressed with Biden".

I love it;P she reaches a whole new audience for Joe.

[JDPriestly]

27. I'm an Edwards supporter, but Biden is a good guy.

I'm not flaming, but I'm wondering whether there was anything to the allegations that he had somehow plagiarized something. Was that just a bogus rumor or something that might haunt him as a candidate?

[Superman Returns]

4. nope

when people actually focus on his record or lack of one they will not take to Johnny Boy. All talk, little action. Plus, if you think the GOP won't take the "hypocrite" memo and take his lavish lifestyle and put in harsh contrast with his populist rhetoric, then you don't realize who we're dealing with. It will be the classic "liberal elite" line, along with being a trial lawyer. Finally, what was the "I voted for it before I voted against it" for Kerry, "The War on Terror is a bumper sticker slogan" will be for Edwards. Especially if Guialiani is the nominee, they will never let Edwards live this down. They will play this line against footage of the twin towers falling down and use it in campaign commercials 24/7. For a guy who couldn't even stand up to Clinton without utterly failing, how do you think he will respond to Mr. 9/11 himself. If it's Edwards v.s Giualini, then I predict New Jersey and Connecticut may even go red.

[depakid]

6. That's a valid point

Though comparatively speaking, the other candidates have equal if not worse liabilities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. deleted

random musing.

[ihavenobias]

9. Lifestyle BS

It's incredibly obnoxious when people talk about Edwards and his "lavish lifestyle".

So the guy has money...and what, Hillary doesn't?

FDR was THE most economically helpful president for the poor/middle class in American history and he had FAR more money than Edwards.

Also, if we're talking about cheap smears the republicans *might* use, there are PLENTY to go around for the major candidates, and as many if not more for Clinton. How many gender based jabs regarding any manner of things will there be? How many Bill Clinton related/sex related jabs? The potential is limitless, trust me (unfortunately because there much more credible and less personal reasons to not be in favor of Hillary).

But hey, if *you* are the one writing the cheap smears against Edwards (as evidenced by your post and it's tone, "Johnny Boy", etc) then I'm not worried.

[Superman Returns]

14. you are right

but you know what the difference between FDR and Edwards is? A hell of a lot. Times have changed. Elitist presidents weren't as big of a deal back then, especially when the media was much limited. We didn't get google images of FDR's property that looked like it decimated and entire forest to be made. Second, FDR never sold his policies as a little guy or everyman. He sold them as a statesman.

Second, people are forgiving of Hillary's lifestyle because we've been through the Clintons before. We know their deal. We know Bill's story. And we wouldn't expect a former first couple to live like everyone else. It's the equivalent of taking an immunization shot.

Finally, the difference between Clinton and Edwards and their capabilities to take on smears, is that Clinton has one of the most ruthless, savvy, sharp, and unrelenting campaigns in recent memory. She won't let shit fly. And I say this as a current Obama guy! Edwards may have made sense when he tackled the notion that the "War on Terror" is a bumper sticker slogan, but from that day, I knew he lost. Just play it against footage of 9/11 and he's be toast.

[BlueStater]

15. If you were to conduct a poll, I think most Americans would agree with Edwards...

...about the whole "War on Terror" bullshit.

[ihavenobias]

17. Very Strange

I have to say I find your argument to be, well, strange.

Elitist presidents? For Christ's sake, we just elected George Bush TWICE. The guy was born in CT into a RICH family (in contrast to Edwards, strong contrast in fact). He went to boarding school where he was a cheerleader (literally) and then Ivy league schools. He ran oil businesses (and failed miserably) and owned a baseball team.

He purchased his ranch in 1999.

So please, don't try the elitist line, it sounds like *projection* to me.

And again, his roots are important. *IF* he was born into money, then yes, you'd have a point. But he wasn't so you don't IMO.

Finally, it's really going to take a royal f*up for us to end up with yet another republican president considering how wildly unpopular the republicans are. And it's NOT just Iraq. It's rampant corruption and scandal, including related to "family values" BS. People say "we aren't running against George Bush" but # 1, we kinda are, and # 2, we don't have to in light of all the aforementioned scandal and corruption.

You want to talk about smearing people, how about Rudy's multiple marriages and infidelity? Or his dressing up in drag? And there is TONS of material there for so called "flip-flops" with Rudy too, trust me. There is WAY more material there and believe me, the party will stand behind and help Edwards if he wins the nomination.

