I consider Edwards to be unelectable now by accepting public financing

He would be at such a disadvantage compared to the republican nominee that frankly democrats would be fools to vote for him over Obama or Clinton at this point. He is unelectable. Basically, the republicans will have months to run ads about his hair, mansion, working for hedge funds that foreclose on poor people, etc. And he will have no money to respond.

He is now unelectable as far as I'm concerned in the general election.

he has always been unelectable, especially since he became a bigger flip flopper apologizer than Kerry.

I think he would be a decent candidate and is no more or less disingenuous than your average politician...

but I have been reading a lot of harsh shit around here today and for a long time. Occasionally I refuse to bite my tongue. And yes I agree he is no more genuine than your average politician, so what the heck are we debating then?

eom

Tisk, tisk. Unelectable? Hmmmm, care to expand? How is he unelectable?

any politician. He was against going to war when Bush did and said so before the war started. His positions were consistent - but distorted by the media. He has been one of the best leaders on Iraq over the last 3 years.

If you want flip flop, Hillary Clinton is every bit as much a flip flopper. She simply hopes people forget all the things she said in 2006 about deadlines.

he does not have the quick on your feet skills that some of the better politicians have and it cost him. I should not have said he was a flip flopper, I should have said he was successfully framed that way.

with ease in 2004. He also was able to become the MA lt Governor and then Senator though he was not the party or media favorite in either.

He was very quick on his feet in the debates - both primary and general election. I Republicans had most of the MSM repeating the points they made up for their echo chamber. He made some mistakes, but every candidate running this time has already made several - some seen now and some to be seen only later.

His debate performances were masterful. Shit. What is wrong with this country?

Face it. His campaign was weak, unfocused, and was totally inept at dealing with the ReThug slime machine. He should've crushed the Chimp, but instead lost the election (or let it get close enough to for it to be stolen).

I'm getting the sames vibes from Edwards, he would be a lousy candidate to counter the ReThug slime machine.

Free ride for a rich white man.

You know, I hate to think that is what is happening, I try to have some faith in my fellow Democrats.

but for her campaign, she isn't. Now who is the flip flopper here?

What is wrong with this thread?

Why is anyone saying that this is a mistake when it is one of the things that Democrats say we should have?

This thread is disingenuous at best.

Do we stand for anything or is someone around here just against Edwards?

I call bullshit and I'm thoroughly disgusted. I realize no one cares what I think but this is unbelievable.

"someone around here just against Edwards"

Actually, said someone is a partisan supporter of another candidate.

candidate.

The Republican nominee certainly will not do that.

Every dollar that Edwards can't accept is a dollar that MoveOn (or some other group) will.

Good call.

MoveOn can't coordinate and it also can't advocate or defend a candidate.

And even HRC repudiated them yesterday.

But not near fool enough to vote for Hillary.

And I can call anyone a fool for voting for unelectable Clinton.

is not shared by the evidence we have. All the recent polls show Hillary kicking major republican ass winning in Tennessee, Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio.

answer their polls after a confrontation. I had been responding until I asked who was paying them to run the poll and they refused to tell me. So, I washed my hands of them. Who knows who's funding their answers? They're not talking.

There's lots of neat stuff there...

If you were polled by an unethical pollster you should have got their name...


I was polled years ago; about cars...

was not available to anyone. The question at that moment had to do with prescription drugs IIRC, though it was awhile ago.

But if you were being "gamed" that's just not right...

As for the topic I think John Edwards would be a fine candidate and president... I think the constant "calling out" of other people's candidates here is unwise and is creating emnity...

Maybe, you feel differently but I think the constant Hillary bashing is turning DU members against one another...

I just know nothing, nothing can be worse than what we have now and getting a Dem in office is my only motivation...

PEACE

DSB

should have been PASSED into law about three GE's back!

Sorry, don't agree with you about Edwards blowing it. The only thing that's blowing it is the fact that MSM won't cover anyone other than Hillary, some Obama, tiny bit of Edwards (mostly negative) and the rest get to sit on the sidelines!!

THIS is not Democratic!! Or this is not what I call a Democracy!

raising most of the money, yet it's Hillary who is ALWAYS so far ahead! I don't think that passes the 2 plus 2 test!

Don't know about you, but it sure makes ME wonder!

Obama doesn't.

he is still a better candidate than any of the others except Kucinich.

Don't kid yourself. He'll stick the shiv in quicker 'en you can say Jack Robinson, and do it with a smile.

