Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Makes the Electability Case

As Iowa draws ever closer, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) is trying to convince Democratic voters that not only is he the candidate who best represents their interests but is also the best bet in the field to win back the White House for the party in 2008.

Edwards has long argued that despite the fact he has clearly staked out the most liberal positions among the top tier candidates, his southern roots and ability to be elected in a red state make him the most appealing candidate to the moderate and independent voters his party will need to woo to win the White House. (In Edwards' defense, many Republicans voice that same sentiment.)

Electability is much on the minds of Democratic voters these days. A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed that Democrats are split almost evenly between those who prefer their nominee to be someone who can win the White House and someone who agrees with them on the issues -- a change from a simialr poll done last month when Democrats in larger numbers chose ideology over electability.

A new memo from Edwards' pollster Harrison Hickman reiterates the electability case -- citing scads of polling data both nationally and in key general election battlegrounds.

"Nationwide polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 presidential election," writes Hickman. As evidence, Hickman notes that the aggregate of public polling since Nov. 1 shows Edwards leading former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani -- the Republican frontrunner -- by an average of four points, the same margin Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton enjoys. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) holds a two-point lead over Giuliani in the seven polls comparing the two.

In matchups with other Republican candidates, Edwards has wider average leads than Obama or Clinton. Against former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), for example, Edwards leads by 14 points while Obama leads by 10 and Clinton leads by just five; against former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) Edwards is ahead by 18 on average while Obama leads by 11 and Clinton by nine.

Overall, Edwards's advantage is fairly modest. Any of the three most likely Democratic nominees -- including Edwards -- have leads within the statistical margin of error against Giuliani. There's no real difference between where Edwards stands against Giuliani and where his rival stand.

Against the other potential Republican candidates where Edwards holds a wide lead, the results are drawn from a far smaller group of polls. Just three polls have been conducted since November 1 testing Edwards against Romney while nine polls have been done comparing Clinton and Romney and eight testing Obama and Romney. That lack of data is not the fault of Edwards campaign officials (they can't make polls test their guy more) but it does mean that the results cited by Hickman should be taken cum grano salis.

The memo -- and the campaign -- is on far firmer ground when it comes to Edwards's standing in specific states likely to be critical to winning back the White House.

"Unlike other Democrats who will be forced to "run the table" of states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play," writes Hickman. "This provides alternative scenarios -- and a margin for error -- when it comes to winning 270 electoral votes."

To make his point, Hickman points to a series of Survey USA polls (the methodology of which we have written and raised questions about in this space) that do indeed show Edwards running strongest in a variety of so-called "purple" states.

In Missouri, Edwards leads Giuliani by five points while Obama holds a two point lead and Clinton trails by a point; Edwards leads Giuliani by 14 points in Iowa while Clinton and Obama have an eight-point lead. Even in a Republican-leaning state like Oklahoma, Edwards runs nine point ahead of Giuliani while Clinton trails by three and Obama by 21.

So, why, if Edwards is so strong in a variety of key states, is his vote total regularly dwarfed by Clinton in national poll after national poll? Hickman believes that "Clinton's strength in national polls is exaggerated by her comparatively strong showing in large, solidly Democratic states." He noted that Clinton had huge leads over all Republican comers in New York, Massachusetts and California, leads that, Hickman argues, are the foundation of her margin and added that such wide margins in blue states "cover up Clinton's weaknesses."

For Edwards to close the deal in Iowa, he must convince a segment of likely caucus goers that they wouldn't be throwing away their votes if the chose him. That means convincing voters that not only can he be elected president but that he actually gives the party a bit of wiggle room in their electoral calculus and could even help down-ballot Democrats running in red states.

On the merits, it's a compelling case. But, perception equals reality in politics and at the moment there is a sense among Democrats that Clinton is -- by far -- the most electable candidate. In the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 59 percent of Democrats said that Clinton gave the party the best chance to win next November while just 16 percent each chose Obama and Edwards.

It's not likely that Edwards will erase that gap between now and the Iowa caucuses. But, he may not need to. He may only need to find a way to prove to those undecided Iowa voters who simply will not caucus for Clinton that he is more electable than Obama. That seems to be Edwards's main challenge over the next 16 days.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 18, 2007; 2:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Campaign to Humanize Hillary
Next: Wag the Blog: What Does Ron Paul's Support Mean?

Comments

An extremely stupid person wrote: "Compare them with the shill rants, name calling, smears, character assassination and faked i.d. of people like Loudounvoter and a professional posters from Clintons NY headquarters (variously: mia.., ebauersox, etc). Not sure of they are the same poerson, but the IP signiture is the same. COuld be different people, working different shifts."

What is it about "by the way, I'm not a Democrat" that you don't understand?

If you were really reading my IP "signiture" (sic) -- as you claim -- you'd know that I'm not posting from the place where Clinton's NY headquarters are located.

Furthermore, if you'd take the trouble to read what's actually on the page, you'd notice that I haven't posted in favor on Clinton, or anybody else, except to say that her successful courtship of the Register endorsement shows she's good at getting things done.

Aside from that, my posts have been about *your* lack of civility where you imply that women who are old, women who are wrinkled and women who are lesbians don't have the same rights as fat old guys with humongous beer guts and weird combovers, who spend their days in semi-idleness, tying trout flies.

Posted by: prettierthanyou | December 20, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Moderator (me) " John ,how can a rich white guy be the 'poverty candidate?'

Edwards: Well, if you have noticed, I quit wearing my Rolex-I wear a black plastic watch...just like Bill Clinton wore in his debates."

Moderaotr: " But you live in a palace-a huge sprawling estate that houses four people."

Edwards: " Yeah, but I need that much room to store my most recent purchase."

Moderator: " What's that?"

Edwards: " I bought every National Enquierer in existence...."

Moderator: " Good point...."

If you like my brand of humor and political commentary, try my music. I wrote 12 politically confrontative tunes and played every instrument. Hillary is NOT a fan....hear it @

www.conservativemusicnline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | December 19, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

VirginiaConservative wrote: :The part I like about Edwards is how he is going to "fix" the health care system.
Is he planning on another rapacious law suit?"

Funny how Bork, the conservative demigod, tried to bring a suit against Yale because he tripped on his way to the dais to give a speech. Hypocrite is the synonym for conservative. If it were up to the free-marketers, no one would get sued, no matter what damage they caused others. That protects the bottom line, which comes before compassion, safety, justice, truth, health, and life.

Posted by: edwcorey | December 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

legan00 writes
"So, is it below the belt for Edwards to implicitly raise concerns about a candidate whose party is willing to throw his daughter under the bus in order to win Ohio? I don't think it is. I agree that it is a little cheap, but sportsmanship ought to be reserved for sports. Don't expect politicians to display righteousness. ... And if Edwards' "attack" on Dick Cheney's daughter was so reprehensible, why did he & Kerry still secure overwhelming support from gays & lesbians? I appreciate that you're trying to take down Edwards here, but Republicans can't ostracize gays & lesbians and then expect me to believe that they're the true defenders of homsexuals."

Mr Debbs, while I think former Senator Edwards is an inappropriate nominee to be President, that is unrelated to the discussion at hand. You claimed that Edwards had "embarrased" Dick in the debate. I merely refuted your claim by citing Edwards's amateurish attempt to expose the hypocrasy of Cheney regarding the GOP stance on gays. Not only did the attack fail to strike the target, it backfired in Edwards's face. Frankly, given Edwards's courtroom experience, I'm surprised he couldn't come up with a more effective attack. For instance, if he had just pressed Cheney on the GOP's positions on gays, whether in the military, or in civil unions, etc, he would have avoided tarnishing himself by directly mentioning Cheney's daughter, yet would have achieved the intended result because pundits afterwards would have put the question & answer in that context.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The Edwards argument has a few flaws--and they start in North Carolina, John Edwards's home state. In 1998, Edwards won his only general election to date, narrowly edging out incumbent Lauch Faircloth, with 51% of the vote. However, Edwards proved to be no help to Kerry in NC, Florida, or elsewhere in the South. In 2004, Kerry-Edwards took 43.58% of the vote in North Carolina. Four years earlier, Gore-Lieberman had taken 43.20% of the vote in North Carolina. The Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004 also trailed the Democratic Senate candidate in North Carolina, Erskine Bowles, by over 100,000 votes, and the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Mike Easley, by over 400,000 votes. (Bowles lost, Easley won.) Kerry-Edwards also lost Wake County, Edwards's home county, in 2004. Bowles and Easley both won it easily. If the Democrats are looking for somebody with Southern appeal, try Easley or Tim Kaine, not Edwards.

