On Electability, Edwards Wins Hands Down

Near the end of the televised debate on Sunday morning, Dan Rather asked the candidates if they agreed with Bush that God is on America's side. Surprised by the question, Kerry stumbled. "I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is ... we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard."

Edwards quoted Abraham Lincoln, who, when asked to pray that God is on his side, said, "I won't join you in that prayer, but I'll join you in a prayer that we're on God's side." Touché!

Such quick thinking is precisely what will make or break the Democratic nominee in the fall presidential debates, when one-liners and nimble answers matter more than resumes. John Kerry may have more experience, but Edwards -- a successful trial lawyer for 25 years -- would demolish Bush in a debate. And that's one of the key factors that make John Edwards the most electable Democrat in 2004.

Conventional wisdom has it that Kerry is more electable because he won more primaries, but conventional wisdom is dead wrong.

(1) Edwards has the electoral edge. Republicans win the presidency (when they don't steal it) because they win the red states. No Democrat has ever been elected president without winning at least five Southern states Edwards knows how to relate to Southern voters -- so much so that he won the seat once held by Jesse Helms. John Kerry won a few Southern primaries largely because the non-Kerry vote split between Edwards and Clark. But Kerry is unlikely to win any of them against George Bush. All Edwards has to do is carry one of these states in addion to the states Gore carried in 2000 (Florida notwithstanding) and he wins the presidency. By contrast, it's hard to imagine a single state Kerry could win that Edwards could not.

(2) Edwards can win the swing vote. In states like Wisconsin, where independents were allowed to vote in Democratic primaries, that vote went overwhelmingly to Edwards.

(3) Edwards doesn't have Kerry's baggage. Call it experience or call it baggage, but Kerry has 30+ years of votes, many of them contradictory, for Bush dig through and use to tear Kerry to shreds. No doubt the GOP would try its best against Edwards, too, but the ammunition is simply not there, since Edwards spent most of his life away from Washington.

(4) Edwards is the better campaigner. He's been compared to Robert Kennedy and Bill Clinton for his inspiring and charismatic campaign style. John Kerry may hail from JFK's state and his initials spell JFK, but the Kennedy charm eludes him.

In fairness to Kerry, he has one electability factor in his favor -- his foreign affairs experience. Edwards' lack of credentials on national security would be used against him. But all he needs to do is to remind voters of Bush's qualifications in this area when he took office -- or how he handled his role as commander in chief since. All considered, Bush may not even want to talk about the war come fall. His attempt to make gay marriage the focal point of his campaign now is an indication of how vulnerable he feels on issues that count to the voters.

Bush will never win on the issues. But he plans to hang on to the presidency by going for voters' hearts. And that's where Edwards shines and Kerry falls short.

Good post, but it ought to go in GD2004.

you'll see who's electable

...and that's part of the reason why he got 500,000 more votes than Bush.

Doesn't mean that it carried over to the other states.

Gore won more votes because the states he won had more people, a lot more Democrats.

Bush won more STATES THAN GORE DID, and that means that Gore was less electable, regardless of popular vote or the electoral college.

Whoever answered second clearly had a lot more time to think about the question.

Good turnout! Great rally....lots of ex-Dean supporters.

...love that Rosa Parks pic.

Rosa we love you, with all of our hearts.
Our respect for ya', reflects who you are.
Woman of valor, we really love you.
Thank you for what you have done... (John P. Kee, Tribute to Rosa Parks album)

Because none of the Dayton union halls would give him space!

Edwards can't garner the big Ohio unions, he is toast tomorrow. Starting with my vote for Kerry.

that one is trying to predict what will trigger OTHER people to vote a certain way. So when someone says " John is more electable than Fred", he is expressing his opinion of what someone else's opinion will be.

Of course, there are extremes that we can all (pretty much) agree on: Ronald Reagan is not very electable right about now. But when we are treading in mainstream territory, with candidates who have already passed the initial tests with the voters, talking about electability has little worth.

Of course, that's just my opinion!

seems to disagree. Kerry takes this portion of the exit polling pretty much hands down.

You need a lot more than Democrats to win the White House, and in terms of Independents, there are DEMOCRATIC LEANING (moderate or liberal) and REPUBLICAN LEANING Independents (consider oneself conservative).

Edwards could win the Democratic leaners in a general election, and the exit polls show that his "COMMON MAN APPEAL" is winning over conservative leaners in the primaries.

Kerry isn't.

