Edwards, as he says, is most electable

[venable]

he was slimed as a gender and race baiter by stating the very important view that he is the most electable. there have been several non-partisan corroborations of this, posted last week.

here is another one.

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/06/20/edwards-electability-edge/

so, you see, it's not race or gender baiting to say, accurately, that he would fare the best in the general election.

i really hope the party looks at electability for a change.

and, pre-emptively, it is not convincing to say he didn't win NC last time, or he is slipping in the polls - this evidence renders such arguments irrelevant in my opinion, anyway.

[rinsd]

1. Edwards GE matchups have been trending down.

His most electable argument helped him stick around in the face of the Obama and Clinton campaigns impressive starts was his ability to best the GOP when they couldn't.

Well that has changed Clinton and Obama are both beating the GOP and are trending up in their GE matchups on various polls while Edwards has stagnated or lost ground in GE matchups. He still wins vs GOP but he no longer has the glow of sole conqueror.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Edwards is a fine candidate but his most electable meme has died before ehe even got to spread it around.

[venable]

4. he remains the MOST electable, even by the poll you posted

unless I'm reading it wrong, he remains the cumulative leader based on all matchups.

and I don't see the trending down that you see.

is it possible that this is right - that he is the most electable? I'd reckon that the evidence we have at hand says so.

[Tejanocrat]

6. You're reading the polling correctly. Some folks'll say anything to avoid the topic of head-to-head

match ups because they show that nominating their preferred candidate will lead to probable disaster.

This is the key to the polling data:

Romney is about as close a stand-in for Generic Republican as you’re going to get. And look at John Edwards’ edge over Hillary in this scenario. Eight points:



A top handicapper told me recently that he expects Hillary to perform in a general election as ‘Generic Democrat Minus Five Points.’ Meaning that she can win — but only in another wave election like we saw in the 2006 election, where resentment against Bush and the GOP gives Dems a 6 to 8 point head start.

Barack Obama may have a similar structural disadvantage. (Though given his ability to mobilize untraditional voters — millennials and gen xers in particular — he might be able to make up for it. He remains as ever a wild card.)

If Democrats are looking for a safer bet to take back the Oval office, Edwards the silver tongued Southern senator looks like a winner from this poll data.

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/06/20/edwards-electability-edge

[rinsd]

8. LOL

"Some folks'll say anything to avoid the topic of head-to-head match ups because they show that nominating their preferred candidate will lead to probable disaster."

Evidence disputed by your own post.

And polling everywhere. Obama and Clinton trending up in GE matchups. Edwards stagnant or trending down.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[rinsd]

7. A win by a million votes vs 2 millions votes doesn't matter all that much.

[Benhurst]

9. It would make a big difference in Congressional and Senate races.

[venable]

10. so that's the HRC gambit - 1 mil is the same as 2 mil ????

you've just given eloquent voice to the most vivid problem with HRC - the argument, 'man, even she could win this time' is exactly why she should NOT be the nominee. even her supporters admit, by virtue of making this argument, that she is the weakest in the general.

[rinsd]

11. Winning is winning.

And the argument is not that "even she could win" but rather that all of the top 3 Democrats can win. Weakest in the general would matter if she was losing to the GOP. That isn't the case.

Too bad Democrats don't seem to think you're guy is the one.

Lastest poll even has Hillary beating him in IA(with Obama right on his heels) where he has basically staked his entire campaign. Throw in his inability to garner more than 15% in national heats and well his campaign is not exactly flying high.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/19/230049.aspx

[venable]

12. fact is Edwards is best in the general, and it sounds like you allow that

my argument is why would we not put out best shot up...

as for your arguments that edwards is fading...i hardly think that's the case right now in Iowa. polls are all over the place. I feel very good about Iowa right now, but it's a long way to go.

If you think it's wise to put up our least dominant (of the top three), then I don't get your thinking.

[rinsd]

13. Your argument is a contradiction.

You feel Edwards has time to turn it around and capture the nomination.

Yet you make the electability argument 8 months before the primary and 18 months before the general thinking the numbers will be set in stone?

