Edwards Wins: A Theory Tested (New York Times)

After choosing a representative national sample of more than 700 people, political scientists conducted what is called a deliberative poll. They created a group of well-informed voters by giving them home computers and exposing them to the candidates' commercials and policy positions. These voters, using microphones with the computers, discussed the candidates and the issues in small groups that met online once a week, starting in January on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Over the next five weeks, as Mr. Kerry built up momentum among both real-life primary voters and the control group in the experiment, Senator John Edwards enjoyed the biggest surge in the well-informed test group, which was won over by his personal traits as well as by his policies, notably his protectionism on trade. Besides appealing to the Democrats in the test group, Mr. Edwards did better among the group's independents and Republicans, and he emerged as the strongest candidate against Mr. Bush.

"The normal primary process allows a few small and unrepresentative states to create the momentum for all that follows," said James Fishkin, who conducted the study with Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford colleague, and Robert C. Luskin of the University of Texas. "We wanted an alternative to shrinking sound bites, attack ads and a largely inattentive public that responds mainly to candidates' traits and horse-race coverage by the media," Mr. Fishkin said. "What would happen if people across the country were really engaged and informed and had a chance to think about the issues?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/politics/campaign/02POIN.html

I always thought Democrats just got swept away by Kerry fever after he won Iowa and New Hampshire. He was wrongly seen as the man to beat Bush. Edwards played well with independents, moderate Republicans and people who were undecided until the last minute. Edward's lack of foreign policy experience may have played against him, but not if he picked the right running mate, and not if he managed to sound knowledgeable in debates and discussions.

Kerry gives the appearance of dissembling.

Edwards was ahead of him in my personal preference, just behind Kucinich and Dean. Edwards seems to remember where he came from, and has a clue as to how most of us live in this country. He talks a good fight, anyway.

Kerry's a good man with good ideas, but he shares the cluelessness of most people born to wealth, a disconnect which refuses to recognize that when we lose our livelihoods or get sick, we lose everything, no trust fund in the background to make sure we don't.

Kerry desperately needs Edwards on the ticket, there's no two ways about it, to speak to the 95% of us not born to wealth and to speak the language of the south.

some reservations about "free trade" and this was his death knell.

"Free trade" is way beyond a mere economic policy; it is a religious belief with the PTB in this country. It will destroy us eventually, just as it did the British empire.

It has already destroyed the middle class and no amount of "retraining" will bring it back.

People liked him more once they heard him talk about trade.

for mindless free trade and nor is the vast majority of the American public. So that doesn't contradict anything except what the PTB want.

I guess I could be seen here as alleging that there may have been some voter fraud on behalf of the approved "free trade is our religion" candidate Kerry. I cannot prove that. I only know that the PTB will never allow the U.S.A. to practice anything other than free trade and will destroy any candidate who suggests a different, less radical course.

No amount of "retraining" or "reeducation" can ever undo the permanent damage done to the middle classes over the past 40 years by these policies, which have been rammed through by globalists on both sides of the aisle.

ends up being on the ticket, and then becomes president, and then takes measures to protect the value of labor, and if it's all because the ideas he discussed in Wisconsin start a fire that nothing can put out, then...well...democracy will have worked.

the undecided people I know all really like Edwards. His positive campaign was very effective.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

:yourock:

Edwards is an attractive face, too. He just has that magnetic personality that the Kerry campaign needs badly. The fact that Edwards is from the south should help, too.

Dean excited many, peaked early and imploded over his own recklessness and the combined attacks of opponents and the media. Clark, the great white knight who entered with grand panache, considerable money and media attention didn't excite. Gephardt never had a chance, being lackluster and having a voting record that could be characterized as appeasing and wishy-washy.

During the primary season itself (after Iowa) NOBODY improved in people's estimations, voting standing or any other respect except Edwards, and if that's not enough testimony to the man, he did it with few champions in the media, a packed field and an opponent deliberately targeting him (Clark, doing what he tactically should have done) and making him concentrate on certain states instead of being able to get out and around.

Rancor aside, had Clark never entered the race, Edwards may very well have been able to pull it out even with the idiotic top-loaded season. As it was, he couldn't even attempt to compete in places like Michigan where his policies were inherently attractive.

