Why is Edwards stuck in 3rd place?

The newly released Washington Post-ABC News poll has Obama taking the lead in Iowa. On 11/18/07 Obama was at 30%, Clinton was at 26%, and Edwards was at 22%.

Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_111907.html

His message is great, but maybe something just doesn't "feel" right to people?

And I don't believe any of the polls right now anyway.Edwards is going to win IOWA.Take it to the bank.

Yet all the major networks see it as Clinton vs Obama & Rudy vs Mitt.

Yep, the tail wagging the dog.

I hope your right saracat. Edwards winning Iowa would shake up the donkey cart. And how nice would it be to give the corporate M$M a surprise kick in the ass!!!

It may be deliberate so that when Edwards wins , they can call it an upset! I posted a while ago about a poster telling me that the polls in todays world were no longer "valid" and was called a "liar" never the less, I think his statements were true and we will soon see.

not only will he get it from all the people on the right but the centrists will join in.

I've been saying it for months now. Just wait and see.

Given the proximity of the numbers as well as the large undecided vote, it's still anybody's game.

of Polls out of Iowa. It is a caucus state which means thing
are done very diffently

Often the people polled do not show up to caucus.

It is much much more that your team understand the nuances of caucusing
than the answers in the poll. It has often reported Edwards has
an excellent ground operation and is extablished well in all Iowa
Caucuses.We will no really know for a white.

then they shouldn't create so much mud, because some of will end up slung.
I think a little mud slinging is better then some of the other tricks we've seen happening lately.

I merely pointed out that maybe if he wants more support, he should stop the mudslinging. Tip: Dems don't like dems who mudsling at other dems.

Just because Hillary called it 'mudslinging' does not make it true or accurate.

If pointing out the differences between the candidates is 'mudslinging' to Hillary, she is going to be really surprised if she gets the Nomination and faces the Repub Nominee.

That's the perception a lot of folks have.

Anyone who thinks he's acting it needs to listen to his JJ speech.

The pundits will be shocked when the victor of the caucus isn't the one they've been harping over for months, nor will it be the "number 2" in this race.

Things will change! Edwards 2008!

and no speech is going to change my mind.

1) Stop attacking any other candidate. Tell what YOU will do for us, and let people know what's good about John Edwards, rather than what's wrong with other candidates.

2) Use that $400 haircut "scandal" to your advantage: "I want to create an America where EVERYBODY can afford a $400 haircut!" Nothing like a sense of humor to ram a point home AND deflect criticism.

3) Talk about more than just poverty. Nobody, even Democrats, wants to hear about it. Sick, but true. Talk about the Iraq War and global warming, so that the Dems who don't give a fuck about the poor will wake up and take interest.

4) BE SPECIFIC. We don't need inspiring speeches or rhetoric. We know it sucks to live in Bush's America, and we know that it needs to be changed. Don't labor the point, John--tell us SPECIFICALLY how you're going to change things. Like the bit about taking away Congress' health insurance if they don't provide it for the rest of us...that's what America needs to hear, so they know they can turn to you and you'll DO SOMETHING.

Edwards was ahead in polling for a long time, so we know he has what it takes to win people over. He just needs to be more specific, talk about his plans instead of attacking the others, in order to make people think he has substance as well as style.

I think you should send this message to his campaign web site. Great ideas! He needs to "break out" of the pack. The Repugs want Hilary or Obama to get the nomination. Neither are electable and they know it and are banking on it.

Thoughtful advice sliverojo!

I appreciate and agree with points 2,3,4 --- though (on #1) in today's political landscape, one has to counter-punch aggressively. If John pulls out a surprise in Iowa, the corporate/DLC machine will pull no punches. Remember how John Kerry got swiftboated simply because he sat on his criticism for too long.

It does seem John has the right stuff to win, but somewhere along the line his message still gets a little lost. Being more specific toward proposals that would help folks with simple chores of daily living would resonate.

... when Al Gore comes on board and announces he'll be on the ticket as Edward's VP ( to manage the Environmental crisis ), a few weeks before Iowa ... ALL BETS ARE OFF !!

( I mean ON ... on Edwards/Gore 2008 !! )

Will it be the Edwards that fights for the little guy and gal, or the Edwards who's a principal in a hedge fund focused on predatory lending? Will it be anti-free-trade Edwards, or I-voted-for-free-trade-with-China-and-supported-NAFTA Edwards? Will it be I-say-I-was-poor-as-a-child Edwards or my-dad-actually-was-a-manager-at-a-textile-mill Edwards? Will it be I-hate-the-Iraq-War Edwards, or Hell-I-cosponsored-the-thing Edwards?

which means it is rabidly anti-union, so I can't understand how or why Edwards has such strong support from some unions. I mean, what has Edwards done in his home state of NC to promote unions and encourage union organizations there?

then John Edwards. He is the outsider and does not cozy up to the establishment, therefore they are afraid he won't go along with the bullshit being fed to the people. He is going to straighten things out and that worries a lot of people. He knows what is going on and won't go along with it. He won't take their money, "if you can't buy'um, burn'um".

... a poster above complained that Edwards should be more "specific". Of the top 3, he's far and away the most specific about his policies and plans.