Posted by: wesfromGA | December 19, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Firstly, don't throw out moral judgments simply because you dislike a particular candidate. Judgment is fine in high school, but it is really counter-productive in politics. I don't like Dick Cheney but I didn't attack him for silly, partisan reasons. Secondly, the notion that Edwards sullied the Cheney name by bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter is a bit removed from reality. Dick Cheney sullied the Cheney name long before John Edwards ever debated him. Moreover, Dick Cheney's party predicated much of their campaign on the threat of same-sex marriage, and gays! So, is it below the belt for Edwards to implicitly raise concerns about a candidate whose party is willing to throw his daughter under the bus in order to win Ohio? I don't think it is. I agree that it is a little cheap, but sportsmanship ought to be reserved for sports. Don't expect politicians to display righteousness. All of these cats are unethical, and they all use cheap shots to garner votes. But no worry, I'll wake up tomorrow. And if Edwards' "attack" on Dick Cheney's daughter was so reprehensible, why did he & Kerry still secure overwhelming support from gays & lesbians? I appreciate that you're trying to take down Edwards here, but Republicans can't ostracize gays & lesbians and then expect me to believe that they're the true defenders of homsexuals.This is like Republicans in Congress filibustering legislation, then decrying Congress for not getting anything done. Logic 101, folks. I, too, have homosexual friends, and none of them take Republicans very seriously. Besides, that is beyond the point. And importantly, we shouldn't have to qualify our positions by claiming we have gay friends. If you're point is valid, let it be heard! At any rate, I appreciate that you chose to counter my comment. I look forward to more of these exchanges.

Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | December 19, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Edwards has been trying to make the electibility case for many months now by trotting out polls that show him doing slightly better than Obama and Clinton in trial heats against various Republican candidates. Usually this case is made by candidates that are losing the race for their party nomination.

The problem with this polls is that they are trying to predict an event that is almost a year away. They are a lot of variables.

I am not sure how well Edwards would hold up in a one on one national campaign. These trial heat polls avoid a lot of questions. How will his convention speech come off? WIll his running mate help or hurt? How will he come off compared to his opponent? We don't know how the campaign will go so these trial heat polls are meaningless.

I do not see Edwards winning any Southern states except possibly Virginia which is trending Democratic and would be a possibility for any Democratic candidate. He does not seem particularly strong in the West except for the traditionally Democratic Pacific Coast states.

At best, Edwards could do a little better than Kerry did in 2004. At worst he could do as well as Michael Dukakis did in 1988. His nomination would be somewhat of a gamble to say the least.

Posted by: danielhancock | December 19, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Kerry-Edwards lost North Carolina in 2004. If you can't even win your home state, how can you be considered a serious contender?

I like some of Edwards' policy positions (especially on trade) but I don't think he can win and his lack of experience is worrisome. He needs to run for Governor of North Carolina, serve as a cabinet secretary, or work as a CEO somewhere and then run again later on. He is young enough that this is a reasonable plan. Same with Obama.

I really wish Obama and Edwards would have waited this one out so that some of the more qualified candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson) could have gotten more coverage in their attempts to win the nomination from Hillary.

Posted by: bigred1120 | December 19, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

While the Washington Post poll in IA was nothing for an Edwards supporter such as myself to get excited about, has anyone noticed the latest Insider Advantage poll?
Among likely caucus goers Edwards 30%, Clinton 26%, Obama 24%. Among Highly likely caucus goers Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Clinton 24%. But, among highly likely caucus goers who support 2nd tier candidates, when asked to support one of the top tier if their candidate did not achieve viability, the totals were EDWARDS 42%, Obama 31%, Clinton 27%. Seems like Edwards is just about everyone's 2nd choice which we know is big in IA

Posted by: dave.n.upstateny | December 19, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary taught law and was, at the time, the only female law professor at Arkansas if memory serves. Not sure if she was the first or not. Regardless, the job was certainly not a token given to her. Seriously folks, the woman is wicked smart if nothing else and had a sterling resume coming out of Yale law.

I had in mind Obama, however, since his experience is much more recent and he actually strikes me as someone who respects the idea of separation of powers. I had forgotten Biden also teaches (At Widener?) and I suspect, with his long service in the Senate, that he would also be excellent on separation of powers issues. Not my perfect candidate on economic issues, but I'd be perfectly happy if he was standing at the podium in January, 2009.

Posted by: _Colin | December 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

"Any others?"

Someone said yesterday that HRC taught law. One side claimed it was a 'token' job given her to keep Bill happy; the other side said she broke gender barriers as the only female professor. Where the facts lie is anyone's guess.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

wrdingle writes
"I hate to say it, but nominating Obama kills us in the south for obvious reasons. It's not that Obama isn't ready, the south (where is live) is not."

What, don't the black folks in the south vote? Or do they all vote Republican? What year is it again?

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Colin, that would include Obama and Biden, who both taught conlaw. Any others?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

legan00 writes
"Someone said, "Dick Cheney beat John Edwards in their debate in '04." I'm not sure which debate you watched. Edwards embarassed him."

Edwards embarrassed himself. The debate I watched included an unethical and inappropriate attempt to corner Cheney about gay rights & his gay daughter. I am on the side of gay rights & have gay friends, but it is TOTALLY over the line to drag a gay family member into the debate in an attempt to gain partisan advantage. Edwards should be ashamed of himself for sinking to that level.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Mark -- Yeah, I had read that article. It's ridiculous, but not at all surprising. I mean, come on. No big surprise that Haynes and John Yoo think the executive branch should have more unchecked power. Heck, Yoo subscribes to the Nixonian view that if the President does it, it can't be illegal.

More and more, I think we need a former law professor as President...

Posted by: _Colin | December 19, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Clinton--and there are many, but this is the biggie--is that while she might have the "muscle" to win in Nov., she will lose the Dems a majority in both Houses of Congress. This will embolden her to (exactly like her husband) push Right in order to enact even basic policy. That´s disastrous for the Dems who are facing a rebellion in their ranks already. Edwards, who is stoking the rhetoric of that rebelliousness has a better chance, if he wins thru Nov., to maintain the Dem majority and enact more progressive legislation that either Clinton or Obama would propose.

As for those who decry Edwards because he didn´t win any Rep states last time around...he was a VP candidate then. At the top of the ticket, his likeability and accent--yes, his accent--will endear him to more people than the colder Clinton or the professorial Obama.

If Edwards gets the nomination, he´d probably ask Clinton to be his VP (and it´s be a smart move since he keeps both Clintons near him and keeps her ambition checked) though I doubt she´d accept. Then he´d ask Obama--and he´d win a landslide.

Posted by: nodozejoze | December 19, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Edwards' electability will go out the window if the news flash about his adulterous affair with a staffer are true.

The same paper that broke the Clinton affair scandal have now reported that Edwards and the campagin staffer have been carrying on for 18 months and she's pregnant! All while Elizabeth had cancer.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 19, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

The argument about Edwards not taking any southern states in 2004 is irrelevent. Ultimately, the VP nominee has little to no pull in the opposite party's states. I DO think that Edwards gives us a legit shot in Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, and West Virginia and greatly improves our chances in Florida. Both Obama and Clinton are sitting ducks in all mentioned above except for Florida.

His health-care plan is the best developed of all the Dem candidates...seeing as healthcare isn't really an issue for the GOP.

His debating skills have drastically improved since 2004, from what I have heard, people constantly seem to think that he was the best in all of our debates.

I hate to say it, but nominating Obama kills us in the south for obvious reasons. It's not that Obama isn't ready, the south (where is live) is not. I also think that Hillary may hurt us in Florida. She does have a formidable lead there in the primary polls, but I don't think she could swing independents over and many Dems who dislike her could swing over (esspecially if McCain is nominated).