As are several of our candidates...

Don't worry about it...

All of the Dems who got money from him did.

... and she knew nothing, nothing about it .... hahahahaha

Who would believe her? Even her partisans don't.

But they continue to lecture us.

Need we recite the woeful tale of the Clinton finance scandals (plural) again?

LOL

Get his money from the american people at 10 to 25 dollars a contribution, that is exactly what Bill Clinton did.

he is still ing the fray with Oboma and Hillary... Oh yes he is, he can be elected if enough people want him elected....The nations is tired of people like Bush, riding daddy's coattail, or begging money that will be paid back in favors... With the 10, 25, 50, 100 dollar contribution, nothing in return is expected.

Read Joe Trippi's words from 2004. Any candidate doing this will not be able to put up a fight against the Republicans.

if he gets the nomination.

Unelectable. Time for his supporters to pick a new horse.

As much as I dislike Dailykos for their unfair treatment of Kucinich

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/27/20288/5101

Edit: Oops this was meant as reply to original post.

...it is difficult to build an election strategy on such a hopscotch board. Joe Trippi, who managed the presidential campaign of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in 2004 and is a senior adviser to Edwards this time, conceded as much in a 2003 interview with the Washington Post.

“This campaign believes that any Democratic campaign that opted into the matching-funds system has given up on the general election,” Trippi said in December of 2003. “There is absolutely no way you can sustain the hits that are going to come from now until August with a $45 million limit.”

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/27/edwards_accepts_public_financi.html

I mean, 2004 was sooo long ago!

the end of the 3rd quarter during the primary season? Sounds imperative.....but not so much do with Morals; rather...Money or lack thereof!

I thought this was for the primary. Oh well....I guess not all Democrats believe in public financing of our elections. Or is it wrong just because Edwards is accepting matching funds?

The only reason he's accepting matching funds is because his fundraising has been so low. Do you really think he's doing this for MORAL reasons three days before the close?

But he's never pretended that he has an amount equal to Obama and Clinton.

I don't think this is a big deal.

If it was for moral reasons, why didn't he announce this at the very start? You don't think it was because he thought he MIGHT be able to be competitive monetarily with Obama and Hillary?

which seems unlikely

It was financially necessary for him to go to public funding, the question is how will this effect him in the primary. And of course the fact that he's challenged Clinton & Obama to do the same thing...now that's just hypocritical.

So how is this hypocritical?

and he should at least be honest about it and not turn this into a disenguous challenge to Clinton & Obama. Why did he vote against Kerry's finance reform bill when he was in the senate? Why didn't he start THIS campaign using only public funds if he's being genuine about this new pitch.

out loud...in front of everyone.

Today, for example, there is a ''front-loaded'' primary system that simply did not exist in 1974 and that is out of sync with the way the presidential financing system functions. This has resulted in candidates' having an insufficient amount of public funds to run their campaigns during the real nominating period, which is generally over by early March instead of May or June.

It also has created a ''spending gap'' for those nominees who use up all or most of their spending limit by March to win the nomination, and thus are not able to spend funds from March until their summer nominating convention is concluded.

Furthermore, the spending limits for the primaries have not kept pace with reality and are far too low to accommodate the costs of running a modern nationwide campaign.
http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp?Type=B_PR&SEC=%7BFD714569-5FB3-45D6-82D4-A3098EE124BA%7D&DE=%7B16FDC3A5-0554-42DB-AB2C-04EB5AD09904%7D

Maybe if all candidates would do the same thing we wouldn't be playing a money game.

to opt out isn't saying so very much about the issue, other than Edwards obviously doesn't believe that he can raise enough to be competitive unless his dollars are matched.

And my argument isn't even that! My argument is that Public Financing is only good if all involved are adhering to it, otherwise we give the other team an unfair advantage. If Edwards' GOP opponent is not also opting to take public financing then there is no principle that will survive 7 months of pounding at our nominee.....from the opponents. That would be 7 months dealing with our Democratic Nominee having limited resources...and we all should understand that timing and response in a political campaign is everything. The attacks won't wait till the General Election has officially started you know! A week is an eternity in politics! And understand that the 527's can only of so much assistance....as they cannot coordinate their actions with any campaigns.

Edwards has, in fact, chained himself....and considering how quickly we will know who the nominee is in Jan/early Feb of 2008.......from that time on till August, the Democrats will be in shit's creek, perhaps with Edwards as the nominee but leaving us without a paddle (there is a reason that money is so important in politics.....this is one of them) to even thread water!