I'm not saying it will be Hillary but chances are good that Edwards "best shot" won't mean a whole lot come Jan 2008. Whether its Obama pulling similar numbers or eclisping him or all the Dems doing exceedingly well.

[venable]

16. not at all

I'm talking about the general election, held today, Edwards polls as the strongest Dem.

this is not complicated, nor is it different from what I've said above.

not sure what's confusing.

[jcrew2001]

2. He's Southern - its all about geography and not about race/gender

but I do think Obama can win the mid-west but not the south.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. That really is the point

He's got the history and that accent, along with his many other obvious pluses.

There are a lot of southerners who are wavering from the blockheaded reactionary bent, but they need someone with whom they feel comfortable. He's someone who they could be seen talking with by their friends. The issue with Obama isn't so much that he's black--although that is an issue in the south--but that he's a northerner and he comes off oddly Kerryesque as he wears on. This isn't just as the blush of the newfound hero wears off, but in his speeches: he's a good starter, but he tends to get to a place where people glaze over a bit as he gets dry and intellectual. Sadly, this country HATES intellectuals, and anyone with reasonable circuitry always has to fight against this.

Very few things in life come from one cause, usually they're a melange of different influences. Having said that, yes, Hillary does have problems in the redder part of the south simply by being a woman, and yes, Obama does simply by being black. Those aren't the only issues that stand in their way there, though, and to boil it down that way is misleading.

The south still has a chip on its collective shoulder for getting whipped by the blue-bellies, and that's just reality; being a backwoods nobody who made good is a wonderful thing. As that other John said: a working class hero is something to be.

People identify with their candidate and that's obvious by the shrill partisanship we see on this board and elsewhere. (I'm plenty guilty myself.) His story is one that southerners can cozy up to as a reflection on themselves, feeling that they can make it too.

As we saw with the Villaraigosa campaign out here, people like to vote for their kind. (I think he's more than a bit of a demagogue, and Hahn got screwed.) This human trait doesn't help Obama, since the black vote is overwhelmingly Democratic already and they're only about an eighth of the population. It'll definitely help Hillary, since women are more than half of the population, but the big question is whether it can outweigh her HUGE (and in many cases, deserved) negatives. That leaves Edwards, whose "kind" are mostly red-voters who can be siphoned off. It only takes a state or two in the south to drive a stake through the monarchists alleged hearts, and putting him at the wheel will force them to spend endless resources defending their territory where they wouldn't have to otherwise.

He's by far and away the most electable, but to me, that's not the point; the point is that he's level-headed, decent, sincere, polished and has his priorities straight.

This is why the conservative-dominated media alternately ignores or ridicules him, and this is why they smile upon Hillary.

[zulchzulu]

3. After all, look at how he helped win Southern states in 2004...

:eyes:

[venable]

5. oh, please, Kerry wrote off the south, and Edwards was barely there, as per the campaign

why does this keep getting brought up?

Edwards was not given the opportunity to lift a New England intellectual (who I like a whole lot) to victory in the south.

I'd say that if Edwards had been at the top of the ticket and the party ran a 50 state race, he'd be president as you read this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. He is the only candidate to win a general election in a red state

Edwards, as an underdog, unseated a Republican incumbent in a southern red state. Other candidates had their senate seats handed to them on a silver platter in very blue states. ;)

Bottom line: Edwards has proven he can win in a red state. No other candidate has done that (Richardson won in a purple state that Gore won and Kerry barely lost).

[venable]

17. and both HRC and Obama had ludicrous candidates opposing them.

Obama in particular. He has actually not won anything against a strong opponent. not saying he can't, just saying he hasn't. this matters, IMO

[Like It Is]

18. and both HRC and Obama had ludicrous candidates opposing them.

That's for sure, I think I could have beaten their Senate
opponents. I have never ran for political office 

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Good points nt

nt

[Thrill]

20. He's telling the truth

People who think Obama or Hilary could win a General Election are only fooling themselves. Truth Hurts sometimes. This is a country that re-elected Bush after he was a miserable failure the first time. That alone should tell you how narrow minded this country is