Posted by: wrdingle | December 19, 2007 1:12 AM | Report abuse

mark: that's incredible. it's as if the WH learned nothing from the debacle of having political hacks meddle in US attorney hirings and firings. Oh wait..never mind 8>D

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

Edwards has the veneer of being a moderate from his years in the Senate, but like Gore in 2000, that coat apparently never fit. Edwards has thrown off any sense of moderation (good or bad) and has gone head over heals populist.

I'm convinced, by the way, that the primary reason Gore lost in 2000 is he completely threw out the baby with the bathwater. That is, in order to separate himself from Clinton's personal life, he totally ignored the entire Clinton-Gore record, including any of the economic success and moderate economic agenda Clinton-Gore had represented for 8 years. Totally idiotic I think. He followed the heralded wisdom of Bob Shrum and built a populist economic message. No wonder he got mocked at the time for pulling a Madonna and creating a new Al Gore. Al Gore lost my vote in 2000, even though I had been a huge Clinton-Gore devotee prior.

Posted by: MNobserver | December 18, 2007 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 10:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope the people of Iowa don't throw their votes away by voting for Edwards, he as no chance of winning the nomination. Only Obama can stop Clinton. Clinton is definetly the worst general election candidate of the three, but Obama is the best. I have Republican friends who have never voted democrat before telling me they'll vote for Obama. OBAMA 08!

Posted by: lumi21us | December 18, 2007 9:55 PM | Report abuse

The most important points made thus far:

-Many of you have rightly asked: "Which red states did Edwards carry in 2004?" John Edwards was the Vice Presidential nominee in 2004, and people vote for President. The south couldn't handle John Kerry, and to be fair to Kerry, Edwards never really went to bat for him. It's no secret that Edwards didn't want to be VP and, that the Edwards & Kerry camps were at odds throughout the primary and general elections. So, I'll name the states Edwards could potentially carry in November: West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida and maybe, Colorado & Kentucky. Not to mention, he'd help congressional Democrats in Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, and Arizona.
-Someone said, "Dick Cheney beat John Edwards in their debate in '04." I'm not sure which debate you watched. Edwards embarassed him. You're overestimating the Republicans. That party is utterly fragmented, and has spent this primary season ensuring that their candidates are irrelevant in November. I could beat some of these candidates.
-Someone remarked, "John Edwards doesn't have the money." A legitimate point, but if and when the election concludes with Edwards v. McCain, it won't matter. It's quite fitting that we vote for one of these two candidates, anyway. Let's be practical.
-I've heard Lou Dobbs tacitly endorse John Edwards several times. This could help Edwards pick up some Independents, whose vote Hillary Clinton & Barack Obama couldn't even hope to buy.
-Just vote for Edwards. He's a lot tougher, and a lot more electable than the rest. If you want some change, vote for Edwards. Edwards-Obama would be a formidable ticket. I do agree that Obama's chances are iffy in a general election contest, if he is the Democratic nominee. Any of the Democrats have my vote in this one, though. Let's remember to beat the Republicans. This should be the first thing on your mind. Not lofty promises from lofty celebrity candidates like Hillary & Obama. I'll vote for either of the two, but guys, I think we have a much better shot at regaining the White House with Edwards as our nominee.


In any event, let's just hope Rudy loses.


Eugene Debs '08

Posted by: legan00 | December 18, 2007 9:49 PM | Report abuse

I think CC is off base on his head/heart analogy. Obama is not the heart candidate. He is the head candidate. Look at his support. It comes predominantly from well-educated voters. These are the thinkers. That's not to say he doesn't inspire, but it is more cerebral in its essence.

I think Edwards is the heart candidate, not Hillary. His populist message grabs me in the heart even though my first choice is Obama. You feel the passion of his vendetta against big business.

Hillary is the establishment candidate, the faux most electable candidate, neither head nor heart. Just early name recognition momentum winding down as voters think and feel their way to a decision.

I think Iowans will figure this out.

Posted by: rich5 | December 18, 2007 8:07 PM | Report abuse

LV: I do not respond to the poster mentioned, since he posted BALD FACED LIES about me and refused to apologize. I suggst you do the same.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

markinaustin: I think Wes Clark will be choosen by Hillary for Defense, I have thought this all along, because he would be more suited there. This IP thing is a little silly if you ask me, most skilled computer users can find pretty much what they want about anything or anybody, with my limited knowledge I can find most everything I can think of with hardly any problems. This does not include people, of course, and I would never try to find out anything about ones personal life. Thanks,

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

lyle: What's going on is the demented stalker babbling brooks has deduced that I am a research librarian in Sterling VA named Phoebe.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 7:20 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin, no, I used a version of blackhats "carnivore". Works like a charm, but it is a headache trying to figure out who goes with what addr. It does not ahve the capability of identifying a specific computer other than by it's IP addr. (so, using an Airport connection at work can makes it appear "different" than if you use your home network or one at the local bookstore) And, that brings a up another topic. The government (FBI, CIA and NSA that I know of) have a working version of Carnivore. Instead of looking at traffic to a fixed address, that version can trace variable addresses, doing a search for key words, specific computers, etc. There are hacker produced versions of this becoming available, which means no one will have "web privacy" any longer. Not necessarily a bad thing, but we had all better get ready for an avalanche of targetted advertisements, email, and pops. To my knowledge there is no way to spoof Carnivore.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

lyle, Why would HRC not choose Wes Clark over Bayh?

If you are using a windows pc, hit "START"
"Accessories" "Command prompt" and type in,
after the "C" prompt: ipconfig

The screen that appears will tell you how your server is identified and how you are identified by your internet protocol [ip].

If you are using "firefox" hit "tools" and then "page info", then "security". You will learn that the blog does not support encryption. I suppose it is easy for a hacker to find us all.

NSA has found us all, of course.

Blarg and MikeB probably both can do this.
Still, I am sure that MikeB is wrong about Loudoun Voter and that he simply googled "Loudoun Voter" and read the short version
of google's first response, thus leading him into error.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"JKrishnamurti--Apologise? I do not see a reason to since my analysis of the complete uselessness of your approach is as correct now as it was before.

Posted by: roo_P | December 18, 2007 05:46 PM
"

This is rufus. Got anything to say today. did everything I tell you come to pass?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

AlaninMissoula: Welcome back, long time no see. LV and bsimon: What is this IP address thing you are talking about?? I'm not much on a computer, having taught myself from scratch.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and bsimon, none of those technologies is 100% reliable. There are certain security measures that some computers employ that make identification of IP addresses impossible or nearly so.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

bsimon - As you full well know, if is quite easy to find computer identities by using a trace. The govennment does it the time and so do hackers and advertisers. I'd even bit that some web sites use similar technology to prevent people from posting garbage, getting banned, changing to a new alias, and re-attempting posts. As for having to have direct access to the hoist server, there are packet sniffers available that work quite well, thank you (not what I do).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

merganser: I do not have NM on my list for EC votes for Hillary the other states you mention I have Hillary winning. There is a strong chance she will pick Byah for VP, although I was hoping for Mark in Va., but he pretty well has the Senate seat wrapped up and he will help her a lot there. By picking Byah, she could stand at least a chance in Indiana. Most likely I will wait until after Super Tuesday to revise my list.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

"Be careful, mbrooks27 is a legendary hacker. In fact the reason they laid him off is because he was simply TOO good."


Waitaminute, he's not [name redacted] is he?!? I'm screwed!

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

bsimon--Be careful, mbrooks27 is a legendary hacker. In fact the reason they laid him off is because he was simply TOO good.

Posted by: roo_P | December 18, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

JKrishnamurti--Apologise? I do not see a reason to since my analysis of the complete uselessness of your approach is as correct now as it was before.

Posted by: roo_P | December 18, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I am a long time Republican. I must admit, I have never taken Mr. Edwards seriously as a candidate. His "populist' manner, combined with a very left-leaning campaign places him in the general far-left wing of the Democratic Party. By himself, I don't think he has a chance in the General election... But combined with a centrist Democrat as the Presidential candidate (Edwards as VP), he may provide liberal balance to a ticket that could be ultimately successful.

