Of the top 5 Dems, there is only 1 who is unelectable in a general election. That is John Edwards

[mtnsnake]

Edwards might do okay in the primaries, but there isn't a chance this guy could ever win a general election. People say how unelectable Clinton is, well that's a thing of the past. She's already proven she no longer has that stigma, although I'm not saying she's more electable than Obama or Biden would be.

In a general election, Joe Biden would kick Republican ass, as well as Obama. I think Hillary would still win, maybe even kick ass, too. Even Richardson would stand a better chance of winning a general election than John Edwards.

John Edwards says some real good things and he's a fine speaker, but the country would never go for him. Not in a million years.

I'll eagerly support Edwards if by some miracle he gets the nod, but if we want to win, we need to nominate either Biden, Obama, Clinton, or Richardson.

[yourout]

1. I think you have everything flipped around......Edwards is the ONLY one who can win.

[MethuenProgressive]

27. Edwards has way too many negatives.

And the country would be subjected to months of his "I feel pretty" video.
He's John Kerry, without the depth of intelligence.
He's Mike Dukakis, without the liberal record.
He's Jimmy Carter, without the honesty.
He's still playing to the least able members of the jury.
He's apologized for his entire Senate record, and has flip flopped on every issue from Iraq to campaign finance.
He'll never get the nomination. Democrats are much smarter than he gives them credit for.

[weeve]

55. Amen yourout ... BOOO MethuenProgressive !

The OP is laughable. ( Funny too how these Hillary trolls are so eager to smear the other Dems ... makes you kind of wonder. ) Not only are there huge chunks of the country that Hillary could NEVER win in, but if she were to campaign alongside the congressional candidates, they'd likely lose too ! We can't afford that this time around, friends. We'd be certifiably insane to nominate the ONE candidate who will energize the other side's base, while simultaneously turning off ours.

If Gore definitely decides not to throw his hat in the ring, then John Edwards is my man. He would win in so many regions of this country that Hillary wouldn't have a snowball's chance in. Take that to the bank.

[Basileus Basileon]

69. Like he did in '04?

Oh, wait. He didn't even carry his home state.

[babylonsister]

2. And why wouldn't the country go for him in a million years? You left

out a reason, though I suspect that was intentional.

[mtnsnake]

26. Reason? It's all about the intangibles and Edwards doesn't have them

He just doesn't look or sound the part of someone running as a strong Democratic candidate who is ready to take on the Republican smear machine. IMO, John Edwards reminds me more of someone who'd have a better chance running for Sunday School preacher of the Month. But president? Not a chance. Hell would freeze over first, sis.

:hi:

[babylonsister]

29. Oh my yes, the 'intangibles'.

Silly me! :D :puffpiece:

[hisownpetard]

37. Hahahaaha. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. That's your opinion.

And you know what they say about opinions.

[EFerrari]

4. Why do you think Edwards is unelectable?

[5X]

5. and we are supposed to just take your word for this?

You offered no reason or even speculation, just a statement.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. You Owe It To Folks To Say Why

Or , respectfully, your post reads about a vanity piece...

[Forkboy]

7. Why?

This is as shallow as a lot of the criticism of other candidates that you support.

[NC_Nurse]

8. Why?

Just cause you said so? :D

[Auntie Bush]

35. Maybe it's because national secutity is not one of his strong points

and that ranks pretty high on the nations lists of importance in a president. His foreign policy experience is nil. The same goes for Obama. If this were peace time they'd both have a much better chance of winning. Anyway, that's my main reason for not supporting them. Clinton, Biden and Richardson have them beat on this important issue.

[Mojambo]

9. I thought the general election polling was rather favorable to Edwards? n/t

[vireo]

17. It is

The campaign also released an analysis from pollster Harrison Hickman: Edwards, he said, is the only Democrat with a significant lead against Republican Rudy Giuliani, and his average margin of victory is identical to or greater than rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama against other Republican candidates in hypothetical races. Edwards also does better in the key battleground states of Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio, Hickman said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/19/edwards_goes_for_gold_with_true_blue/

And even ... Oklahoma?!

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat John Edwards is the most popular 2008 United States presidential contender in the Sooner State, according to a poll by SurveyUSA released by KFOR-TV. At least 49 per cent of respondents would vote for the former North Carolina senator in head-to-head contests against three prospective Republican rivals.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28495/edwards_could_carry_oklahoma_in_2008/

[gateley]

10. I'm with you on the Biden part :-)

[jillan]

11. There is one thing about Edwards that really hurts him, imho

and some might think it's a small thing, but

it is his excessive blinking.