I'm not worried about him winning the general election, but he has to get that far first.

[Cameron27]

22. How is the fact that republicans put rich-guy

George Bush into office related to what we Democrats look for in our candidates. FWIW, I don't think JE's, (or anyone else's) wealth or personal life style will hurt him, unless people think he's "wallowing" in it, or showing off. Some environmentalists might take issue with it's carbon footprint, if they're against the use of carbon credits.

I just don't understand your argument. (Bush's ranch house is actually environmentally friendly and quite small btw)

[ihavenobias]

23. You Again?

What is there to not understand? Americans don't mind *actual* elitist presidents depending on how they are framed, and Bush proved that 100 times over.

Besides, FDR's riches puts all this nonsense to bed WRT democratic candidates, or it least it should those democrats who take issue with Edwards.

Although again, none of the other major candidates are hurting for money.

[Cameron27]

25. Yeah I actually donate so I can post here

You're not worth the fucking trouble. On ignore you go.

[ihavenobias]

30. Unnecessarily Harsh

And very telling that you'd have to ignore someone because they force you to question who you plan to vote for.

And also rather snobbish (and presumptious) I might add.

[Hieronymus]

20. Great post .. it's ingenuous, to say the least, to criticize Edwards because

he is successful.

[JDPriestly]

28. Edwards got his money fighting corporations.

Since leaving office, Bill Clinton has been earned the big bucks giving speeches for corporate to-dos. I assure you, Big Bill will not be speaking to any organization that would invite me to sit at one of their tables. You don't make the kinds of money he has been making by speaking to the ACLU or to the Southern Poverty Law Center or even local bar associations or Democratic Clubs (like the groups I belong to). Yep, since leaving office, Bill has mingled with the rich and famous, dined at their tables and taken their money. That is where Hillary get's hers.

Edwards is his own man. Clinton is a corporate tool.

[Nutmegger]

10. The repukes will smear anyone, period.

"The war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan" - damn right it is. Every time a damn repuke needs something, whether to strip our rights or more money for an endless WAR it's all because of the "war on terra". It's sick the way the reupkes throw that around like an everyday greeting. John Edwards was absolutely correct when he said that.

The American people realize that too. The fear mongering no longer works.

[sampsonblk]

26. The War on Terror IS a bumper sticker slogan

The other Dems sold him out on that one.

[rinsd]

5. What embarrassing analysis, I can't believe they attached their names to it.

"Edwards has been better than Clinton by comfortable margins of 6%, 7% (twice) and 10% when they are pitted up against Giuliani. Of course if you focus on October's results, you would say Clinton was the best candidate but we prefer to stick with a candidate that is showing consistency because the polls can vary greatly in a general election -- especially one that is a year away. With Hillary Clinton as polarizing as she is, you would rather stick with the candidate that shows the most consistency of results as well as is the least objectionable. And if you are a Democrat that wants an end to the war, Clinton should have offended you with her vote on Iran?"

[skiddlybop]

11. Um, how can Edwards be the most electable Democrat

WHEN HE LOST THE LAST ELECTION?

Proven loser and wants another chance? Sorry. Should have showed us how fuckin' bulldog he was in the debate with Cheney, not Hillary.

Okay? Got it?

He. Had. His. Chance. And. Lost. Because. He. Was. Such. A. Pussy.

Read it slow if you have to.

Edwards lost once. I won't let him lose again.

[laureloak]

16. I'm firmly in the Edwards camp.

But I cannot say I will support any other Dem candiate.

[usregimechange]

18. I agree, and the best.

[mtnsnake]

19. The article was obviously written by a Giuliani staffer since Edwards is the only beatable Dem

[laureloak]

21. Straight from the mouth of a snake?

[mtnsnake]

24. Well of course

[waiting for hope]

29. Thank you Nutmegger!

Nice job! K&R!

[asdjrocky]

31. Great post.

and kick

[Perry Logan]

32. Electable? The Democrats could run a dead dog in 2008 and still win.

[Laelth]

33. Hear, hear.

... but he needs more money. k&r.

:dem:

-Laelth

[bluecrush]

34. Some of us said the same thing

in 2004 too. John Edwards would draw more Republican votes than Hill..