This blinkered system, which skews results by rewarding a few nonrepresentative constitutiencies, is apt to continue producting bastardized results of the sort that have saddled us with Kerry.

Want a reform candidate, rather than the tired DLC Bush-lite offerings? The primaries are certain to prevent it.

the rest of America from having the sort of debate which was produced in the study:

(1) Kerry's infusion of cash into the Iowa race which gave him a lot of leverage in the final week. It's not so much that the infusion of cash was bad, but that all the candidates weren't able to play on that same field. Everyone should have had the money (or what it bought) so that more voters had a chance to digest the information which was force fed to the people in the study.

(2) Clark not dropping out earlier. I think Clark must have known that he had no chance of winning after OK et al, but he stuck around for the next round. Although Edwards did well against him in that round, I think if Clark hadn't been in it, it would have focused people earlier on what inevitably happened: a comparision between Kerry and Edwards's ideas.

When Super Tuesday became the platform for that debate, with two of the most expensive media markets in play, NY and CA, there was no way we were going to get the debate. Edwards was forced to campaign in MN, OH, and GA only, but it was too late.

irrelevant.

I was willing to support Clark not going into Iowa... if he had, after Dean & Gep's collapse... Clark surely would have won.

He combined the best of Kerry and the little good that resided in Edwards.

That's what I think.

I think the polling and the money meant that he had to pick IA or NH to run in. If he ran in Iowa and didn't do well (which the polls probably suggested) then he would have done worse in NH and he would have been out in the first round, rather than the third.

the study cited in the original post.

If you want to know why Clark didn't do well, it's in that study: when people learned about the candidates and talked about them, they liked Edwards and Kerry the most. There's nothing hypothetical about that.

This is well-worn ground, and I'm in lock-step with the party on the issue of this election, but it does bear some analysis.

Top-loading the system is a cynical attempt to force the party establishment's candidate upon us, when the dynamic of a long primary season is like out-of-town openings for a show or test screenings for a picture. The contest also shows which candidate can take it, dish it out, find the right message and generally connect. When it gets down to it, you want the toughest, most likeable and "best" combination of talents; it's far too easy to slip a schlub through the system and make him/her look good, when in fact problems exist.

Unfortunately, just like on this board, it's more important to far too many people that "their guy" wins, instead of "the best guy". Chalk it up to human vanity, vengeance for the thousands of one's failures and need to win, but it's still counterproductive.

Gary Hart should have been the candidate in '84; he might have been able to beat the great godking Reagan, and he would have been a great President. Unfortunately, the party apparatchiks wanted Mondale, and that was that. Sad. (Remember: the Donna Rice scandal was '88.)

Edwards was the only candidate who was gaining after Iowa; except for the front-runner, all the rest of them were on the decline. This shows something, and what it shows is that people liked Edwards.

The many ridiculous articles about how the party base tended to go more for Kerry (blacks in Georgia, as an example) is a spurious one; the base would have gone for Edwards too. What was extraordinary was how Edwards could run on a platform that was emphatic about minority rights and access, and still win in rural white Georgia.

Here's the sick and depressing reality about "big politics" in this country: the principal activity of both parties is finding new and creative ways to subvert voting, not necessarily by overt ballot-box stuffing or anything like that, but by making the decisions foregone by media favors called in and massive amounts of money spent.

More energies should be spent on finding the one who's most electable; inevitably, the people get some version of a say.

If you could get all American voters to become informed at that level, Gore would be president now and we wouldn't have a need for this. If only al Americans were above average.

People respond on emotion, momentum, popular opinion, and all the factors this study tried to eliminate.

There is also another factor-- ability to lead. I love Edwards, love his ideas, and think he could be a good president. But one factor that is not measurable by discussion groups, and doesn't get solved by a focus on issues, is real-world ability to make decisions on the fly that result in the outcome you want. That's critical for a president. Primaries and elections are a decent measure of that. Dean proved he couldn't redirect his energies, Edwards proved he could not get a grip on the real-world situation enough to develop a winning strategy. Kerry could, and did, respond to the actual situation, not a perfect-word scenario. Thus he has shown an intangible ability to get things done. THAT, too, is a trait that has to be considered.