Posted by: wilsan | December 18, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon, you don't know anything about internet technology nor security. There are at least three ways in which I can get your IP address without hacking into the WaPost system."

Not based on my posts at The Fix.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

No one has mentioned the how the support of voters in their 20's can influence the race. Younger voters may not recall the Clinton years and may not find a way in which to relate to Hillary. They can find ways to relate to Obama - after all he did use drugs and he grew up without a father -raised by elderly grandparents and a single mother. The struggles he faced early in his life, are the same struggles faced by young people. He is a role model for young people that succeeding in school and hard work, not drugs are what it takes to get a head in life. Sure he took drugs but he realized that drugs aren't the solution, the solution has to come from within oneself.

In the past younger voters shied away from voting. If the number of younger voters were to surpass the more reliable elderly voters, then Obama will win and it will show that the younger generation is willing assume control of their destiny.

Posted by: Nevadaandy | December 18, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

babbling brooks: "Based on the amaturish cupidity of your Spanish language resources page, I don't think you are capable of doing much of anything."

Hey everyone -- did you know you're in the presence of a real Internet stalker? If I were Phoebe, the reference librarian from Sterling VA, I'd be scared of this certifiable wackjob.

kingofpuke: "did you know that Loudon county is populated by the underacheivers in the DC area? the ones who have the low paying menial jobs that can't afford to live inside the beltway. the ones that sit in 3 hours of traffic inhaling fumes every evening. the ones that have special relationships with livestock. It is akin to manhattanites and upstaters. you know - intelligent, succesful, urbane, educated, engaged, interesting vs solopsistic, retrograde, unthinking, bucolic, ignorant, emotional, lowbrow and perpetually perplexed.

We don't mind making all the money and paying all their taxes, as long as they stay out there and keep out of our theaters, symphonies, clubs, parties, restaurants and political events."

Um yeah. Right. Hint to those not in the DC area: wherever kingofpuke actually lives, the average household income is lower than where I live. Poor zouk; one of life's losers.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Don't trust the republcains, even paul. It's all for show

"Conservative Liar of the Day-Francisco Nava: Princeton Student Admits to Staging Attack
By: John Amato @ 2:01 PM - PST It started with a David Horowitz type college story:

An alleged physical attack on a Princeton University student who is leading a movement to instill conservative moral values among undergraduates is rattling the campus here. A politics major from Texas who is a junior, Francisco Nava, said he was physically attacked Friday, beaten, and rendered unconscious by two black-clad men about two miles from campus, he told the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian, in an interview...read on

That would have been pretty terrible if it had actually been true. Just when you thought some Conservatives couldn't get any creepier.

A student at Princeton University who said he was beaten unconscious by two black-clad assailants Friday has said that he fabricated the assault, and that he sent e-mail death threats to himself, three other Princeton students, and a prominent conservative professor at Princeton, Robert George, police said today.

The guy beat himself senseless. The proverbial "black menace" attacks the poor and sensitive Conservative--who only wants to bring a little joy and morals to the land. I'm sure the NRCC will take a hard look at Mr. Nava. And what does that tell you about religion in politics?

According to friends, Mr. Nava grew up as a devout Roman Catholic and converted to Mormonism. He served on a two-year mission trip to Russia with the Mormon Church.

Oh, look-Brit Hume is using it today with an update: "Little Outrage over Little Outrage Over Student Beating at Princeton University."

And here's a Holiday stocking stuffer for all in keeping with the Nava principle. I have no idea if this is real or not:"Perfect College Sinners"

"

If you have a problem with this blame bill o'reilly. this is all for him.

rufus t porter

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

proud: that's probably because Thompson's voice puts most listeners to sleep.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - I must say I am skeptical that Loud and dumb is a research librarian. Librarians are usually smart and nice.

did you know that Loudon county is populated by the underacheivers in the DC area? the ones who have the low paying menial jobs that can't afford to live inside the beltway. the ones that sit in 3 hours of traffic inhaling fumes every evening. the ones that have special relationships with livestock. It is akin to manhattanites and upstaters. you know - intelligent, succesful, urbane, educated, engaged, interesting vs solopsistic, retrograde, unthinking, bucolic, ignorant, emotional, lowbrow and perpetually perplexed.

We don't mind making all the money and paying all their taxes, as long as they stay out there and keep out of our theaters, symphonies, clubs, parties, restaurants and political events.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Thompson is older and folksier, proud.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk - Go read the on line edition of the Seattle Times or the Portland Oregonian. The poll numbers are very fluid right now, but the Gregoire campaign is petrified of Clinton. She very narrowly won in 2004 and is re-facing a re-run against Dino Rossi, who is just waiting to turn the contest into an anti-Clinton campaign (people are already drawing unfavorable comparisons between her and Clinton). Same thing here in Oregon. If Clinton is the nominee, forget about taking Smith's seat. The negatives that come with Clinton will cost Democratic candidates all across the country.

And Loudmouth, you are too ignorant and just plain stupid to fake an IP address. Based on the amaturish cupidity of your Spanish language resources page, I don't think you are capable of doing much of anything.

bsimon, you don't know anything about internet technology nor security. There are at least three ways in which I can get your IP address without hacking into the WaPost system.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 5:19 PM | Report abuse

jpgdlc , I agree with you that for many voters, there is a big visceral negative reaction to a southern accent like John Edwards'. With his special brand of smarminess it is fairly nauseating to listen to John Edwards for any length of time, compared to say Fred Thompson's accent, which is much more tolerable for some reason.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 18, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

roo? What's up roo. Got anything to say today? Did you come ack to appologize for past attacks and smears?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, when will you discuss THE most important issue of the Iowa caucuses: SECOND CHOICES?

Any of the "big three" can win, and barring any earth-shattering news, it is going to come down to the "ground game" and who the supporters of the <15% crowd will turn to.

Posted by: roo_P | December 18, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

drindl: I suspect you are smart enough to know that when babbling brooks says "something I am particularly good at doing." he means "something I don't have the slightest idea how to do."

You see, brooks is completely insane. Apparently St Elizabeth's give its inmates access to the Internet. brooks has created a fantasy world in which i am a research librarian named Phoebe from Sterling VA, who is capable of creating a fake IP address.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, but don't waste your time telling that to babbling brooks. Let him enjoy bizarro world.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"SHe IS NOT what she seems to be "

you mean she is not an ignorant, loud mouth, no-nothing firebomber with no articulation skills?

Call me crazy as a rufas, but I think she is exactly what she seems, MikeB. What do you think she is?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"I, on the other hand, was p*ssed off enough that I ran a trace, something I am particularly good at doing."

Hogwash*


* The IP addresses of people posting to the Fix are unavailable to the general public. If the above author has access to the Wa Post server logs, his claim could be factual. I doubt it is.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

More like a jackass.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Mikeb - I took OR off the list after our last conversation. Are you telling me to remove WA too?

Why are Dems such victims of wishful thinking every election? Are they allergic to facts? If I determined that answer based on the nutcases on this blog, I would have to day that dark days are ahead for your party. why did you all sell out to Daily Kos and moveon.org? the DLC handed you a victory and you shunned them. What is wrong with your thinking?

Is that a moonbat howling I hear??? must be my imagination. I look forward to retaking the majority based on the downticket momentum caused by the hildebeast.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

aaaahhhhh

you got nothing zouk. independant thinkers see your face. you got to be a liberal giving the gop a bad name. No one is this clueless.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

http://www.art.com/asp/sp-asp/_/PD--12184523/SP--B/IGID--12184523/No_Fear.htm?sOrig=SCH&ui=8B1FCE5429B14331AD04E58E99A875A9

I'm not a jackel. or a donkey. More liek the lion. The king of the jungle. Submit to the king (s) elephants :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

claudialong - I can only assume you don't know who you're dealing with when you cozy up to Loud Mouth. I, on the other hand, was p*ssed off enough that I ran a trace, something I am particularly good at doing. SHe IS NOT what she seems to be and neither are the other new friends you have acquired lately from the Clinton campaign. Careful. If you lie down with dogs, you will wake up with fleas.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

I see all three stooges are here now, the smart one Moe (drindl), the dumb one Larry (loud and dumb) and the senseless one Curly (rufas). all we need now is for simple simon to join and declare that 2+2 = 5 followed by lylepink proclaiming the truth and integrity of clinton.

then we can call it a day.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

nomugwump, among others, points out
"Ok, folks, let's understand the number of cell phone out there that the pollsters haven't reached"

This is a common comment. But I wonder if its as relevant to a place like Iowa vs a place like New York City. More importantly, if we narrow the focus to people who participate in primaries/caucuses, is there a correlation between phones & participants? If I had to guess, it would be that caucus participants are likely to be middle aged or older and likely to have a landline. In other words, I think there is a strong negative correlation between caucus/primary participation and not having a land line - particularly in rural states.

