Edwards's Outreach
Former senator John Edwards may be banking on the support of the rural, southern, white and male wings of the Democratic Party, but in none of these demographics does Edwards have an advantage over Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
Overall in the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, he trails Clinton by nearly 30 percentage points and Obama by 13, and while these gaps are smaller among the target demographic groups, significant deficits remain.
Edwards does best among whites, garnering 19 percent support and running about even with Obama at 22 percent. But Clinton still dominates among whites, with more than double Edwards's support. Among non-whites, who make up about a third of leaned Democrats, Edwards earns just 4 percent.
Non-urban areas offer a similar favorable tilt for the former North Carolina senator. While his support has stagnated in the single digits in urban areas (currently at 5 percent), people in suburban and rural areas are more supportive. In the new survey, 19 percent of suburbanites and rural-dwellers supported Edwards. However, Clinton and Obama lead Edwards outside of the nation's cities; Clinton clocks in at 37 percent, Obama at 27 percent.
Among men in the South, Edwards's edge comes not from greater support, but from a weaker showing by his main opponents.
In the South, Edwards stands in third place at 15 percent, about even with his national showing. But Clinton and Obama are tied here, both with support from about a third of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. In other parts of the county, Clinton has support from more than four in 10 respondents and enjoys a wide lead over both Obama and Edwards.
Among women, Edwards faces a gaping deficit. He stands at 13 percent, nearly 40 percentage points behind Clinton. Edwards's support among men is about the same, 16 percent, but he trails less dramatically as Clinton has more modest support among men than among women.
The data underscore how far Edwards still has to go to convert the voters he is counting on to fuel his quest for the nomination.
By Jennifer Agiesta |
September 12, 2007; 6:14 PM ET
Post Polls
Previous: No Deferral Necessary |
Next: Polling on Post.com
Posted by: skeptic | September 13, 2007 7:27 AM
I'm actually disgusted with all of them after their recent debate that was translated into Spanish.
They all suck.
Posted by: Irishgirl | September 13, 2007 8:16 AM
Skeptic: Our full question wording can be found here, and full questionnaires for all of our polls from the 2008 cycle are linked to from the polling homepage at www.washingtonpost.com/polls.
The question used for purposes of this analysis is our standard vote question, "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?" Names of the candidates are read in random order.
Posted by: Jennifer Agiesta | September 13, 2007 10:06 AM
John Edwards has destroyed his own campaign. He talks about caring about poverty, but then builds a 28,000 square foot house on a huge piece of land so that he doesn't have to live anywhere near poor people. He talks about energy conservation, yet drives around in a fleet of SUVs. He talks about his humble roots, and then spends $400 on a haircut. He's a phony, and the voters see it.
He has nothing in common with the common man.
Posted by: Napoleone | September 13, 2007 10:30 AM
Yeah Napoleone, except that he's the son of a millworker who was the first in his family to go to college. A lot of people resent that he's successful, wealthy, and articulate and so resort to calling him a phony. How is he any phonier than the other candidates he is running against? How much do Hillary and Obama spend on real estate investments (like Whitewater or Obama's fancy house in Chicago)? How much do they spend on SUVs, clothing, and haircuts? Those criticisms are all cheap diversions used by people who recognize that Edwards is a substantive candidate who can hold his own and beat any of his rivals in face-to-face debates on the issues. If anything is phony, it's the spin in these reports on polls that try to count him out before the race has fully begun.
Posted by: TTJ | September 14, 2007 5:00 PM
Getting elected is a p.r. game. As defined hereabouts, that, overwhelmingly, means logistics (media clout, money, and collectible chips on hand), obviously. The only way a candidate without logistics can make it is to come out this box or arena and bring his or her "fight" to a new field of contest. So far, Mr. Edwards has not done that.
Advisedly, he should spend the rest of the campaign period not to win but to spread around a new perspective or way of thinking about the myriad major problems besetting the country. With that as objective, who knows?, he may end up President. And president of a nation with enlivened vision, dreaming dreams that are seeds to the sprouting of new realities in a land healed, united and in peace.
Posted by: marangle | September 15, 2007 3:41 PM
So as far as Im concerned neither the
Democrats or Republicans have a decent
Presidential Candidate that are worth my
voting for them,so can't we get a "None of
The Above" Box on the ballot? Since neither
the Republican or Democrat Candidates are
in touch with reality by their support and
their endless pandering to La Raz,Illegal
Aliens,and Greedy Cheap Labor US Chamber
of Commerce Big Business as well as no damn
policy to end the War in Iraq and get our
troops out of Iraq now,not President Dry
Drunk Rodeo Clown Wanna Be George W Bush
and Emporer and Head GOP Nazi Draft Dodger
Cheney 50 years from now! We need a new
Major Third Party that represents all the
American people not just La Raz,Illegal
Aliensm and Big Business so badly now!