Bush, obviously, proved the opposite in 2000. He proved he couldn't win, but that he had a team of orchestrators who could cheat to get him in office. Not the same thing.

Interesting study, though. It says a lot of things.

Kerry/Edwards '04.

Could not get a grip?

They guy conducted an amazing, smart campaign, with many obstacles, and he beat everyone except for one person, and he's got to be the favority for the next race whether it's in 2008 vs Bush or 2012 after he has been VP for two terms.

No. How many states? One.

He couldn't get a grip on real-world realities.

He ran a smart campaign, and he himself is quite smart. Where you see obstacles, though, i see him having been a favorite. he got more good press than Dean or Kerry before the primaries, and even after Iowa he was on a role that everyone (myself included) expected him to cash in on. He couldn't. He's won what, one election in his life?

That says something about his ability to get it done in the real world, whether you like it or not.

2008, 2012, maybe he'll know more. Hope so. He wasn't ready yet. Being president requires more than being the best on issues. Otherwise we'd always elect boring beauracrats instead of superstars with noble faces.

else has been able to achieve in IA, WI and GA (to Kerry) and in OK to Clark, and has gotten over 3,000,000 votes (21%) to Kerry's 8 million (58%) and that's despite the fact that he's withdrew a couple months ago, and he has more second place finishes than anyone else.

I don't think anyone else cracked 1,000,000 (or if they did it wasn't by much).

And he did all that without a real political base (sole practitioners civil litigation plaintiffs lawyers? right) and he did it after only being in politics for a couple years, AND now he's the inside favorit for the VP!

When Dean was telling CNN he wanted to get rid of race-based affirmative action and he didn't like medicare, and when Kerry and Gephardt were developing their political careers too, Edwards was known mostly to NC juries.

You saw advantages? Where? In registering at less than 10% in polls for months before the primaries? Yeah, the media really gave him a lot of great media in between inflating Dean all summer and tearing down Kerry.

The media only started giving him the time of day after Iowa, and he earned it (and even then, they gave Dean a week of scream coverage).

Clearly, when people started paying attention to Edwards, they started liking him a lot. And he went as far as he could go with it, which was pretty far considering from where he came.

To me, that's getting a grip in a big way.

And he came in second in a lot.

I'm tired of second. That won't help in November.

guy who's going to help in November.

3,00,000 votes and even more who want him on the ticket. Phuk that. Get me the guy who got 300,000. He's the one who's going to help in November.

I'm not saying Edwards isn't right for VP (though I'm still not sold on him), and I'm not sure who you are talking about with the fourth or fifth candidate as VP. I don't remember suggesting anyone else.

Edwards would work. I don't know that he'd be best as VP. He's seen as the loser of the primaries, and his final numbers were less exciting than people expected them to be. He'd have to overcome that image as a choker.

And you said above that Edwards didn't get press. That's just wrong. Edwards was being talked about as a favorite three years out. In the final months Dean got most of the attention. Clark got a lot (sadly). But Edwards was highly considered from almost the end of the 2000 selection, despite the fact there there were no polls showing him doing well. His consideration by the media far outpaced his record. He never broke well in the polls, and the media stopped talking about him (as you said, why worry about the guy in fourth?). After Iowa he got a lot of attention, but couldn't capitalize on it. Some of that was because of Clark, undoubtedly, but none of it was because the media disrespected him.

He's won one election. He's been a senator for one term. That's a lot of inexperience for Bush to hammer on.

On the good side, the states he carried were southern, and any southern state helps the ticket-- maybe clinches it. And if Bush and Rush and the rest are hammering on Edwards, that frees up Kerry to campaign, as we learned when we hammered on Quayle a decade ago. And his "Two Americas" speech is the stuff history would remember if he won. I don't think he costs any votes. There's upside. There's just not a proven record.

get the media whores to focus on someone else all last summer.

Dean got more press coverage than all other candidates COMBINED according to two studies from last fall, and he was in first place at that time.

Coincidence?

Edwards got something like 10% of the coverage Dean got and was polling in the 10s at the end of the summer.

Coincidence?

Dean got the press because he was in the lead. Edwards got less because he wasn't.

That's the way I saw it.

Do you think it was fair to give Dean more coverage than all other candidates combined? Especially considering he didn't win Iowa, and therefore was particularly well-liked are taken seriously by people who had to make a decision about him?

