Edwards = High Negatives???

[sampsonblk]

How can John Edwards' negatives be as high as Clinton's?

*Note: the poll I just saw is not entirely reliable, but even if its close, I am very surprised. What has he ever done to make people hate him?

[Adelante]

1. Is there a link?

Or what poll is this and where did you see it? Thanks.

[spooky3]

2. do you have a link?

[Mass]

3. The RW noise that was made by Donohue and Malkin is hyping his profile.

A lot less people are indifferent, and the evangelicals see him negatively because of this BS.

High negatives are often the price to be paid for visibility and straight talking. You cannot please everybody. The stronger you state where you stand, the more those who disagree will dislike you.

[DemBones DemBones]

30. Leftist Christians were also upset by Edwards' statement that

he believed Marcotte and McEwan when they said they didn't intend to insult anyone's beliefs. Either he didn't read what they wrote or he didn't care how many people they'd insulted.

Three days after his comment accepting their statement that they didn't intend to insult anyone's beliefs, Marcotte wrote another inflammatory statement about the Virgin Birth, which is a basic tenet of Christian faith. Both women ended up resigning and the Edwards campaign had "no comment."

He needed to issue an apology and get their resignations back on the 8th (when he made his statement that he believed them.)

He chose not to deal with this properly so I'm choosing not to support him.


BTW, I wrote him a long, polite e-mail about what had been written and how offensive it was and in response I got a letter asking for money! No reply to what I'd written about. :eyes:

What a comedian! :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

4. The Latest poll I've seen, Gallup, has his negatives at 31% with 12% having never heard of him

But why isn't the poll you saw "entirely reliable?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3113058&mesg_id=3113058

[twilight_sailing]

5. I don't see it.

When confronted with questions like this, I always ask myself, "What would my Texas relatives say?"

What they do say is this, he is a trial lawyer who made cases against the government. Note: I am not up for defending their opinions, I am just reporting.

Rush et al have made their careers slagging trial lawyers, which was a good move if you aren't one to think about things too much. They don't tell all those lawyer jokes for nothing. ;)

[sellitman]

6. What negatives?

He is the only candidate to date that has laid out a clear concise plan for universal health coverage. The rest just talk platitudes.


Mind you I am a Kucinich supporter 1st but lets not throw Edwards under the bus. He is a player and his views will help our platform no matter who wins.

[sampsonblk]

8. That's my question too

I would like to see some specifics in the polls. Otherwise, it makes no sense for him to have high negatives. Now Clinton, I'd expect to have high negs. But not Edwards.

[Leilani]

15. Perhaps because he said he would raise taxes?

Americans find that abominable.

It surely didn't help Walter Mondale when he said the same thing.

[Clark2008]

17. He has many.

Trust me.

This Southern 30-something white woman (allegedly his demographic "base" of supporters) knows he's nothing put a pure politician.

[sellitman]

24. Clinton was a "Pure Politician" and he did a pretty credible job over all I'd say.

Being one isn't the problem. Being one with the right ideas is what we need. His Health Care Package is pretty spectacular. Have you looked it over?

[venable]

32. could you give a reason as to why we should 'trust you'

when you say many people hate Edwards. Something maybe beyond your immediate circle? serious question here.

[sampsonblk]

7. Link to PollingReport.com

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

[Rowdyboy]

10. I look at Fox polls VERY sceptically......Edwards negatives are way off....

I don't trust these particular figures.

[PATRICK]

11. Negatives that count

are NOT those that are insignificant in Dem primaries to start with. The avid pro-Bush crazy base is a write off for everyone who is sane, which are all Dems including Lieberman. This is an attempt to circumvent the undercurrent momentum of Edwards having no dampening negatives in any Dem base and attractive to most mainstream GOP voters fed up with extremists. It also seeks to dampen his natural appeal to Southern religious voters that few other candidates have.

It is one on many attacks on top Democrats to decrease the votes for each and every contender as the sole way to enhance the unscrutinized horrors of their own ham sandwich disasters. It is most likely to backfire as Dem voters, instead of being merely divided and discouraged fasten on with a vengeance to the strongest most vote appealing candidates. All the attention will not help the shallow nonsense of the corrupt and lame candidates trooping to the trough without media scrutiny. To believe them at this time Guiliani is not only credible but leads the jackal pack when one drag queen video alone makes his candidacy DOA.

The only reason to react against this is as another smear strategy based on a prior smear strategy, a house of slime, typical of the rabid RW and its residually human tools.

The grim reality for the GOP is that demographics and lack of significant negatives makes Edwards(so far) an automatic cause of despair for any GOP hopes of survival in 2008. Should the democratic party succeed in nominating someone based on other standards it will salvage some votes out of a much earned thrashing. We could still win and win big, but if the GOP actually stimulates our base, twice stung already, the real negatives- the number of GOP votes against an attractive populist Southern candidate will show up on election day. No one lashed by the GOP will be content to say "we could still win with Hillary". They will begin to look at the candidates the fearful ways the GOP does and use it in the balance to bring the scales themselves crashing down.