Anyone got data?

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk -
I'll bet you lunch on that prediction. Every poll run in Washington and Oregon has Clinton loosing here. In fact, if she is the nominee, the current projections are that she helps Gordon Smith retain his Senate seat and costs Washington it's Democratic governor.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

the head jackel returns for her cub.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

fOR ALL ZOUK'S ( the the seemingly republcain ) hate of clinton. She is moderate republcain now. Does you hatred of what she stands for extend to her real leaders? If you hate what hillary represents ,zouk, why do your people's hatred not filter to your party for teh same exact methods?

I think you are just pumping her. Only works with old people. The new school is well versed in propoganda and sales techniques. We know what you are doing before you do. Clinton will not be the nom. Remember who told you first.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

'KOZ is Larry and vbhoomes is an investigator for the State of Ohio (nursing care). Both are actually intelligent conservatives. Mr. hoomes *never* baits peope here and KOZ does it as a hobby when bored. The majority, the vast majority, of both of their posts are factually based and well thought out, '

have to agree Loudon -- that went right out of the ballpark and over the rightwing edge of the earth. By 'Larry', did he mean of Moe and Curly Joe? At least he got that right.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Clinton would not win VA. Obama wouldn't either. Biden possibly could.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

LylePink--I was wrong on the NY Senate, but as a current Virginian I can tell you that although the state is becoming less Republican, Hillary will have a tough time taking it. A moderate Dem like Bayh or our own Mark Warner would take the state. I do not think she is all that popular in Arkansas either. The South is still reliably in the GOP column in 2008. But she need not win either, if Ohio and New Mexico and Colorado swing her way, she wins.

Posted by: merganser | December 18, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

$45 Trillion Gap Seen In US Benefits.

The government is promising $45 trillion more than it can deliver on Social Security, Medicare and other benefit programs.

the Dem congress in action. no problem mon! they raised min wage.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Posted by: votenic | December 18, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

What will you do when Obama or edwards is the nominee, zouk. Will you fainlly get off this site with your tail between your legs. You already lost all your credibility here. Eveyone here knows you are a lying propogandist.

What will you do without clinton to bash? She is a moderate republcain anyway, so your bashin gyou rown person. When someone other than clinton is the nom you will be shown for what you are. A sad pathetic little boy.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Now HRC is running as the experienced Democrat. She's the nonincumbent incumbent.

With 35 years experience, no less.

Hillary Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate for seven years. Before that, she spent eight years as first lady -- and she did more than pick out the drapes. Mrs. C had a role in many Clinton initiatives, including as chair of her husband's failed health care reform task force.

Still, her most valuable political skill was to neutralize her husband's "bimbo eruptions." In 1992, she appeared with her husband on "60 Minutes" as he admitted to straying in his marriage, but denied having an affair with singer Gennifer Flowers -- a false denial, it turns out. In 1998, Hillary Clinton blamed the Monica Lewinsky story on a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Somehow those 15 years have expanded like dog years into "35 years fighting for what I believe in." That is, Clinton's political years include her 15 years as a corporate lawyer, her three years as a law school professor, as well as her tenure as first lady of Arkansas.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=no_experience_and_faux_experience&ns=DebraJSaunders&dt=12/18/2007&page=2

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

zOUK IS A PROPOGATING FASCIST. aNY INDEPENDANT THINKERS (NON-DITTOHEADS) WOUL DBE WELL SERVED TO NOT ENGAGE HIM. that's why I'm here. Even if he is scared now. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Ok, folks, let's understand the number of cell phone out there that the pollsters haven't reached. Add those who are fed up with being pestered. I've got a good friend in the Lakes Region of NH who's turning off his "listed phone" after 5:00pm as he's getting no peace and is royally sick and tired of being constantly nagged or polled. Clinton's people seem the worst, but most of the others are as well. Serious primary fatigue is setting in and I can see why especially at the holidays. Let me comment on John Edwards with the positives first.

Good speaker, obviously believes in what he saying and generates a lot of energy. Seems to hit a cord with some about his "corporate interests and lobbyists" and giving all of us an equal chance. Elizabeth is a big plus and may even be more popular than he is. Hard worker and has expended more effort in Iowa than any other candidate.

A host of negatives, some pretty hard to overcome. For a lot of us, his rants reek of Marx, Engels, Lenin et al's "Class Warfare". We've had enough of this "us vs them" starting with Clinton I. A lot of us are sick of it.

Next comes occupation and background. No one doubts his humble birth, but malpractice attorneys are about as popular as bank robbers in a lot of areas. May have helped those who needed it and I'll take him at his word. A lot of others won't. Unfortunately, his experience in elective office at all levels is the least of the Democratic field yet few bring that up.

His constant "whining" about conditions and the sorry state of everything sounds like "Play That Country Music Breck Boy". Yup, the haircut thing still comes up rightly or wrongly.

Others have pointed out that his help for the ticket in 2004 was zilch. In certain areas of the country, read NH, that accent is like chalk on a blackboard. We need to be tolerant as I'm sure the NH broad "a" doesn't fly in N.C. either. Should we get past this, of course, but will we? Probably not.

Others, who are far more qalified than me, will prognosticate on the finish in Iowa. I happen to think it will be Obama and Edwards within a couple of points of each other with Clinton in third by about 5 points. Edwards comes out of NH in third or even fourth, ditto South Carolina and he's out of money. I'd wager the nomination will end up between Obama and Clinton. Who wins will, in large part, be decided in the early states and on February 5. Keep in mind, thanks to the DNC, two of Clinton's stronger states, MI and FL, are meaningless. Who wins? I won't say at this point, but I don't see a "walkover". Again, Edwards is a nice guy, but hasn't the cash or the wide appeal to take the prize. Imperfect and unfair process to be sure, but that's the cards they're all dealt.

Posted by: NoMugwump | December 18, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

No one votes for a presidential ticket based on the vice presidential candidate. Look at how badly Bentsen made Quayle look in the debates of 1988, yet Bush Sr. easily won in the General Election.

Saying Edwards can't take any red states because the Kerry-Edwards ticket didn't is ridiculous. Voters voted between Bush and Kerry. No one voted between Cheney and Edwards.

The inland west is poised to swing toward Democrats. The state elections in the region have been trending that way. Edwards does have a lot of popularity here in Montana. Forget what percentage Bush won by before. Montana, like other Rocky Mountain states, has a large base of independents. If a Democrat like Edwards made a serious pitch for the vote here, he could win. Edwards has already found time to speak here. No one else has.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | December 18, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

get a life Ace. I already told you I ignore moonbats and insulting stooges. don't expect anyone to play your little tit for tat game here much longer. you're extremely tedious and completely ignorant.

If you ever say one intelligent thing I will fall out of my chair. go ahead with the high school names and insults though, we are expecting it, numbnuts.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Why are we still talking about Edwards? Is he better than third place in any state? Is he ever likely to overtake one of the leading candidates, and are they likely to drop out as long as they're ahead of him? Probably not.

Posted by: lartfromabove | December 18, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

dnbraggs - another thinly veiled attack on racial minorities and men by another Clinton hack? Keep it up. You might win the primary but this garbage will come back to haunt you guys again and again in the general election and you will have succeeded in driving away every supporter of Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kuchinch, and Dodd.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 03:15 PM
*****************************************

What was the point of your post? I'm not a "Clinton Hack". I was questioning the need for these electability polls. Are we sure America will only support a white man for the presidency? If that is the case, what makes Edwards any better than Biden or Dodd? Personally I would like to see Obama at the top of the ticket with either Biden or Richardson as his running mate.