If you just look at the "INDEPENDENTS" sure Kerry won more of them in some states (STATES THAT BASICALLY WENT OFF OF NAME RECOGNITION BECAUSE OF LACK OF ADVERTISING LIKE MICHIGAN), but in states where both candidates spent a lot of time, Edwards won the Independents and Moderate Republicans, and more importantly, he won people who CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE CONSERVATIVE, which means that he won the people who might vote for Bush, and Kerry didn't.

It's not just the label "INDEPENDENT", because some Independents like myself lean Democratic, but others don't. Kerry doesn't appeal to those, Edwards would appeal to them in a general election if he is the nominee, and conservative leaning "INDEPENDENTS."

who vote, thats who. Thats the main point of electability. It has something to do with the percentage of people who will cast their votes for one person, over another. So the p
P.S. the same voters who vote for Kerry in the primary, are likely tovote for him in the General Election.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

who is more electable. LOL!

Please.

It's not even a majority of DEMOCRATS VOTING in the Primaries, much less a majority of THE INCLUSIVE TERM, "voters."

And yes it IS the majority of Democratic voters, including those included on the poll results we already know about tomorrow's primaries.

...it may be a majority of the Democrats who voted, but the majority of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS are not voting, or haven't even voted yet.

Go nitpik with someone else. It isn't going to work with me. It isn't MY fault your candidate (whoever it is, or was) isn't doing well, okay? Take it out on someone else!

:wtf:

...it may be a majority of the Democrats who voted, but the majority of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS are not voting, or haven't even voted yet.

in the battle of the "Johns" JE wins hands down--he is an excellent debator and fast on his feet and has a real appeal and a fine looking family to boot.

Look at the last few cycles.

If it's one thing that Democrats enjoy doing, it's losing elections, and jumping on the Kerry bandwagon is just confirmation of that fact.

maybe you haven't looked closely: the democrats won the last three presidential elections. '92, '96, and 2000. Why do you frequently say things that are not true? "If it's one thing that Democrats enjoy doing, it's losing elections..." It's okay to have an opinion that is different than the majority. But lying and distorting just ain't cool. I must ask you .... again .... what your motivation is?

Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996.

Gore was such a pathetic candidate that he GAVE THE ELECTION AWAY!

Don't keep talking about the GOP stealing it. If Gore wasn't such a terrible candidate, it wouldn't have been close enough to be stolen from him.

And as for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002, last time I checked, the GOP has been steadily gaining seats in the house and the senate.

When I talk about elections being lost, I'm not only talking about the Presidency, but I'm talking about Congress as well. Not only is Edwards a better PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATS, but he has the coattails to gain seats in the Senate and the House for Democrats.

No Democrat running for the Senate or the House in the south or those Red States in the middle of the country is going to dare invite Kerry to campaign with them because it will turn off swing voters.

So like I said, nominating Kerry is a mistake! Not just for the Presidency, but a mistake for every other race as well...

...was going to be the nominee because he was winning by up to 30% in most polls.

DUers like JOINING TOGETHER against voices of reason, although DUers end up wrong most of the time.

So, just like I told you about Dean and Clark, I will tell you the same thing about John Kerry.

He cannot win a general election, PERIOD.

Go ahead, and gang up in disagreement.

You'll just be proven wrong again.

Edwards or bust in 2004, period!

you are quite free to make any claim you want here. You could say that Al Sharpton, on the basis of no facts, is most electable. How could we disagree?

some Edwards supporters are always right...at least when no facts are involved, and if you disagree with them, all that you will hear is bwhaa bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...(plugging ears while making the aforementioned noise).

...JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU.

Clark's "4 stars" only got him so far, JUST LIKE I TOLD YOU.

I don't need "DATA, HARD EVIDENCE, SO-CALLED FACTS" to say anything.

I know what I am talking about, and just like I told you that Dean's 30% lead would evaporate, and Clark's "4 Stars" wouldn't mean a thing in the end, I am telling you that Kerry doesn't have a chance in a general election.

Go ahead.

Argue in vain again.

I hope Democrats wake up and nominate Edwards, or else I'll be telling you in November the same thing again...

...I TOLD YOU SO.

Wake me up when Kerry shows Bush the WH door when he wins in November.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have we reverted back to elementary school??? Can no one else has a valid point of view...I am right...You are wrong. There is only black and white...no grey. You argue like a republican who can accept no one else's point of view besides your own. I'm right, and everyone else is wrong...open your mind.

That would be a great bumper sticker.