[Radical Activist]

23. That link does show what you claim in your post.

There's no positive/negative ratings at that link. Where did you see a poll that showed Edwards with high negatives?

[rinsd]

29. Could the OP be referring to the Defintely Won't Vote for option?

That's what I gathered.

[ileus]

9. Becauwe he's a trial lawyer???

[Doctor_J]

19. Yes, and the GOP media machine always refers to him as

"millionaire trial lawyer John Edwards". If we had honest media, you would also hear "millionaire cocaine addict George W. Bush" and "thrice-married millionaire Rudolph Giuliani". But we don't.

[karynnj]

12. This may be an aberation or it may be ominous for Democrats

Here are two facts to think of together.

1) Generic Democrat beats Generic Republican by a lanslide

2) Every Democrat to become vianle since 2000 has developed high negatives, while there are several Republicans with low negatives.

Now, is it that our leaders are simply uniquely unlikable?

Put your favorite aside for a minute - think of the wosst thing you know for a fact that Gore or Kerry did, think of their worst personality trait, do either of these men deserve being thought badly of? Compared to Bush? (That's even ignoring any compensating positives - they are both incredibly good people.

Hillary's negatives are high, Edwards (per this poll) are now high. Obama is very new - give it time. Ask yourselves why are so many people negative on most viable Democrats.

[AndyTiedye]

13. Building High Negatives for Democrats is Job 1 for the Repiglican Media

Those negatives have no place to go but up, unfortunately.

Edwards has also shot himself in the foot (or worse) over Iran.

[sampsonblk]

26. I think you got it

Of all the theories, yours makes the most sense. As soon as a Dem becomes popular, here comes the slime machine. That begs the follow up question: What, if anything, can be done about it?

[Jai4WKC08]

14. Rassmussen is showing Edwards' unfavorable rating at 38%

Hillary Clinton is 48%, so they're not all that close.
Fwiw, Clark, Richardson and Vilsack are the only Democrats with unfavorable ratings down in the 20s.
http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Favorables/Favorables.htm

[spooky3]

21. These candidates also have lower favorable %s also

so "don't know" must have been a frequently selected option.

on edit:

Edwards' favorable % is 53; the others are at 39%, 35%, and 21%, respectively.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Which only proves that all these early polls

Are mostly about name recognition.

I mentioned those with the lowest unfavorable ratings because that's what the OP was about. But you raise a good point. Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have only a very tiny percent who register no opinion, 2 and 3% respectively. Edwards isn't far behind, with 8%. There ain't much room for positive growth there, compared to the relatively high numbers with no opinion about Clark (33%), Richardson (38%), and Vilsack (58%).

I would offer one caveat tho. There's a tendency by respondents not to want to admit to having no opinion, even over the telephone. So a certain percentage of people who don't know anything about the people they're being asked about will pretend like they do.

Personally, about the only thing I found interesting in the Rasmussen data was that only four candidates have favorables that are significantly higher than their unfavorables (statistically speaking), and that's Obama (16 pts), Edwards (15 pts), Clark (11 pts), and Richardson (8 pts).

[spooky3]

28. I agree.

[Clark2008]

16. Yes, negatives. He has MANY

People are finally seeing that he talks out of both sides of his mouth!!

Champion for the poor? Nope. Never introduced a single bill to help the poor when he was a senator and never took a pro bono case when he was an attorney.

Against the Iraqi War? Nope. Not only did he vote for the IWR, he CO-SPONSORED the damn thing.

Harbinger of diplomacy with Iran? Nope. Not if you take what he said to AIPAC into account.

Notice I didn't say a thing about his stupid house or the blogger flap? Because that doesn't really matter. A lot of people in the North Carolina/Tennessee/South Carolina region already knew he was nothing but politically expedient though.

[venable]

33. here comes the clark slam crowd

I've been out of the country for a week, come back straight to DU, and the first Edwards thread I read has this stuff.


Plus ca change...

[Doctor_J]

18. He's been bashed merciliessly by Big Media for at least 4 years

in that repect any Dem can be expected to have high negatives.

[Leilani]

27. Huh?

If anyone has been bashed by the press, it's been John Kerry.

Even Dems turned on him.

Edwards came off the loss smelling like roses...nobody held him responsible for anything.

[venable]

34. kerry was bashed, I agree

and so was Edwards.

[Colobo]

20. I believe

Edwards has not been able to present himself as a serious alternative yet. He did not succeed in 04, and he is not succeeding now, probably because Clinton and Obama have taken all the attention of the media.

Also, his message is based on the idea of "Two Americas" and he being a fighter for the poor people of the country, but I feel people don't think his approach is sincere.

[Radical Activist]

22. Every poll I've seen showed just the opposite.

Edwards usually has the lowest negatives of anyone.

[sampsonblk]

31. Maybe anti-war southerner doesn't work

When he ran as a "moderate" southerner, he appealed to a lot of people. But maybe a good chunk of his core supporters don't go for his new anti-war stance. Its just a guess.

[geek tragedy]

35. He's not anti-war--he's pro-withdrawal.

The problem is that ideologically, he's a work in progress.

[GreenTea]

36. Edwards is the real deal...my second choice...