Posted by: dnbraggs | December 18, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

well zooker, you've now regressed from 42 to 39 states for rudy. or is that just a retrograde advance?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary as midwesterner = amusing. she actually has about the highest ratings possible from every liberal organization known and mostly zeroes and teens from conservative ones. Just wait until rudy starts to point out her votes and issues and she actually has to respond to a question. It will be curtains for the Dems. but the non-thinking Libs of the following states will still go for her - none others:

MA, CN, DC, WI, CA, WA, MD, DC, IL, RI, NY, HI

39 states left for Rudy.

Smells like..........victory.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

datourist writes: "The Clinton Machine, you will concede, is more Machiavellian than Karl Rove!"

I'm no huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but nobody in the history of the human race has been more Machiavellian than Karl Rove. Not even Niccolò Machiavelli.

Posted by: bcamarda2 | December 18, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I found my EC count for Hillary as of 15 June and it is 309. I added Pa. on that day. other states I have her winning include Va., Fla., Ark., and Ohio that went Repub in 04 {I think, don't have the map}. Someone asked on the other thread and I can't find how all the states went. Sorry, hope you have the map.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Ahhh... I knew we'd discussed Kid Johnny Edwards's electability before. It was back in August, over on The Trail blog, where Joe Trippi (Edwards campaign guy) argued that Rove was igoring Edwards because Edwards posed the biggest threat to the GOP. The premise was, frankly, laughable then, and remains so:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/22/trippi_rove_ignores_edwards_be.html

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Ajain does make a good point about upstate New Yorkers. I still recall having luch on K Street in 2000 with a collegue and her annoying friend who worked on Hillary's staff. I confidently predicted, as a former New Yorker, that Hillary is a carpet-bagger phony and the LI and upstate crowd will reject her as the phony that she is. Well, I was wrong and the upstaters have come to like her.

These people are ona whole pretty reasonable and similar to midwesterners and thus I think Hillary can narrowly win over Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio (and maybe Iowa) and squeak past the GOP nominee in General election while not even cracking 40 percent in the South and Utah, Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

Posted by: merganser | December 18, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

peterdc: excellent insights, but I tend to disagree that independent voters in the general election will vote for Hillary because of her "moderate" as opposed to "ultra-liberal" positions on policy issues. They might be attracted by the aura of experience she projects having been associated with a successful 8 year president, but I think people have a perception (incorrectly so) that she is even further left than her husband (especially given her association with the failed bid for universal health care). And she is not so different from Obama in repositioning herself more to the center on certain issues. Her support of the flag burning amendment was pure pandering to the right. An additional critique, which moderates/independents may also pick up on in the G.E., is that it seems like she'd do/say anything to be elected president. This is in contrast to Obama who seems to benefit from the perception that he genuinely believes much of what he says, even if some consider the statments to be silly. Speaking of which, could you share some of the silly Obama statements that you feel will be the fodder of Republican attack ads?

Posted by: ussamsarmy | December 18, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards will win Iowa by at least 5 points over the number two vote getter and maybe as much as 10 points. There is an under current of disatisfaction with the way things are done in this country that is going completely unreported by the msm. Obama and Clinton, both good people who in other times would be seen as agents for change, are unfortunately too aligned with those corporate interests that, by their very nature, owe a fiduciary duty towards their shareholders and not the American people. Edwards understands this dissatisfaction felt by the middle class and the poor. The voters may trust Obama and Clinton, as do I, to do the right thing, but we know in our hearts that the corporations won't let them take this country to the place it needs to get. This country is ready for a sea change comparable to the 1932 and 1980 elections that brought in FDR and RWR. This type of sea change is often missed by those members of the msm that rarely think outside of the box and are not in touch with the people in the streets and heartland.

Posted by: racaplan1 | December 18, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Why can't the Democrat candidates all just get along?

They're all lawyers! No butcher! No baker! No candlestick maker!

No teacher! No fireman! No soldier! No engineer! No businessman!

Two are even married to lawyers!

Can't someone mediate?

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Ajain, you've now pasted in that mammoth pro-Hillary post twice. Once was plenty. Are you now going to start working on a followup post which explains how Hillary has leadership and executive experience? Or are you just going to focus on her major qualification (she's a woman!) while attacking her opponents for lacking that experience?

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Good points Brooks and in fairness to Edwards not carrying Red states, people vote the top of the ticket not the bottom. I would have to admit Bentsen ran circles around Quayle bit didn't do Dukasis much good. As for some of the bloggers who only know how throw out insults, they're not serious people, so I will not respond to them.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

People, pollsters and pundits give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

2008 is not the year for the Grand Old Party or Edwards. With only public money Edwards will be finished on TUESDAY Feb 5th 2008.

Vote for the party that is enthusiastic, raised the biggest money and futuristic forward looking. Vote straight Democratic on Super Tuesday. Vote for Hillary Clinton. Super Tuesday will decide the nominee in both parties and everything else will be settled by February 2008. Forget the early states, the IOWA caucus and all the talk of momentum. A fluke here and a fluke there does not make a nominee. End of discussion.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on the recent single sweep of five Sunday news shows in this election cycle.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

The Republicans view Hillary as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their Republican party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my-yes MY-Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on (a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and (b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's re-election support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was re-elected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do now.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a WOMAN to clean the White House!

Here is an in-depth, thoughtful analysis of the top three Democratic candidates: http://theleftcoaster.com/archives/011500.php
Thanks for your time and remember to vote in your respective states on Super Tuesday.
For a little election snapshot click: http://uselectionatlas.org/2008.php

Posted by: ajain31 | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Here's something more interesting (and practical!) to ponder than Edwards' electability!

Who will be the first Hillary challenger to fold his cards, and endorse Hillary?

We all know it will happen soon, and the only suspense about it is WHO.

Based on past sycophancy to the Clintons, I nominate Richardson! Whaddaya think?

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

more sucking up from babbling brooks.

Even though boomes continues to smear John Kerry, a good and brave man (though a lousy presidential candidate), brooks continues to praise bhoomes.

You call those smears well thought out and factually based, brooks?

More proof that brooks is far from the "liberal" he claims to be. Liberal suck-up, maybe. Liberally insane, almost surely.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Are there any psychologists out there?

How about a political Scientist?

I'm curious what impact (positively or negatively) Edwards' strong Southern accent has on the electorate.

The electorate seems to respond very positively to the Southerner with a national perspective.

Many of us are proud of our roots and of our ancestors who fought with the GAR.

But the national reconciliation with the South is something that we are far prouder of.

Southern candidates with a track record of moderation, competence and compassion are taken seriously everywhere.

The southern accent seems to add a charm and authenticity that warms non-Dixie voters to Southern candidates.

Posted by: pach12 | December 18, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

'Edwards didn't win any red states in 2004 because people generally vote for the top of the ticket. If he'd been the presidential nominee instead of the vice presidential nominee then the race in places like North Carolina would have been much more interesting.'

Yes, but the VP candidate's chosen to carry at least his own home state, and VP candidate Edwards signally failed to do so. He didn't carry one single Southern state for Kerry.

If...if...if...if a frog had wings....oh, how it would fly!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

For former Senator Edwards to make a compelling argument about 'electability' he has to explain what states he will win this time that he could not win with Kerry in 2004.

OH COME ON!!!!!!!!!

Weren't you alive in 02 and 03 when Bush had 89% approval ratings?

That Kerry-Edwards were even competitive is a testament to their appeal and the strength of the Democratic Party.

Edwards remains the only candidate telling us precisely what "change" looks like and offering us anything more than a "liberation" strategy for America.

Remember what happened the last time we "liberated" a country!

Posted by: pach12 | December 18, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's INEVITABILITY as the Democratic nominee has become a problem for the Clinton Machine simply because it alienates all those lefties running off in all directions behind Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama.

So, the Clinton Machine's propaganda gambit is to pour soothing syrup on these sensitive souls, by making it seem SUDDENLY COMPETITIVE. It's not. It never was. And Hillary's challengers will root hog and die to be first to kiss her maximus glutei in Denver!