I've heard others claim that he's recently taken on the mantle of populist. Where were they in 2004. Edwards was talking about the 2 Americas 4 years ago.

And then there is the complaints about slinging mud. "Slinging mud" is a political term for "pointing out my glaring two-facedness and policy weaknesses".

Edwards is not my favorite. But of those who have any chance of winning the nomination he sure is, by a freaking mile.

I couldn't give two shits about his freakin' hair.

Or, more specifically, the lack of it...

Check this out, under "Total Money Raised".

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp?cycle=2008

Notice a pattern?
Polling results, so far, follow closely the amount of money each candidate has raised.

The fact that Edwards does not accept PAC or corporate money is hurting him, for now.

All the more reason for true progressives to support him.

That Edwards, as you said Miles, does not accept PAC or corporate money - then he and his campaign could make hey with that.

Money drives both the Clinton and Obama train. John is going to have to figure out a way to let folks know who don't pay that much attention to the nuances of campaign financing that he is DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY. How to get that message across remains a challenging question.

He is the only one with a message to control corporation power, which has been our greatest danger to our republic.

It angers me each evening when I watch the news. There is hardly a mention of John Edwards or DK. It is as though they do not exist. The media has chosen which people they feel like covering, the rest are just along for the ride. It amazes me that his polls are as high as they are when the stories are almost always Clinton/Obama vs Rudy/Romney. Now just imagine what his numbers would be if the media actually covered his positions and not his silly haircuts and houses.

We call upon all network TV and print media to actually place him where he should be and cover his platform with as much zeal as they do for the others. There are some good candidates out there but you'd never know it. One would think we had a choice between two here and two there.

Afterall, that's why they have been pushing Hillary. She owns them.

but its because the polls still aren't telling us anything. Those willing to respond with a choice tend to be those who have "bought" the corporate media hype over one of the glamor candidates. It may well be that when it comes time to vote, those will be the people who vote, and the polls will have been right. But it could just as well be that the well-over-50% still thinking it over will coalesce around one of the others and the glamor two will vanish like shooting stars.

why the slippage? I don't know.

eventually find out how he voted for key legislation while in the Senate.

His rhetoric isn't indicative of NDC/DLC policies, but he was founder of the Senate New Democrat Coalition.

http://www.nndb.com/people/306/000024234/

http://www.nndb.com/group/269/000093987/

"MyDD's Jerome Armstrong observes: "On the Democratic side, for every 1 ad that Edwards has run, Obama has ran 9, and Clinton has ran 5, and yet, when you look at who regularly attends the caucuses, John Edwards has the lead; and even among those polled is right there in the mix."

Edwards just started running ads in Iowa, after Obama spent $5 mil and Hillary $3 mil there.

But Edwards ground organization in Iowa is second to none.

Check out my thread "Edwards team is the class of the field" with the link to the NY Magazine analysis. He has his supporters in place as precinct chairs in 75% of all precincts.

The national polls of Iowa voters by entities outside Iowa do not take into account other factors that will weigh heavily on the outcome. The Iowa Independent Power Rankings listed Edwards first if the caucuses were held today.

Sure seems like things on the ground are a lot different then things as aired by the M$M.

I assume safeguards are in place to ensure a fair accounting of votes during the caucus process?

When the caucuses are actually held Edwards' support will be cresting in Iowa.

Many political strategists believe that Obama and Hillary have already 'hit their ceiling' of support in Iowa after running millons of dollars in tv/media ads.

Plus, the Iowa caucuses have complex rules as to their operation. There is not another candidate who understands Iowa and its caucus system better than Edwards.

$$$$ and that goofy Carolina accent

that it hurts him--guilt by unconscious and erroneous association

LOL

people don't know edwards' voice like they do clintons. edwards sounds like lindsey graham or some other generic repuke fascist piece of crap. people are totally done with those criminal liar extremist wads.

the dude was SPANKED by Cheney, and Cheney's the anti-Christ. Not only that, but Edwards isn't really mister personality. he's tainted by his association with Kerry, the bad press about the house and the haircut doesn't help...

Kerry and his strategists made all the decisions once Edwards was onboard as VP.

Edwards has very favorable numbers and is getting tremendous response on the Campaign trail.

Instead of repeating the Repub mantra of 'the house and the haircut' why not debate real issues?

the voting public really doesn't give a shit about the real issues. they care about fluffy stuff.

but, I did not think Edwards performed very well in the debate with Cheney and did not look like he was in charge of the issues.

Similarly, in the debates leading up to the primaries, he was asked about a bill that was passed in the 1990s, and his response was something like, "Well, that was passed before I was in the Senate, so I don't really know..."

So, in my eyes, he came across as a bit of a lightweight.

I think he's got a great message, however, and will be happy to vote for him if he wins the nomination. But, I can't imagine Al Gore answering that he didn't really know on an issue.

Because he looks desperate, Because he makes Hillary really look as though she is America's choice when no one has voted yet, or is it because Biden is the right choice...

running ads in Iowa (he'd spent only $23,000 on one ad before this month, he's now spending $400,000 per week in advertising).

Edwards is carefully timing his campaign NOT to repeat the 2003 mistake of Dean, Gephardt, and Lieberman who all peaked too early.

which is closer to how the Iowa caucus works.

... and that will make a big difference in the outcome.