Do you think it was fair that Edwards got very little coverage when the study was revealed that the public really liked him?

Do you remember 2000?

Do you think the media doesn't know what it's doing?

He won SC by 15.5 percent, he won the NC late-date primary, and he took second in OK to Kerry's third.

Lieberman beat Edwards for 2nd in Delaware by 26 votes. No, that's not a typo.

Clark beat Edwards for 3rd in New Hampshire by 839 votes. (less than four tenths of a percent)

Clark beat Edwards in Ok by something like 1300 votes, which was also right around four tenths of a percent.

Had Clark dropped after OK, Tennessee would almost definitely have gone to Edwards, and maybe there would have been some time for campaigning in Michigan.

Remember: in primaries, second DOES count. Had he broken away, there might have been some hope for Super Tuesday, and Georgia was somewhat close. The next week was Texas, Mississippi and Florida.

Sigh. So sad. My beloved and clunky Democratic Party threw away its best candidate in 40 years. Gotta love 'em...

Time to look on the bright side, though: there's a solidity to John Kerry, and a brave enduring sadness in him that still has the fire within to be upbeat and hopeful. These are traits that can be very reassuring to people, and in these trying times, they should be highlighted and prized. My four year-old daughter picked Kerry from the bunch in one of the early debates; people should listen more to that kind of thing.

This study is interesting as an exercise, but in no way reflects the reality of the campaign. I found Edwards an appealing candidate, but the sad truth is that the public is "largely inattentive" and not "really engaged and informed..." Many (most?) folks don't "think about the issues."

Kerry won the primary under real life conditions and that counts for a lot. In the end that is more meaningful than some lab experiment with force educated voters. The people that Kerry needs to win over are just those inattentive and disengaged voters. Voters that are engaged and informed have, by and large, already made up their minds.

I don't think Kerry is charismatic enough to win over undecideds, whereas Edwards is.

I have no doubt that Kerry is more intelligent than Bush. Gore was more intelligent than Bush. But Gore was (to all but his ardent supporters) uninspiring. So is Kerry. And Edwards was very skilled at giving people hope.

This primary was not "normal" We were in such a rush to get our nominee, to prove we were united. Some pundits and experts looked at resumes and said Kerry was the man and we followed.

Now, I bash Kerry, but he is very intelligent and well spoken. He does have passion about his causes. But he's boring, and I doubt he'll win over too many undecideds.

You're saying that Edwards was better at engaging people during the primaries, but he lost to Kerry. So Kerry was better. he was charasmatic enough to win over undecideds, whereas Edwards wasn't (although he won over his share-- I'm not an Edwards basher, I like the guy).

As for the media spin that Kerry was just the guy the Democrats thought could do win, and not really all that good a candidate, that's just the typical media bullshit meant to strengthen Bush and weaken Democrats. Kerry was not just part of a rush to stand united. If so, we could have united behind anyone. Kerry won because of a lot of factors, one of them being that he has been tested, both on ideology, and on service. Edwards was a one term senator who had never served another government position (his ideology was not doubted, just his experience). That was risky. Clark had never won anything, and had no track record of Democratic ideology for anyone to study. Dean was too Dean-- he was out of the running before the final ballots were counted in the Iowa caucus.

Kerry won because he was the best over-all candidate of the bunch, all things considered. Whether he can beat Bush or not remains to be seen. But Edwards could not beat Kerry, so that question was answered.

John Edwards is not a protectionist. Who are these people that can't write ONE SINGLE STORY without slapping this shit in there?

people who sling this label around don't even really know what it means.

Ask them to define protectionism, and then say that if "protectionism" has anything to do with the definition of it's root, to protect, then the only true patriotic stance is protectionism. If this means one wants to "protect" american jobs, to "protect" the american economy, and to "protect" real free market capitalism against what is by definition NOT true free trade because it lacks comparative advantage, then shout it from the roof-tops, we're all "protectionists" And then question the stance of anyone who is "anti-protectionist" or call them "pro-sweat-shop" or "pro-outsourcing", or whatever.