Also, Edwards doesn't need to win 5 southern states to win, but he does make at least 5 either tossups or competative longshots. First of all Florida and North Carolina, worth a combined 42 electoral votes. As well as Louisiana and Arkansas somewhat more difficult but still very possible(a combined 14). West Virginia isn't really a southern state, but it is part of appalachia, which could be the region Edwards would turn around the most. I see him making it a clear tossup.

As far as states he would be a lonshot in but still scare the GOP plenty enough for them to spend more time and money in, I see Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia

...Edwards would win North Carolina, South Carolina (where he was born), possibly (Georgia and Tennessee where he lived), and maybe even Virginia.

You have to remember that people who CONSIDER THEMSELVES CONSERVATIVE turned out and voted for Edwards in those primaries, and if he gets 45% support from Republicans in a general election like he did during the Virginia Primary, he would win Virginia.

He beat Lauch Faircloth for the seat, which had been a revolving door between D's and R's since the early seventies.

If it was baseball, would a sportswriter say that a pitcher (who's record is 1-19) is the best guy to put in the game?

Edwards doesn't play well in NY & Ca. I'm in the Midwest and can't stand the man. He's a fake. It seems the ONLY people who liked him were people from his birth state...SC. :shrug: IMCPO

I wish people would stop comparing John Edwards to Bill Clinton. There is NO comparison to be made. Clinton is so much more palatable, better looking, the BEST "off the cuff" speaker I have ever heard and just cannot be compared to Edwards and his "son of a mill worker/2 Americas" schtick :eyes: and I certainly don't see where the Edwards "charisma" factor comes in??? It's baffling.

the number of votes a candidate received.

and we're talking about G.E. votes.

Who is winning non-democrat votes ? Edwards by a huge margin.

The vast middle are speaking, are we listening ?

voting in a Democratic primary..

On face value though, you appear to be correct. We'll see....

they have already acknowledged that they feel Edwards was a stonger threat.

Its that Carter/Clinton thing. People buy his message. All people.

Just would like to know your reasoning

In polls that are set up to reflect the General election, not the primaries, Kerry is preferred by a majority of registered voters, not registered democratic voters, as beating Bush by a sigificant margin, while Edwards is in a dea heat campaign with Bush. Even the results from Wiconsin show Kerry actually picking up more independents that Edwards, while Edwards picked up a large number of Repubicans.

There are frequent statements made that Edwards somehow appeals more to independents, but the results of the primaries and caucuses do not reflect that.

Edwards does well with moderate Republicans, primarily becaue he voting record is the most conservative of any of the ninecandidates who ran for nomination:

In fact, though, the liberal rating group, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), in its most recent assessment, scored Kennedy 100 percent compared to Kerry's 85 percent. On one key issue, the two senators parted company --- on the resolution backing the use of military force in Iraq. Kennedy opposed it; Kerry supported it.
Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of the more moderate Democrats in the Senate and in the presidential race, got the same score, 85 percent, while Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina voted liberal 70 percent of the time, according to the ADA.


http://www.ajc.com/monday/content/epaper/editions/monday/news_04412c67966ea1ea00cb.html

If you look at the latest polls taken as to who the polled individuals will vote for in 2004, the results are:

CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. N=1,294 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).

.

"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, do you think you would probably vote for George W. Bush or probably vote for the Democratic candidate?"

George Bush or John Kerry


George Bush 46 %

John Kerry 47 %

George Bush or John Edwards

George Bush 45 %

John Edwards 45 %


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

While Edwards has done well with independent voters, he has not done better than Kerry in polls in which independent voters are polled. Kerry does far better against Bush in attracting independent voters than in a presumed race where Edwards is the candidate against Bush. In fact when Bush and Edwards are run togetther, the polls for the General election suggest a larger number of people selecting other candidate than if the general election is Bush against Kerry.

This is where national polls shine, in that they poll the entire population of regstered voters, not just people who intend to vote democrat (most of the primary polls are not polls or registered democrats, but of democrats and independents who have stated they intend to vote dem when asked by the polling agency)

:thumbsdown:


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

Democrats are just plain dumb if they think a candidate can win without foreign policy experience in this year's election.

OH, and John Edwards is no Bill Clinton. I knew Bill Clinton. I was a Friend of Bill Clinton. John Edwards is no Bill Clinton.

When Clinton spoke, he didn't say "I am the Son of a Millworker" over, and over, and over, and over again.

Clinton had SUBSTANCE. Edwards is just an empty suit.

I vote Kerry tomorrow in Ohio's Primary, because he is all that is left that has a chance to beat Bush.