Serious question about Edwards vs. the Republicans in the polls

[XemaSab]

Some folks here claim that Edwards is the only candidate who can defeat all the potential Republican nominees.

If Edwards is doing so poorly among Democrats so far in the primary, but does well stacked against potential opponents in the general election, doesn't that make him more popular among Republicans than the rest of the candidates? :shrug:

And why is this a good thing? :shrug: :shrug:

[frogcycle]

1. BECAUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO WIN

duh

[jsamuel]

2. no, what it means is that Democrats are currently choosing Clinton or Obama over Edwards, but would

choose Edwards over Republicans. More Independents and/or Republicans would vote for Edwards over the Republicans. That is the difference. Democrats like Edwards, they just haven't decided that they like him the best... yet...

[EffieBlack]

3. This makes no sense.

[FrenchieCat]

4. What is it about Edwards that the Republicans would "like".....

please tell me. I'm at a loss. :shrug:

[XemaSab]

5. Versus Clinton or Obama?

He's a white man. :P

[JDPriestly]

6. Edwards has a populist message

and appeals to rural Americans. He is from rural America. He is the real thing. That is why he did so well in Iowa. You can't fake kinship with rural people. Edwards doesn't have to. And rural Americans who may identify themselves as Republicans really appreciate Edwards' rural origins.

I'd like to ad that Edwards speaks in clear, simple language. He uses a lot of images and tells stories, and that makes his speeches come alive for ordinary people. Also, Edwards is promising to try to enforce and change the trade agreements. He has a good record on trade having voted as I understand it, only for the China bill -- which was Clinton's bill.

[cali]

7. In this part of rural America

Edwards is not the choice of most people. And in Iowa's rural counties, Obama beat him. You don't know that rural americans who are repukes "really appreciate" his rural orgins. I for one doubt that.

[JDPriestly]

8. Edwards came in second in Iowa.

[cali]

11. Edwards came in 7 pts behind Obama and

in a near statistical tie with Clinton- .25% of the vote more. He got 17% in NH and 4% in NV. When I supported Dean 4 years ago, I realized after NH that he wasn't going to be the nominee. You folks want to stick by JE, that's fine, but the fact is, he's not going to be the nominee, and most likely Obama won't either. Clinton really is the prohibitive favorite.

[XemaSab]

13. I'm still hoping Obama will pull it off

I'm just waiting for people to take a good, hard look at Hillary and go "whoa."

Don't get me wrong, Hillary's my second choice, but the Clinton years weren't that rad.

[stravu9]

12. You NAILED It There!

Go John!

[Two Americas]

20. nothing

Not one single solitary thing.

However, the millions of people in the general public who have been voting Republican - that is a different story.

Of course if we buy into the divisiveness that the right wingers have caused, and wish to reinforce it, then we can see half the country as "being" Republicans as therefore as the enemy. If we see politics as being solely a matter of the hot button cultural war issues - created by the right wingers and all designed for the purpose of dividing and conquering the people - rather than being about power and economics, as politics traditionally always was, then the Edwards message would make no sense to us.

Edwards is talking about a way out of the trap we are in - either we write off half of the population, or we compromise on fundamental principles and ideals. So long as we do not out economics and power as the most important issues - as the context within which all other issues should be held - we will never get out if this trap.

[Yukari Yakumo]

9. Didn't Kerry sport something similar vs. Bush in '04?

We all know how well that held for us when November came.

[XemaSab]

10. What's the word?

Ejectavility? Erectamility? Uh... I forget. :P

[redqueen]

14. I don't get the logic in your second sentence.

How does his doing more poorly against the media-blasted candidates mean he's more popular among republicans?

[XemaSab]

19. The primaries are mostly held among democrats.

But Edwards is not doing very well among the democrats.

National polls that match up, say, Kucinich vs. Huckabee are among all voters from all over the spectrum.

There's always going to be a core group of yellow dog dems and yellow dog reps. The variation in the poll numbers comes from the rest of the American public.

So if Hillary/Romney is 40/60 (God forbid), then the assumption is that 20% of people on the more liberal side of the spectrum decided Romney was the better candidate.

If Edwards/McCain is 60/40, then (at least) 20% of the people from the more conservative side went for Edwards. So Edwards would have much, much greater support among conservatives than Hillary would.

This is what the electability mavens are essentially arguing, and I'm asking if that isn't logically a bit off.

[redqueen]

21. I don't agree with what the mavens are saying, then.

I think the more liberal and more conservative voters will always go with their side (obv.), so it's the "mushy middle" makes the difference in these head-to-head matchups.

Just my perspective... :shrug:

[elizm]

15. Latest poll I saw showed Obama beating all Republicans...

And he is viable in the Dem. Primary

[zalinda]

16. I have a question

Do you honestly think that people would say that they wouldn't vote for Obama and be thought of as a racist? The thing is that people may not want to vote for him because of his policies, but would hate to say anything because they could be labeled. And it is better to be labeled a sexist, rather than a racist.

zalinda

[elizm]

22. Sounds like a racist comment to me. nt

[dajoki]

17. It is because the media has decided...

that he will not win. It would go against their Obama vs. Clinton drama. Besides, do you think the MSM will allow someone as anti-corporate as Edwards the chance to be competitave?

[Two Americas]

18. there is a disconnection

The type of candidate who most appeals to the most active Democrats is the opposite of what appeals to the general electorate.

Kerry is an excellent example. He was the perfect candidate for the party activists and yet the very features about him that appealed to us were anathema to the general public. We select the candidate that most appeals to us, based on criteria that only matters to us, and again and again run a candidate that cannot do well with the general public.

We seek and run the candidate that best matches our values and our preferences rather than the candidate who will best advance our principles and ideals to the general public. The two are almost completely mutually exclusive.