Re Edwards, how will this play out in light of his assertion during the primaries that "I am only interested in being President of the United States."? Or is this just something they all say? I love Edwards, and he was my pick, but I feel people chose Kerry because he just has alot more experience and because of his military history. Edwards would be a super, super pick because he pound on Bush for being a "phony", and calls himself the real deal, and that is so effective and what so many people can relate to about him.

article is that when peopl learn about the candidates, and they discuss the candidates whith each other, then experience and military history isn' that important to them.

And we all know how much time the general American public devotes to that. Don't 50% still think Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Which would also tie- in to Kerry's $$ on ads. Because most people expect to be spoonfed from tv nowadays instead of actually having to read.

and now we *own* him!

I think the media has decided that they will push Gephardt. They know that would hand the election to the Rethugs.

If Clark won't take it, and I'm still pulling for that to happen,than Edwards must be the choice. IMO


;-)

Truth be told, it doesn't take a genius to recognize that John Edwards was an infinitely more appealing candidate than John Kerry. But the combination of Kerry's "surprise" victory in Iowa, Howard Dean's self-destruction (which diverted critical media attention away from Edwards) and that one poll showing Kerry beating Bush (a poll showing Edwards beating Bush wouldn't be released for a few more weeks) created they kind of momenum that even as inept a campaigner as John Kerry couldn't stop and a candidate as naturally gifted as John Edwards could't overcome.

NYT is at it again - got to counteract that dangerous name Newsweek just dangled - how can we call Kerry a wimp if he goes with "that guy"?
Everyone knows that this election hinges on protectionism in trade :eyes:
That's why W comes this summer in NYC!

any truly representative sample of voters would support Kerry over Edwards after comparing their healthcare plans, personal backgrounds, and voting records. But having a bright individual who learns quickly on the job is a widely accepted standard for selecting a running mate.

...it looks like a representative sample of voters were fed as much information about these candidates as possible and were encouraged to discuss with others what they were thinking, and, it is more than likely that that their healthcare plans, biography and voting records were among the many things of which they were made a award and Edwards still was the most popular.

I just have to say this is my personal experience discussing Edwards with people.

The more you talk it out, the more information you have about all the candidates, the more you like Edwards.

Then why did he not win the primaries?

The more I knew about his healthcare plan and voting record..the more likely I was to find another candidate. I was most likely to support Edwards before 9/11 when he championed the Patient's Bill of Rights, voted against the tax cuts, and had not yet made public the specifics of his 2004 campaign agenda.

As I learned that he did not include the coverage of adults in his healthcare plan, he supported the Iraqi War Resolution, and opposed the complete repeal of the Bush tax cuts I began searching for another primary candidate.

But for most Democrats, even those who support the War in Iraq, I think they would not vote for a candidate who fails to support allowing uninsured workers with medical problems buy health insurance at an affordable premium.

it's better than being in a New York Times sampling group! ;)

don't really base that dislike on facts.

Now, go read the article (and the PBS article) and come back and debate when you're armed with facts.

i was having 'edwards moments' towards the tail end of my support for howard dean. it's not that i don't like kerry, i just think edwards is better.

:eyes:

and they misrepresented the 'channel' thing -- which some DU'ers got some mileage out of -- that was really helpful.

Do a search of Katherine Seelye's articles and I'll give you $100 if you can find one nice thing she had to say about him.

Even this article isn't nice.

It's primary designed to inflict buyer's remorse on Democrats viz Kerry without doing anything to help Edwards.

They LOVED him.

They gave him the coverage he was due after he did well in IAbefore that, even Leno's line was "you're running for VP."

I saw Edwards as the biggest threat to Bush (as did the participants in this study) and the press did what they could to mitigate the damage he could do.

There was a study last summer which had Edwards getting about 10% the coverage Dean got (and that coverage pushed Dean to the top of the polls).

Furthermore, just look at this study. These people LOVED Edwards the most. They were given information about the candidates that was unmediated by the media.

What was the difference between their perception and the rest of Americas? The rest of America knew about Edwards what the press told them, and clearly there was a qualitative difference because he won the hearts and minds of the people in the study, but not of the people who got info from the major media.

I rest my case.

...the articles.

See below.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

...and you can see where the NYT ignored a lot of very flattering information about Edwards.

They weren't doing this story to help Edwards. They were doing it to hurt Kerry.