Be honest, pundits!

Accept it, dear Democrats!

You cannot escape your fate!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Basing Edwards' electability argument is hazardous, as he hasn't really proved his appeal to the Dixie voter.

It is possible that Edwards keeps the Dems from getting blown out below the Mason-Dixon line, but unless he can muster some strength among the non-Dixie Democratic rank-and-file, it will be a moot point.

Posted by: pach12 | December 18, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is trailing Hillary and Obama in terms of fundraising, early state poll numbers, and media coverage. Rather than explain why his policies are superior, or how good a job he'd do as president, his strategy is to claim that he's the most electable candidate. Ridiculous.

Here's a hint for Edwards: If you were really the most electable candidate, people would already know that. "Electable" is a synonym for "popular". Trying to prove your popularity to people who don't like you is not a good way to spend your time and money. A candidate should win or lose on his merits, not his perceived popularity.

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris - I like your column however from the tone of your prose I am constantly getting the feeling that you are sitting in the back with your head down.


Is this true?


Are you excited by the campaign trail anymore? Have you lost your political bug?


Do you feel as though you still have the energy to be critical of the same rhetoric of the candidates?


Your tone is this candidate is trying to do this, that candidate is trying to say that -


Where is the energy?

Posted by: Miata7 | December 18, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

elroy1 - They're not. KOZ is Larry and vbhoomes is an investigator for the State of Ohio (nursing care). Both are actually intelligent conservatives. Mr. hoomes *never* baits peope here and KOZ does it as a hobby when bored. The majority, the vast majority, of both of their posts are factually based and well thought out, even if you disagree with them. Compare them with the shill rants, name calling, smears, character assassination and faked i.d. of people like Loudounvoter and a professional posters from Clintons NY headquarters (variously: mia.., ebauersox, etc). Not sure of they are the same poerson, but the IP signiture is the same. COuld be different people, working different shifts.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Also, Edwards seems to think lobbyists will fear him like a conquering hero if he is elected. Come on, get real! They'll just block anything he wants to get done in Congress. At least Obama realizes that he's going to have to bring different parties together. The stuff like this that Edwards says will just kill him later.

Posted by: freedom41 | December 18, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Edwards didn't win any red states in 2004 because people generally vote for the top of the ticket. If he'd been the presidential nominee instead of the vice presidential nominee then the race in places like North Carolina would have been much more interesting.

Posted by: becca07 | December 18, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Da Tourist wrote:

Why won't these liberal pundits just tell you the truth? Hillary will be crowned, because the Clinton Octopus has the Democratic Party machinery in a multi-tentacled embrace. Why deny it?"

Will Seattle wrote:

Why deny it? that is a uestion for the voters. They ARE denying it. She's droppin glike a rock. The gop spin machine is trying to cloud the debate, like it's over anything but her Iran stance and her resorting to GOP attack-mahchine tactics agaisnt her own party. Also, I think aligning herself with bush and the gop are the wrong way to go. Teh america people reject bush and his policies. Does she think she's going to gin up support by being a democratic bush-dog democrat. We'll see. I doubt it.

DaTourist replied:

Well, Will, it may be a ploy of the Clinton Machine to make all these other pygmy Democrats feel better, and accept Hillary as Empress of the Democrats at Denver! The Clinton Machine, you will concede, is more Machiavellian than Karl Rove!

If there weren't an Obama or Edwards, they'd have to invent them. Imagine how moribund the primary would be if it were just Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Richardson to challenge Hillary!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

This is one of your screwier columns. Trying to justify Harrison Hickman's email to you.

The bottom line is that Hillary's negatives are at the highest they will ever go. There is no one out there that doesn't know everything there is to know about Hillary. And as in New York when she begins to campaign as the Democratic nominee they will go down.

Where as Edwards and Obama are basically unknown quantities to most of the electorate. Even though Edwards was a VP candidate he admits himself that he changed his views to match Kerry's so no one focused on him but on Kerry. As for Obama no one know's him and the Repbulicans will make mince meat of him. Do I like that- no I don't but its a fact. He and his supporters have said such silly things in this campaign that the commercials will write themselves. His ultra liberal answers to previous election questionaires paint him as an ultra liberal even if he has now changed his views.

So in the long run what people said in the Washington Post poll and every other poll is correct. Hillary is the most electable candidate the Democrats have.

Posted by: peterdc | December 18, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

One problem I have with Edwards is that his arguments generally appeal to the base and labor unions, not independents and moderates. If he is the nominee, he would hold onto, perhaps even excite, these groups in red states, but what moderates would he attract? If the Republicans elect McCain or Giuliani, moderates would have a choice and I bet a lot more would like the latter two, with their experience, character (despite their flaws), and independence than a slick trial lawyer who has even less government experience than Obama.

Posted by: freedom41 | December 18, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Edwards comes across almost as phony as Mitt. Plus, he has less political experience than both Hillary and Obama. One term in Senate that he is doing everything he can do to distance himself from. Add in his near socialist views, I fail to see how he wins any red states that are not laready leaning Democrat in next election, i.e., New Mexico, Colorado.

My sense is Hillary narrowly wins electoral vote and loses popular vote or Obama wins big electorally by bringing the moderates with him or loses big by allowing the GOP and media to convince people he is not experienced enough and through racial and muslim lies the GOP will unleash on him.

Posted by: merganser | December 18, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary blamed it all on a vast right-wing conspiracy!

Edwards blamed it all on John Kerry!

Who's more credible?

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Why won't these liberal pundits just tell you the truth? Hillary will be crowned, because the Clinton Octopus has the Democratic Party machinery in a multi-tentacled embrace. Why deny it?"

Why deny it? that is a uestion for the voters. They ARE denying it. She's droppin glike a rock. The gop spin machine is trying to cloud the debate, like it's over anything but her Iran stance and her resorting to GOP attack-mahchine tactics agaisnt her own party. Also, I think aligning herself with bush and the gop are the wrong way to go. Teh america people reject bush and his policies. Does she think she's going to gin up support by being a democratic bush-dog democrat. We'll see. I doubt it

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Have to agree with a number of other posters, it's mostly the MSM that incorrectly positions Sen Clinton as "most electable".

But, I don't think Sen Edwards is that much better on that score.

In my mind, an objective view would be a tie between Sen Obama, Sen Dodd, Gov Richardson, and maybe Sen Biden for most electable.

But, both Sen Clinton and Sen Edwards are far more electable than any of the Republican choices this year ... talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel ...

Posted by: WillSeattle | December 18, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

The part I like about Edwards is how he is going to "fix" the health care system.

Is he planning on another rapacious law suit?

Isn't he part and parcel of the health care problem? How is the hospital doing that he bilked out of millions? Did his legal looting leave them better or worse?

Just how green is Edwards? How much are the electricity bills for his mansion?

Is he driving a hybrid?

Or is he another sanctimonious, hypocritical, limousine liberal who is living very, very large, while pointing his finger at the rest of us?

Nobody seems willing to ask these questions here.

Posted by: VirginiaConservative | December 18, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Beating Giuliani in the polls in a Red State says more about po' Rudy than it does about po' John!

I still won't quarrel than Edwards (or any other warm body!) would compete with Republicans better than Hillary in Election 2008, but po' John must suffer the fate of kissing up to Hillary at the podium in Denver!

Why won't these liberal pundits just tell you the truth? Hillary will be crowned, because the Clinton Octopus has the Democratic Party machinery in a multi-tentacled embrace. Why deny it?

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Mike b. i got a quetion for you on the last post

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

mibrooks--no need to feed the bhoomer-troll. It's fact-free rants actually do more of a disservice to its cause than any sort of substantive response to it.

Ditto KingofZouk. They may both be the same spam generating servers, in fact.

Posted by: elroy1 | December 18, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

But Edwards is also the most progressive candidate, so how could he be the most electable? Jesus, Chris are you trying to send David Broader to the fainting couch? Good God, someone rush him to a diner in Iowa so he can find a "random" person who agrees with him in time for his next column.