So Edwards becomes much less viable with this choice that he has made. This is a fact, not a wish.

I only remember my children using that type of "doo-doo head" language years ago.....and they ain't even that old now! :eyes:

lets all get along...lol.

I've gotten myself so irritated by this constant crap about Edwards here at DU for so long now, and I find it very weird.

Something smells and I'm afraid it's an "inside" job! So to all of you who think I'm bonkers, Na Na, Na Na, Boo Boo!

All you "childrens" need to settle down now, the guy IS a Democrat, but who'da thunk it??

and I could ask the same who'da thunk it.

the REPUKES are coming... we're dead meat for sure!

you are declaring any candidate not bought and owned by big corporate money and pacs to be unelectable, and you are narrowing the field down to ensure that no matter who wins, we'll get a corrupt, compromised president.

This sounds like a bad idea. I'm for public financing but unless it's fixed, it's too risky to proceeding that way, even with republicans in such a bad position.

Why the change now?

Edwards latest to decline public funds for presidential campaign
Updated 2/6/2007 11:39 AM ET
By Jill Lawrence and Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Democrat John Edwards on Monday joined New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in saying he will not use public money for the presidential primary campaign or, if he wins his party's nomination, for the general election.
The move by the former North Carolina senator is the latest sign of trouble for the public campaign funding system, created after the Watergate scandal to set limits and disclosure rules on contributions to presidential campaigns.

Edwards said in an interview that he expects major candidates in both parties to raise unlimited private dollars rather than participate in the public system. He said he needs to do the same "to have the funds to be competitive."

Edwards plans to start soliciting contributions for the general election soon, spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said. Clinton has been raising money for both the primary and general elections since she got into the race last month.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

I haven't chosen a candidate - but I found the last cycle (2004) rejection of public financing part of the BIG problem with elections. So because a candidate can get big money behind him or her (re: be behelden to those interests) we should cede that candidate to be the nominee and any candidate that accepts public financing (the intended way per the public financing program) as a "loser" and thus default to the early money?

Bah.

A - a weak argument. and B - totally against the idea of the will of the people and ceding power to those with the greatest money.

if he is against it now? And why is he now saying that "This is not about a money calculation"?

I'm wondering why he didn't included the fact that funds would be matched when he made the plea for donations.

Since you are wondering...does this mean my donation will be matched? That's a nice little surprise then!!!

but when it gets to personal insults, the conversation's over.

He is very approachable.

Democrats seem to have a severe self-confidence problem--understandable after fifteen years of biased news and stolen elections.

To remedy this, I recommend a complete fast from mainstream media news. You'll feel better; your digestion will improve--and your IQ will go up 10-20 points.

Big red flashing neon sign that says "THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!"

I'll pencil Edwards in if he does not make it through. He is doing what no one else has the guts to do. He is walking the walk.

Although Gore only had to face token opposition from Bill Bradley which was much less costly than what Edwards will spend to defeat Hillary and Obama.

What it will amount to is that the GOP nominee will have a quasi-incumbency advantage because usually incumbent Presidents have the ability to outspend their opponents during the months leading up to the convention due to the fact that they don't have to go through the primaries.

It doesn't make him unelectable but it's a disadvantage.

Sometimes it's a vote that no one remembers now.

Sometimes it's a speech that had no effect on the electorate.

Sometimes it's an action (changing to public financing) that in a month no one will even remember.

There seem to be a great number of over-reactors on DU, IMO. The words in the OP: "I consider Edwards to be unelectable now by accepting public financing" are a hoot. (Unless I missed a smiley emoticon when the OP wrote that.)


Personalities and trust win elections, much, much more than stances on issues, much more than attitudes about financing campaigns, much, much, much more than splitting hairs on whose health plan is best. Issues matter, but take a second place to overall trustworthiness in determining electability.

Edwards is as 'electable' as any of the candidates.

in the general election. (rassmussen polls). The Sure Thing John Edwards will crush Rudy Giuliani in the national election because none of the southerners will vote for Rudy over John.

if he loses by a significant margin. It's a built-in excuse: he went to public financing, so he lost the nomination because "everyone" recognizes his weakness in the GE.

It's sophistry or worse: I think it is a phony argument to 'justify' Edwards' trouncing in the primaries.

others know that he is the best candidate, the strongest candidate, and see this as meaningless in terms of electability. Place me in the latter category.