Say what you want, but blinking alot while talking is a sign of lying.
In Edwards' case I think it is a nervous tic or something, but it makes him look insincere.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. He's Spent So Much Time In Court I Would Think He Rid Himself Of All Tics

Maybe I'm inattentive...

[Klukie]

14. I agree...

That blinking/squinting really bothers me.

[jillan]

15. Do you think it keeps him from looking Presidential?

I feel that this is so petty, but I find myself unable to take him seriously.

[Klukie]

21. I don't know if it keeps him from looking Presidential

but it bothers me and I'm on his side. He seems to do it when someone is asking him a question. It reminds me so much of the way my compulsive lying mother responds when questions are thrown at her. It appears shifty to me. I wish it didn't because I like what he has to say.

[GreenArrow]

25. that tongue darting thing he does

is unpleasant. Looks like a snake tasting the air. All in all, the guy has a whole set of phsyical mannerisms that put my red flags up.

[Auntie Bush]

40. That tounge thing always bothered me in the last election. I think

he has been working on stopping that mannerism but it still needs a lot of work or practice. I bet he'd give a nice French kiss! (if you like that) LOL!!!

[rudy23]

23. You're not kidding. I'd like to think I look past that kind of stuff, but I can't ignore it.

And if I, an Edwards supporter, can hardly get past it, I can see how it would especially irk his detractors. On paper, he's great. In person, he comes off as unbelievably insincere. Sort of a cartoon of a trial lawyer turned politician. And I think he's the best candidate.

I also think Obama needs to stop pointing, Hillary needs to learn how to speak like an actual human being, and Kucinich needs to stop talking like he's out of breath.

[pnwmom]

36. You mean Hillary needs to lower her pitch and speak like a guy, right?

Or is it that you can't stand her midwestern accent?

[rudy23]

42. No, I can't stand the way she, as an individual, talks. Why is that so hard to understand?

Should she get some sort of free pass from criticism because she's a woman? I don't think she wants that, that'd be a step backwards.

Your argument is sexist and regionalist. You're saying that I can't dislike Hillary's speaking style because I'm a Southern man. It must be because I'm a sexist, and I discriminate against people from the Midwest. I'm clearly incapable of having an opinion on this subject that's not based on deep seated prejudice.

I'm pretty offended at that accusation, actually. You don't know me. Show me anything in my post that indicated that my criticims were based on sex or regionalism. Just one shred of evidence. Show me.

[pnwmom]

49. Why is it so hard to understand? Because there is nothing striking in

the way she talks, other than her voice is higher pitched and her vowels are flatter than some of the other candidates. One aspect is related to her gender, the other her region.

By the way, John Edwards' accent grates on me, but it would never be a reason I'd vote against him or any other candidate, and I've never brought it up to anyone before now. It's such a trivial thing.

[rudy23]

50. That's your opinion. My criticism isn't with the note of the pitch or the vowels.

It's her monotone and the unwavering volume of her voice that doesn't really follow the arc of the way normal people speak. It sounds canned, and very unpleasant to my ears. In this debate, moreso than the others, it sounded like she was nearly shouting when near-shouting wasn't warranted.

She mostly sounds like she's reading, even when she speaks off the cuff. This time, she sounded like someone who was reading aloud with a pair of headphones on, who's not aware of the volume of their voice.

Did you see the Daily Show clip of Sen. Clinton's forced laughter? That's not how genuine people speak or act! It's so robotic, and obviously coached, it comes off as insincere.

Anyway, I was much harsher on Edwards, but you didn't accuse me of sexism in that case. That accusation came off as a kneejerk reaction, and was completely unfair to me, as a human being capable of critical thought. You are crying wolf on behalf of all the women who really deserve to accuse people of being sexist. Those types of baseless accusations water down the legitimacy of real complaints.

[robinlynne]

56. Agreed. I don't like listening to her speak either.

[cuke]

58. last night she was shrill.

Today, she has a monotone. But she was shouting. But she sounded like she was reading.

[rudy23]

60. Are those qualities exclusive to each other? Did I make those other criticisms at any time?

Totally baseless and devoid of logic. A blatant strawman argument.