Posted by: havok26 | December 18, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

The current polls using land lines and registered voters are much too flawed. They cannot explain the huge grassroots movements and $6 million/day events. Earn yourself a reputation for being precienct & start covering Ron Paul now in earnest. Don't be an also ran.

Posted by: qualquan | December 18, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

As someone said here before. Obama probably won't choose edwards as his running mate because they are courting teh same voters, for the most part. This would be a great thing for people/voter/bloggers like me. But I don't see it happening, though I would be very happy with that.

I think Obama would court either Dodd (whom I prefer after his stand on FISA) or biden.

Clinton with edwards is a possiblity, altough he has been attacking her. more likely are wes clark or biden

Looking like Obama- Dodd are the dem ticket. Beat that republcains. Many people on the left will not support clinton. if obama wins he will get an outpour of support from al gore to moderate repubclains agasint the war.

I think obama will steal gop votes, as will clinton. the problem with clinton is she loses ALL the votes on the left and ALL the votes on the ultra right. I'm still not sure whois supporting clinton. I've never met one personally. I think it's manufactuered support. The gop spin police trying to force the opposition ticekt.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

oh please brooks, you scream racist like rufus screams fascist. BO-ring!


I'd vote for Edwards against any of the GOP hopefuls but he won't be the nominee.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is electable only in the eyes of the naive who fall for the line (from a person basking in the great things that wealth brings) that we will fight poverty (notice how he never explains how).

Posted by: KevinNReynolds | December 18, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

dnbraggs - another thinly veiled attack on racial minorities and men by another Clinton hack? Keep it up. You might win the primary but this garbage will come back to haunt you guys again and again in the general election and you will have succeeded in driving away every supporter of Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kuchinch, and Dodd.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I searched IN VAIN for Edwards to name one specific Red State he would carry for the Democrats in 2008 (if nominated), but he was more cautious than Hillary!

Whatsamatta, John? Cat got your tongue!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes - My answer to that is that for most Democraticc voters, the core issue is jobs. Always has been. We have witnessed millions of living wage jobs being outsourced and our universities and high tech firms laying off Amercian workers, usually older Amercian workers, and replacing them with cheap H1-B guest workers from China and India. That has made a lot fo Democrats angry and when they witness candidates like CLinton and Richardson and Kennedy promoting this, they are more than a bit offended.
John Edwards has made this issue central to his campaign, and more than anything else, that is why he is viewed in a postive light nation wide.

As for your "bash" that he is a high priced lawyer who made his millions litigating against large corporations, you have got to know that he almost exclusively handled cases where older workers were laid off, workers were forced to work in unsafe conditions, women were sexually harrassed, and even several cases where "self insured" companies combed medical records looking for people who were laid off because the employee had a sick child or spouse and the company figured that was a way of reducing their medcial costs. Pretty outrageous stuff that anyone with an ounce of morality would support Edwards in doing. By the way, the reason for the continued attacks against Edwards, the money behind the continual attacks is nearly 100% corporate money for exactly that reason. They are frightened to death of him. He would win a general election and the only way to stop him has been to overstuff Clinton.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I couldn't quarrel that Edwards (or even Kucinich!) would be a better Presidential candidate than Hillary, but I'm just as skeptical about Edwards' electability argument!

If Edwards is so electable in Red States, which ones did he carry for the Democrats in 2004?

Not even North Carolina! And his old Senate seat went to a conservative Republican!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 18, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

John Edwards has accepted public matching funds for the primary and general elections because he cannot compete with the Clinton and Obama fund raising juggernaut. Therefore, should he win the Democratic nomination, he will most likely not have much money until he accepts the Democratic nomination in August. During that summer, the Republicans and the outside groups will slam him with ads about haircuts and some his stances he has taken to try and get the nomination. He will have no money to respond. Sorry, Edwards will get swift boated and be severely weakened should he get the nomination. The lack of money should have been mentioned in this article.

Posted by: labrat94720 | December 18, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I am getting sick of these polls and the electability doublespeak. In essence it seems that the new Edwards appeal is that he is not black and he is not female. If we just must nominate a white male, why not nominate Biden. He at least has years of experience and a record of accomplishment. Why don't we try something new this election cycle and nominate the person that will fight to uphold the Constitution. Personally that is the person who will receive my vote.

Posted by: dnbraggs | December 18, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

I like John Edwards, I really do, but he *can't* win in Red States, because he *didn't*. Not even close ones. He, along with John Kerry didn't win:
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
West Virginia
Arkansas
Florida
Arizona
or New Mexico.

All states with plenty of Democratic voters that just weren't quite blue enough.

I don't fault John Edwards for this, and after all he *did* visit my home state of Maryland in 2004 (Thanks, John!).

I fault the pundits that went on and on for ten fracking weeks about swiftboats, and those selfsame who now go on and on about Mr. Edwards' hair. (Yes, I mean you Mr. Milbank)

I think, however, that John Edwards has earned enough credibility and name recognition to good far more good works in the Senate for years to come.

Posted by: deaniac | December 18, 2007 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I do not think someone who has spent his whole career ligating and bashing Big Business is all that qualified to be President. I hate Hillary, dislike Edwards but find the rest of the dem candidates to be very good. I think Joe Biden has the most experience(with the exception of Richardson) and is very likable to boot. Why he is is not getting much consideration from his party is a mystery to me.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Are there any psychologists out there? I'm curious what impact (positively or negatively) Edwards' strong Southern accent has on the electorate. I'm a native Texan, and my theory is that after 16 years of presidents with pronounced Southern accents, many of the very large non-Southern electorate are subconsciously tired of Southern presidents. You may think my critique is facetious or shallow, but I do believe that accents do have a somewhat subliminal impact.

Posted by: jpgdlc | December 18, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"who do you think is better, bsimon? on either side?"

My shortlist is Biden, Obama & McCain.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone think Edwards is the most electable?

Did he bring in any voters in his VP run?

Doubt it.

He was smacked around and looked like a deer in headlights when he debated Cheney.

He is another warmonger flip-flopper. Why would that be electable.

Posted by: kenswann | December 18, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

A new poll was released today from North Carolina which has Edwards convincingly leading all Republicans, while Clinton and Obama trail all of them (even Romney). Though, granted, this is Edwards's home state. Link: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/presidential-polls-coming-in-from-all.html

Posted by: campaigndiaries | December 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

who do you think is better, bsimon? on either side?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

For former Senator Edwards to make a compelling argument about 'electability' he has to explain what states he will win this time that he could not win with Kerry in 2004.

I fail to see how spending 4 years redefining himself as a populist & refining his message makes him a better candidate than he was 4 years ago. He didn't have the experience then & hasn't done anything to address that shortcoming in the intervening 4 years.

We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I agree with AndyR in that a significant Anybody But Hillary crowd exists. Not sure why Obama isn't "ready yet" when Edwards, who hasn't occupied public office for several years, is. Certainly Edwards loses in terms of experience relative to Obama.

Obama-Edwards '08. Edwards has already been positioning himself for this. He'd make it a lot more likely if he gave up early and threw his support to Obama. Not bloody likely but sensible.

Posted by: judgeccrater | December 18, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"But, perception equals reality in politics and at the moment there is a sense among Democrats that Clinton is -- by far -- the most electable candidate. "

Meaning, if CC and the rest of the media say it enough times then everyone will believe it. I think the folks in Iowa are going to throw Hillary's inevitability argument back in her and her husband's faces in two weeks. The question is will Edwards shoot the gap or will Obama's star power dominate.

I am thinking more and more that Edwards will get a boost from the Biden, Richardson, Dodd people who won't vote for HRC but don't think Obama is ready yet. Also you know that the Kuccinich people (small but dedicated) will back Edwards. I don't think it will be enough to overpower Obama but you never know. I am thinking Obama will win with 38%, Edwards in second with 28%, and Hillary at 25%, and Biden taking up fourth with 9%. (with all predictions having a +/- of 4%)

The Obama boost could be bigger though since the polling in Iowa isn't taking into account the cell-phone only folks which I think will mainly go to Obama. And, if you can take the CNN on-line poll today that might be as much as 25% of the people in this country.

Posted by: AndyR3 | December 18, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company