How could the press not achieve what this Stanford study achieved.

The people in the study had him in first place. Do you think press couldn't have whored it up for Edwards at least as well as the Stanford professors, if they wanted to?

They do it for Bush so easily.

whore behavior?

It's not a NYT survey. It's an academic survey.

Read the PBS link if you want a less whorish description of it.

Primaries are just eyewash! All we really need is another academic survey. :eyes:

opinion.

So it's not the Times that it's the problem, it's analyzing information and trying to have informed opinion?

Okely Dokely.

maybe we could begin a real kick-ass partnership...:kick:

Edwards did nicely among this wonderful bubble group, but his campaign failed in every other aspect. It did not have a clear message, no focus, and therefore no broad coalition of voters to support him. In order to win, voters should not have to be spoon-fed information by some polling group. This sample group further demonstrates why the movements of both Edwards and Dean grew and popped like political soap bubbles!

As a former Dean supporter I was not happy about seeing him lose in New Hampshire. But I'm sure the Edwards supporters were just as bewildered to see Kerry defeat Edwards in the Georgia primary!

I guess you two are already kicking ass.

The only campaign that won in "every respect" is Kerry, becauase he, uhm, won.

We're talkinga bout picking a VP. If Kerry picks a VP who ran (which isn't neccessarily the case) I don't see how Edwards not winning the primaries would be a reason not to pick him, since, if he won it would disqualify him from being considered.

I'm also laughing at the way you dismiss informed opinion as some kind of "wonderful bubble group." That's funny.

Edwards was leading GA all night and lost in the last few hours (in a Diebold state no less, but I'm not using that excuse). That's pretty remarkable, I believe, after talking to hundreds of voters who generally said, "I want someone who can beat Bush, and I think that's Kerry because he's ahead in the polls."

Now, if I could have had these same people in a focus group which I could have given them homework, in which they were encoruaged to discuss their thoughts, and in which they were allowed to ask experts for information, I think they would have realized the same things I realized about Edwards and which the people in the study realized.

Whatever, though. I don't have a problem that Kerry came out on top. But I will have a problem if the Democrats don't take the opportunity to capitalize on what this study reveals when Kerry selects the VP.

The NYT posted this study for the same reason you did, you both want to see JE as VP. BTW, if you really believe that this study is not flattering to JE I can see why you don't think the media has been kind to him. :eyes:

I think the study shows that JE is a likable guy and that people generally oppose free trade. (IMO his answer on the Iraq question was crap...which is part of the problem).

Primary voters were looking for someone who could beat Bush. The only card Bush has to play in this election is fear and we both know Rove will be relentless. Edwards has little to offer on this issue. JK has a long senate career, broad foreign policy experience (he wrote a book about terror, not PI trials), and best of all, he is a war hero.
There is a reason that Bushco is trying so hard (to the point of absurdity) to denigrate JK's war record...they DO NOT want voters to go to the polls with the mental image of JK as a decorated vet.

I think this issue will be so pervasive that we can't even afford JE in the 2nd spot.

The election is not just about how JE does one-on-one with voters. It is at least as much about how he would look after the media machine was finished with him. IMO, it wouldn't be pretty.

And no, I'm not high, but thanks for asking. Are you?

They didn't publish it to help Edwards.

It's really flip.

If they wanted to help Edwards, they would have published the article PBS published, which is more intelligent and goes in more depth.

If Kerry pickes Edwards, I expect Seelye to go right back to writing the nasty shit about Edwards that she wrote in the primaries.

This study showed that people who thought about it, thought that Edwards had the best chance to beat Bush. People picked Kerry because early on there was this notion that whoever was in the lead early was the person who had the best chance of beating Bush, and not because people thought about WHY Kerry had thad the best chance.

That is my point. However, I stand by my statement re the treatment of JE during the primaries. You couldn't listen to RW radio w/o hearing "JE's not so bad" or some variation thereon. Hell, The Daily Howler noted "the officially approved" Edwards (referring to articles by Andy Sullivan I believe). Saletan regularly wrote flattering columns and said he was supporting JE.

Edwards hasn't been through anything compared to Kerry, Dean or Clark (do you have any studies comparing the amout of coverage given Edwards vs Clark?...didn't think so).