[weeve]

65. Blinking ???

Ugh ... this SOOOO reminds me of how the Corporate Media went after Gore in 2000 for his ... "sighing" !?!

Well, we know how Big Media deepsixed our last populist candidate Howard Dean with his "inexcusable' ... roar? Huh ?

And they've already tried the haircut thing with Edwards ( policy points anyone? ), and I'm sure as he gains traction they'll smear him again with that and more ( his BLINK ratio ). Just ... ugh.

When people ( and media ) start commenting on these type of distractionary nothings, then you KNOW they're really threatened by that candidate, and that in itself is probably a very good reason to support them. ( Though I'd hope you've already concentrated on the candidate's issues by now anyway. )

[youthere]

68. I didn't want to say anything about that, and I haven't yet...

but WTF is up with THAT? It's very distracting, and YES it makes me wonder about his honesty.

[bigwillq]

12. Why?

:shrug:

[Orangepeel]

16. Let's see. Believe mtnsnakes unsupported opinion or all of the polls.

What to do? What to do?

Edwards consistently polls at least the same or better against the republicans compared to the other primary challengers.

[rwheeler31]

18. He is the one they are most afraid of. the gop is messing in our

primary.

[weeve]

66. Totally right ...

The one the Corporate Media fear the most, is the one they're most eager to assist in their destruction . Gore sighs, Dean roars, swiftboat Kerry ... the Media lets it rip. They (Murdoch & the rest) have annointed Hillary (for good reason) , so will try to smear Edwards, Gore ... and anyone else who is a threat. Which is why I expect Gore will do an end-run and take his campaign outside the big Corporate Media who needs Hillary as their leader/enabler.

GORE #1 ... EDWARDS #2

[Mike03]

19. Could you provide a rationale for this statement?

I was hoping to learn something from this thread, but there's no substance. Why is Edwards unelectable?

BTW, I hope you are right about Biden. I'd love to see him gain ground. I hope he helped himself last night.

[flyarm]

20. bull hockey..total bull hockey!! eom

[halobeam]

28. Hey flyarm

Don't muckey the puckey!!


Just call it BULLSHIT, when u see it, like you always do!

LOL!:evilgrin:

[dionysus]

22. one toke over the line sweet mtnsnake one toke over the line...

standing downtown at the dlc station one toke overthe lineee..............

[mtnsnake]

30. Every time you do that, that dam song stays in my mind for the next 3 hours

I hate that song!

Now I'm gonna have to replace it with a good song, something like Mama Let Him Play by Doucette and then that one will be stuck in my mind for the next two weeks and drive me nuts after a while, too.

[dionysus]

51. i aim to please bro

:hi:

[saracat]

24. What a bunch of hooey. He is the one that can win. Don't have any links to support this I notice.

[Faryn Balyncd]

31. I think you've got it backwards Re: Edwards. He runs the strongest of the top 3 candidates . . .

. . . especially in the purple states.

You are correct about Biden and Richardson, though. They would be strong in the general election (much stronger than Hillary).

[girl gone mad]

32. The more I read threads like this,...

the more I lean toward Edwards. There just isn't much substance to the arguments his critics have promulgated so far.

[BootinUp]

47. I could post pieces

that really trash Johnny (with facts too), but I am not going to do it, I am not going to write a long trash post either. I will just say that he is a far inferior politician to the other two or three leading candidates based on following his efforts for the last 4 years. And leave it to you to dig if you want to.

[Hardrada]

33. The Hillbots strike again!

[Tellurian]

34. Although his polling numbers aren't the greatest..

Biden certainly should be under consideration for the VP slot with Hillary. Biden shows improvement at each debate performance. He demonstrates his eloquence having a fine command of the language, he speaks with bold authority on Iraq and Foreign policy and his Constitutional Law background is impressive. I hope Hillary is giving him a good look.

[lyonn]

71. Hey, Biden has to be real quick with his answers

since he get so little time. This time he had 6 min., the least amount of any of the candidates. All this talk about Hillary being piled on doesn't impress me. She had Plenty of time to explain herself. Edwards talked about his issues with Hillary on the campaign trail and repeated them at the debate. I don't like her money connection to the corps and lobbyist.

[last_texas_dem]

38. Wow, what a solid, factually-based, well-reasoned post!

:eyes: And it's even managed to get six recs...

