CBS News Poll: Edwards adds strength to Kerry ticket

CBS News shows Kerry would beat Bush 49-41 if it is just he and Bush matched up, but add Sen. John Edwards of NC and this 8-point edge would expand to ten--50-40 percent nationally.

But aiding Kerry the most is the unlikliest running mate--John McCain who would help Kerry beat Bush 53-39.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/26/opinion/polls/main619786.shtml

They have messed up the second graph. Both show Kerry/McCain.

Even stranger, there is no mention of Clark.

That's a pretty significant omission, IMO.

The Kerry/ Edwards slate holds Democrats and draws a few more conservatives and Independents while dropping a bit with liberals. The Edwards addition also closes the gap with veterans.

I know that lots of people complain that Edwards does not have military experience. His number did not come up in the draft. He was just old enough at the tail end of the war. But even with that he actually adds Veterans to a Kerry/Edwards ticket.

Part of this could because he is viewed as more of a moderate and his stand on the war.

I would have liked to have seen the results of a Kerry/Clark pairing though. So all you Clark supporters write to CBS and complain.

It just seems to say, not surprisingly, that when Kerry adds a running mate, he is going to get a bump in the polls, at least as far as Edwards goes. I'd imagine that no matter who Kerry adds, he'll get a 1% bump in the polls due to increased attention, and having two names on the ticket instead of just one. The McCain result isn't too surprising, except for how much more likely Republicans are to have a negative opinion of him than Democrats. Seems the Bush attacks on McCain still resonnate.

doubt it.

I am sure it is larger than 1%, therefore, it could really be a negative to Kerry.

Just wondering?

And it's a good start, because, in the primaries, the more people got to know about Edwards, the more they liked him, and not many Republicans were paying attention to the dem primaries.

I think many moderate Republicans could like Edwards more than they like McCain.

Even the 9 points Kerry has on his own is fabulous! That's more than a landslide. It's a rout.

If the votes are counted, we may begin to see a major decline in the "Conservative" enterprise. And none too soon.

:bounce:

this is a bogus poll.

I really, really, really hope I don't have to write in a vote this year. Really.
Please, Kerry - no Edwards. PLEASE. Hell, I'd take boring old Gep over Edwards!
Don't cave like CBS!

Bottom line.

But I can't vote for the unlearned.
That's the beauty of being Independent. I'm not beholden to any party's stupid mistakes.
I do, however, take responsibilty for myself. And me, myself and I don't want to be held responsible for an Edwards VP.

I hope there are enough of us who see how utterly evil this current administration is to outvote you, because God help us all if we don't.

they want Edwards

YOU want Clark, that's fine. But that also diminishes Kerry's chances of becoming president

Is there a poll somewhere that shows that adding Clark to the ticket lowers Kerry's election results compared with Bush/Cheney's? I'm not being sarcastic.

I'm not "for" either one, particularly. I want Kerry and his team to be careful & pick the one that would help the ticket win.

But a poll showing that adding Edwards adds 1% to the Kerry ticket is a far cry from showing that adding Clark or someone else would have no effect or decrease the Dem. election results. If there's a poll, how 'bouts a link?

I'm getting a little tired

EOM

Where only a Bush Dean match up was specifically polled for, though respondents were also asked which, from the larger field of Democrats, they supported against Bush. No surprise that Dean scored very well. Repetition of a message sways voter opinions. That is the driving force behind all media blitzes. If the "message" becomes that Edwards is the Democrats strongest possible VP candidate, that message to an extent is assimilated. Who wouldn't support our "strongest" candidate? By singling out Edwards for special treatment that is the subliminal message being reinforced by the media. It follows the earlier pattern of media exposure/ elevated stature given to Dean at the expense of Kerry, Edwards, Clark and the rest during the long run up to the actual voting in the Primaries.

If in fact that is the voter's perception, then doesn't picking someone other than Edwards become a Kerry 'blunder' in their minds, and call Kerry's judgment into question? Just food for thought, Tom. :)

Mass marketed perceptions, virtual astro turf sentiments so to speak, they come and go like clouds. You have to pick someone as intrinsically light weight, obscure, and obviously unqualified as Dan Quayle to run that risk, and of course George Bush the Elder still won.

I think Edwards truly can be a popular VP pick. My point though is that not picking him won't hurt Kerry in the way you imply. This is all aside from a discussion of who actually would be the best VP pick. Look, everyone talks about how John Kerry is still having to define himself to the public, and he is way more well known than Edwards, or Clark, or any of the other possible VP's mentioned with the exception of Hillary and McCain. After Kerry makes his choice, the Party will promote him/her, and the media will pay attention to him/her, and it will be a whole new ball game. Gore's judgment wasn't automatically called into question (at the time) because he picked a dark horse VP candidate in Lieberman . For awhile Lieberman got great press, and Gore was looking damn clever to a lot of people.

Voters perceptions of our ticket after it has hit the road and is running are the only ones that will count. Now polls carefully conducted targeting key swing states, and specific voter profiles can be meaningful, but the beauty contests are not. A poll showing that Gephardt would secure his home state, even if Dems nationwide were unenthusiastic about him would carry more weight than one showing that Edwards or Clark is currently "popular".

That's why I was so impressed by the last NC poll that showed Kerry winning there with Edwards as his VP. 15 EVs is a nice little plum for us, especially since they come from a 'red' state that Bush is countiong on to help him win.

For the record, I think they'd both make good running mates for Kerry but, at bottom, it's all about who brings in the most EVs. I'm not saying Clark couldn't do that, it's just that I've seen no scientific polling to show that he could. I'm quite open-minded, and all I want is the running mate who brings the MOST to the table, in terms of votes.

:)

none of this means clark or others wont or can't help. but the fact is that there is proof that edwards can help. edwards would be a safe and predictable pick for vp, but it's still a GOOD pick.

key groups in key states than the results being reported by the media. One poll done in NC highlighting one potential VP is a slim reed, though better than none. I don't think anyone is claiming based on that poll that NC is a Democratic lock with Edwards on the ticket, though having it solidly in play would be a big plus for us. Still, there are many swing states. Who would help us most in more of them is a key question to ask. If Graham could obviously deliver Florida, Or Gephardt Missouri, or Edwards North Carolina, or Clark Arkansas, that would be compelling, but it doesn't seem to be a slam dunk in any of those states. If Clark were more likely to help us in Ohio, for instance, than Edwards was, that would be significant data, even though it is home state to neither.

Of course I am a purist, who actually believes that the VP designate should be a person fully prepared to take the helm if our President dies, and I don't know how many others there are like me who are strongly influenced by that concern.