I think if Edwards is chosen, the media will slaughter him. Can you imagine how much fun they will have going through his PI litigation files? They will call him a pretty boy w/o foreign policy experience and "how safe will you feel if something happens to Kerry?".

While I never quite caught the Edwards "bug", I don't have some sort of bizarre hatred of him either. I simply think he is not the right choice at this time. Yes, I think Clark is the best choice. Alternatively, I could see Richardson or Bob Graham. Maybe Edwards could be picked up in a 2nd term?

...story by the NYT. I suggest you don't even bother reading Kate Seelyes's reporting on Edwards. It will be a waste of your time.

There was a study on the candidates' media coverage in December or January. It ranked each candidate in four or five categories -- eg, Dean-personality, Dean-policies, Dean-biography, etc.

IIRC, maybe 18 categories turned up in the study of the month's media coveage. Ranking around 16 was Edwards-personality. All 5 of Dean's categories were the subject of more stories than Edwards's personality.

No doubt, Edwards's personality got more positive stories than negative stories.

But, my god, is anyone suprised that he was barely cracking 10% in the polls and that Dean was in first place when the media was agressively avoiding discussion of Edwards's policies (and are you surprised so many DU'ers seem clueless about his policies)? Are you surprised that the most repeated criticisms of Edwards here by know-nothings are about his personality? Thats all the media wrote about him in December.

Now, is it any surprise that the people in this study liked him the most when they were asked to read his positiions, and when the discussed him, and when they could ask experts about his policies? Is it any surprise that WI'ites got really interested when the debate started to narrow on him and one or two others, and when they heard what he had to say about protecting the value of American labor?

Really, is it any surprise?

Andy Sullivan is crazy, and what Edwards has said about gay marriage subtley contradicts Sullivan's attitud. Nonetheless, Sullivan has said that he doesn't support Bush, so I'm not sure how his support for Edwards counts for anything.

If he actually wanted Bush to win, I'd wonder why he said nice things about Edwards. Since that's not the case, I'm not going to worry about it. And I'll be satisfied that Edwards wanting to separate the legal benefits of marriage from the spiritual, and ensure that all people get the legal rights is sufficiently different from Sullivans' views.

As for Saletan, his reporting has made my head spin on occassion. However, I put him in the column of the kind of people you want to like you.

I mean, it's not like he had Seeley rooting for him. Or Saffire. Or any of the real whores.

mistake, but you're appologizing for her error.

Your post is above.

but thanks for noticing. :hi:

I speculate the flaw in the study is Edwards' negatives.

How resilient is he to negative campaigning? Once the simulated campaign narrowed, I would like to have seen how Edwards fared against media pundits and negative campaigning. How well would he do against lawyer-bashing and getting bashed over his youthful good looks?

He was behind by ten points when Faircloth decided that a few negative ads would nail the coffin shut.

They backfired.

That's resilience.

And what flaw could this study have? They just gave people a ton of information, had them talk about it with each other, and gave them access to experts so they could have their specific questions answered.

How does that gloss over negatives?

In fact, I suspect such attacks would create a backlash, especially when people take into consideration the fact that Edwards' opponent is DICK CHENEY!

they're going to get their dream-team ticket- despite howard dean, and thanks in no small part to Clark- who'll be rewarded with a secretary of either defense or state cabinent appointment for his work in de-railing the Dean Express.

will Dr. Howard be offered an olive branch of a cabinet position as well...?(maybe tommy thompson's curent job).


oh well...
maybe someday we'll get our party/country back.
i just wish it could be in my lifetime.

Dean was a member in good standing in the DLC who was even invited to present to them last summer (Edwards wasn't). All Dean's policies as an elected official were liked by the DLC, from building roads for IBM and lowering their property taxes, to being a free trader.

Granted, Dean talked a different talk during the campaign, I think if the DLC had to chose between Dean and Edwards, they would be less interested in Edwards who both walked the walk and talked the talk, unlike Dean.

"...a group of well-informed voters..."

Edwards really represents the future of this party.

They were just a representative sampling of Americans (many of whom did not have computures when the study started) who were given a little more information, who were encouraged to discuss it for at least an hour a week, and who were given access to experts so their questions could be answered.