[UrbScotty]

39. I'm an Obama supporter, but I fail to see your logic.

Why would the country "never go for him?"

[Tellurian]

57. Obama is a cold fish..no passion, no fire, no hope!

[UrbScotty]

63. Right, and Joe Lieberman's a progressive.

But seriously, how can you possibly say that and mean it unless you haven't seen him speak, or if you haven't seen his vision for America?

[Bitwit1234]

41. OBAMA...HE'LL NEVER MAKE IT.

I doubt if he will carry one state.

[ChiciB1]

43. You ARE Kidding Aren't You?? Or MAYBE Just ILL-INFORMED!!

Sorry, can't buy what you're selling! On almost EVERY poll taken HERE at DU, HE'S the one who comes out on TOP!! And most of my family and friends seriously SUPPORT him!

We're so GLAD to see he's FINALLY getting some support!!! So sick of the HILLARY MSM Corporate Scam!

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. Ha Ha

Clearly, ALL of the unelectable candidates are ALL Republicans. Edwards is so much more electable than all on your list other than Hillary.

[superkia]

45. Its nice to see the focus off of Obama and now onto Edwards.

Edwards must have looked good last night or else I doubt he would be getting the attention he is getting today.

[BootinUp]

46. I don't agree completely

I have a strong sense that Hillary will be stronger than Biden or Obama. Although Biden would be very close to the same. Biden has a few skeletons, he has that way of sticking his foot in his mouth, he's a northeast liberal Senator with a very long record.




(disclaimer: I like Northeast liberal Senators).

[tkmorris]

48. You present no argument whatsoever

Just unsupported opinion. The polls do not support your conclusion, and however flawed they may be it is still a more compelling argument than yours.

Frankly I find your post irresponsible, nonobjective, unsubstantiated, and lacking any merit whatsoever. Furthermore it is a politics of destruction and smear. This is an example of DU at it's (almost) absolute worst.

[Alexander]

52. That's funny. Every poll says you are wrong. Nice try, though.

[IndianaGreen]

53. Your "girl" is unelectable for her support of giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens

Many Democrats and independents are very concerned about illegal immigration, particularly here in the Midwest. A significant number of Latinos are also concern about illegal immigration for they are adversely impacted as well.

[Tellurian]

59. She didn't support it..she supports Spitzer(sp)

It's all speculation at this point. DL for IA's are in discussion. There is more reasoning there than meets the eye.

[PresidentObama]

54. Really? Seems like Obama and Edwards connect very well with voters.

Polls suggest he would do very well, especially against all the GOP rivals. And he doesn't have half the voters in polls saying they wouldn't vote for her like Hillary Clinton.

Like always, mtnsnake is just trying to get a reaction out of people and rambling on about something that isn't true.

[calteacherguy]

61. LOL!!!!!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[goodgd_yall]

62. Except for what you said about Richardson,

who I think would have just as bad or worse a chance of winning than Edwards, I agree with you.
I've been supporting Edwards, but yesterday---and this was before the debate---I was thinking of JE as the nominee and how he would fare against the Republican candidate. I think Edwards has a lot of vulnerability and it would be used effectively by the Repugs and the MSM.

[gmudem]

64. Could you be more wrong?

I doubt it. A Southern populist who seems to appeal to people across broad political spectrums. And then you have Hillary who is probably the best candidate the Republicans could dream of. She'll certainly turn out the Republican vote more than any of their candidates actually can.

[TheFarseer]

67. nice reasoning

"the country would never go for him" this is your argument!? I suppose we're all clamoring for Hillary and we just don't know it yet. If she could just get her message out, even Dick Morris would become a believer. :eyes: Most people I know just shut down when they hear her and reach for something to throw at the TV.

[JohnLocke]

70. Wow. You're not much for empirical evidence, are you?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/31/181848/30
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_not_hillary_is_dems_be.html
http://areyouready.mydd.com/story/2007/10/20/13445/871
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_douglas_schoen/behind_the_horse_race_numbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_general_election_match_ups
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/15697/poll-reaffirms-50-pecent-voters-would-never-vote-for-hillary-clinton/

[Hawkowl]

72. Stupid white southern males

Yeah, they never win elections. Doh!

[2 Much Tribulation]

73. i can't say I follow you on this one. Not even a little. Sorry nt