Posted by: Sherry Kay | September 15, 2007 5:49 PM
MONEY is used to the market moving left and right --so it plans for that. It seeks to keep the movement under control --and acceptable status quo
Edwards is the ONLY ONE who openly wants to Challenge Corporate Fascism, and give working folks a voice --so the need to diminish, demonize, marginalize him.... to minimize his voice....
So I hope he SHOUTS.... I hope People Listen
I like Hillery.... but she polarizes
I love Obama... but he's young
John Edwards..... smart man.... But a tough year to run....
Posted by: whomung | September 15, 2007 7:52 PM
Edwards is an awesome spokeman for the poor, but he sounds like an idealist rather than a practical policymaker, and that scares me, and I think other people.
I disagree with another respondent who says that Hillary is polarizing. Hillary is not polarizing herself; the "Rove"ing Republicans have twisted her that way.
If anything Hillary has the only moderating and rational voice in this whole contest, and has shown herself to be diplomatic and anti-polarizing in congress.
Posted by: kryptounderdog | September 16, 2007 9:08 AM
Edwards is the best all round candidate. I hope he continues his candidacy because we really need a competent leader.
Posted by: lindafranke1952 | September 17, 2007 6:06 AM
Hillary is polarizing because she voted to authorize the war. That's a fact for Democrats and Independents. Her vote was good for her political ambitions but bad for the country.
She takes too much campaign money from corporate interests at a time when the country is polarized between million dollar CEOs and workers who earn minimum wages. She polarizes voters on the gender issue by appealing to those who want the elect the first woman to the White House. She tries to divide the black voters as she "threatens" members of the black caucus who once supported her husband but are leaning towards Obama because of his faith and family values. She even divides women by early support of NOW and other feminist groups. Hillary is slicing up the American pie into bite-size nuggets that will cause the country to crumble. America needs a unifier.
Posted by: Michaele | September 17, 2007 4:57 PM
we need for both parties to stop cheating and stop putting on a show to see who wins and we need a third pirty or a presdent who has a backbone and do as the nizas did during ww2 and 4 once elemeit the eneimy and get this stuff done and drop all the bills and stuff that don't work and start new
Posted by: Anonymous | September 17, 2007 10:09 PM
The health care reform issue and related candidates' proposals is crucial to consider in this election. It is vital to the future health & welfare of the nation. Our health care system is beyond broken and its' injuries blatantly visible to anyone working within the system or receiving 'health care benefits'. We are all dependent on visionary health care reform but it will take a multidisciplinary team of the highest order of integrity, intelligence and experience to design it.
Posted by: nurse doctor | September 18, 2007 1:36 AM
Edwards is the only one that can really win. I do not beleive In Clinton the 2nd or Bush the 2nd our constitution was not designed for nepotism. People are tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. Can you just leave us alone?If Clinton wins she will augment NAFTA at least Edwards wiil question it.Why do you think the Republicans want Hillary? Because they can destroy her by calling her a raving Liberal.Edwards being from the south will make it difficult for the Republican Attack Machine; and they no it!!!!
Posted by: Jimmy Delgado | September 18, 2007 2:37 AM
When was the last time a Democratic candidate from above the Mason-Dixon line actually made it to the White House? Answer, JFK and his opponent was also from above that line. That's almost FIFTY YEARS AGO. Edwards is our best hope in 2008. He's articulate, an inspirational orator, smart, handsome, and most important...he's a Southerner. DEMS have to get real next year and nominate a person who can actually WIN. Not a feel good candiate (Hillary/Obama)! Edwards is an advocate for the poor and un-insured in this country. The others play lip-service only.
Posted by: A.Lincoln | September 19, 2007 3:35 PM
The notion that anyone has any idea who "can" be elected is absurd.
Its nice that Edward's fans are loyal and want us all to know it, but to claim that he is the only one that can be elected so we must all immediately stop considering anyone else is insulting.
Edwards, like every candidate, must run on his platform, his ideas, his character. He doesn't get a pass just because he is from dixie, and he doesn't get a pass because you all think that a woman or an African-American man "CAN'T" win.
With all credit and respects to Shel Silverstein....
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child.
Listen to the don'ts.
Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts.
Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me...
Anything can happen, child.
Anything can be."
Posted by: Patrick Huss | September 20, 2007 10:18 AM
rovides online backgammon games for backgammon players at all levels.
free backgammon - http://www.nacr.net/Posted by: free backgammon | January 6, 2008 4:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.

Please publish the poll questions along with the demographic polled.
This just seems to be one more article in the Post's continuing effort to denigrate Edwards - the candidate who poses the threat to the DC corporate and lobbying establishment. Your bias is clear.