Ie, they were people who weren't SOLELY influenced by the news media, and they weren't SOLELY influenced by the media the campaigns purchased.

I didn't intend to imply they were extraordinary.

That wasn't aimed at you.

It was aimed at people who were thinking "these people are in a vacuum", or this isn't a real world study.

Yes, it isn't real world in the sense that the media totally controls most peoples perceptions of reality and the candidate with the most money will be able to comunicate a perception (real or fictitious) better than a candidate with less money.

However, it is a real world study in the sense that these were average people who were merely given a little more information than everyone else.

It shows what you can get from getting MORE information to people -- when you level the playing field.

Politics isn't something that happens in a vacuum. Too many uncontrollable factors.

else got, and they got a little more -- they were asked to read certain things, and they were encouraged to talk to each other, and they were allowed to ask experts questions.

It's like a, well, JURY!

If these people came to this conclusion, lightbulbs should be going off. Hmm. Perhaps Edwards is the raw material that can be worked into the best package to deliver victory for Democrats.

I mean, why would anyone in their right mind think that, no, they'd like to pick someone this group didn't like and push that boulder uphill?

operating on what happens in ideal situations. (Well, assuming. I'd like to see the full study and it's methods.)

But I think what you mean is that this WASN"T the control group. (The control group didn't get anything extra by way of information, etc.)

And, note, the group which liked Edwards wasn't placed in "ideal" circumstances. They were simply asked to read certain information about the candidates (which was available to anyone), they were given access to expert opinions, and they were given a live, audio discussion group with others in the study.

Bascially, they were simply asked to think about the candidates more than the average person.

So, what's your point about this group?

My point is that if you're trying to pick the best candidate, pick the one that everyone likes after thinking about him or her a lot.

That voters generally didn't get to do this doesn't make Kerry a better candidate. It means that the Democrats are left with a candidate who might not be the easiest one to get elected.

Getting a candidate elected is basically the process this study captured: you're trying to get people to think about your candidate and then like him or her.

I was able to convince more of my independent friends and relatives to consider Edwards as the nominee than I have been able to swing them to Kerry.

You don't know how many people here in Texas were saying to me, "Yeah, I'd vote for John Edwards if he ran against Bush."

Now it seems like it's harder to get a breakthrough.

Oh well, I'm just hoping that they open their minds later this year, and that Edwards is on the ticket to swing them this way!

Of course this study is saying something about reality that's important for people to grasp.

Not only did I experience this study -- I went looking for information about all the candidates, I talked to other people about the candidates, I asked questions of the expersts, and I came to the same conclusion -- I then went out and tried to convince others of what I was convinced and reproduced this study.

If I could get others up to levels of knowledge, contemplation, etc, it was very easy to get people to like Edwards.

To me, picking any other candidate as VP (or the next P candidate) is like rolling a boulder uphill. Why would you want to take up the battle of convincing people to vote for any other candidate than the one who is the best candidate, and to whom people really relate.

I have one thing to say to people who don't get it with Edwards: do the research, ask questions, and talk about him. If you don't get it then, you're in a small minority, and that's not how you win electioins.

But we still need a majority to win...!!!*
:dem:
*Special thanks to Adlai Stevenson

A democratic party dominated by the south is just republican-lite.

Sorry, I know that's stereotypic. But then stereotypes sort of work because they are sort of true.

(sarcasm on here) Attention Laurentia...Canada is looking for territory in such balmy locations as Yipsilante. (sarcasm off here)

...ticket.

In "The Clinton Wars" S.Blumenthal talks about how he and his friends in the aprty lamented the terrible choice of Dukakis, and imagined the perfect candidate. That candidate was Clinton.

So, who made the decision to pick Clinton? A bunch of democrats who live in the power corrider of Boston-NY-DC.

And who won big under Clinton? Not Arkansans or people from neighboring states. People who lived in the power corridor won the most.

So, don't worry. The party is dominated by people from the NE. They just have the sense to pick candidates who can win elections, and they happen to be from the south. (And a big reason for that is because southerners perceive on some level that it's people from the power corridor who run America, and not southerners, and a southerner on the ticket offers some consolation).

http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2004/primaries.pdf

They tracked Bush, Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry and Sharpton. They left out Mr. Issue Man, Dennis Kucinich, of course.