Letters to the Editor
-
John Edwards for President
Typical Clinton-spin. Iowa and New Hampshire voters should really take notice of the electability issue, and they should realize that it's not the democratic voters who decide who is the most electable (obviously democratic voters will vote for the democratic candidate). It's the independents and disenchanted Republican voters that decide. In this race, John Edwards is undisputably the the most electable candidate for the democrats. That's not to say that Obama or Clinton couldn't win the general, but is that a chance we're willing to take in the single most important presidential election in a generation??
-
Electability
Who knows really? Obama has not faced any national election before. Edwards, the last time around was a lightweight-did not bring any single extra vote and was outperformed by Cheney in the VP debate, and Hillary has high negatives.I think Democrats should look at what candidate we want rather than who can win. Last time around Kerry looked electable at this time of the year but could not close the deal an year later.
-
Edwards/Obama
This poll information corroborates why I support Edwards rather than Obama. I think Obama is a fine man, and would eventually make a fine president. I look forward to 16 years of sane, progressive leadership in the White House. The surest way to make that happen is to nominate John Edwards, with Barack Obama as his Vice President. Would that be sweet, or what? I think they'd be so unbeatable that even the Diebolds and the fascisti wouldn't be able to steal yet another election. You can bet they'll try; it's worked twice.
-
Electibility = garbage
Haven't we learned anything from McCain2000 Kerry2004 ? When a person says who they think is most electibile, what the hell do they base that conclusion on? "Uhhh, I think most people will vote for person X." That is pure speculation! No one can reliabaly speak for what others will do, even if you gather up a few thousand people they still have no idea what anyone else will vote for.
Head to head matchups speak loud and clear. A polled person in a head to head matchup has to make a decision for themselves, instead of speculating about how others will vote. A person knows how he himself will vote, most of the time. However, only the chattering pundit class assumes they can guess how others will vote. Do you recall how inevitable Romney was in Iowa? Do you recall how inevitable Guiliani was in SC? Huckabee is beating them both in both states now. Even people who get paid to speculate about how other people will vote are usually wrong. So I see no reason to take these "electibility" polls seriously.
-
It's about bringing people to the polls -- not how they answer the phone
In response to kcusa:
It's the independents and disenchanted Republican voters that decide.
I'm sorry but Karl Rove has proven you wrong twice. George Bush did not get elected once/twice because he appealed to the independent voters or disenchanted Democrats, he got elected because he appealed to his base and made sure they came out to vote for him. A candidate must do more than be electable to a phone call they must be able to drive people to the polls.
-
John Edwards
I have felt since John Edwards entered the race that he was the best combination of electability and progressive politics. I don't agree with him on everything, but after Kucinich, he is easily my favorite candidate. It's polls like this, and the Daily Kos straw polls which have shown a consistent lead for Edwards, that make me wonder why the mainstream press seems to have very little to say about him. Maybe there's a fear that he would be a truly electable populist... I'm not sure, but I agree with the commenter who expressed support for an Edwards/Obama ticket. I think Edwards has benefited from time out of politics in a similar way to Al Gore. I think his message is much clearer and stronger than it was for the last election.
-
Confuse "Em!
Send Mr. Edwards into the general election with his Southern accent and Southern manners. Simple preconceptions among many Southern voters will break down, and some of them actually will listen, and think for themselves, and vote for Edwards.
God bless America!
-
Edwards??
I'm trying to figure out how John Edwards, a guy who couldn't beat charisma-free John Kerry for the nomination in 2004, is supposed to be the most electable candidate in 2008. In 2004, he couldn't win a single primary in a state that didn't have "Carolina" in its name.
As a vice presidential candidate, he was also singularly unimpressive. How is that a man who made his fortune as trial lawyer can't manage to beat Dick Cheney in a vice presidential debate?
-
So many underestimate the Hilary-hatred of the Right
There are many people I personally know who tend to be center-of-right - and who are very disappointed in this election season's field of GOP prez candidates.
If Obama, Edwards et al win the Dem nomination, most of these people may simply not vote. Really.
BUT, their decade-long scorn and loathing of Hilary is so incredibly strong that if Clinton was the Dem presidential nominee, they would vote for anyone - and I mean ANYONE - just to stick it to Hilary.
Hell, Larry Craig could be the GOP nominee - and if he's going up against Hilary, people will come out of the woods to vote for him, just to make sure Clinton loses!!
-----
Someday there will be a woman president. And Big Bill, I still love you after all these years, man...
But I cannot deny this truth: there is only one candidate who can lose this election for the Dems - and it is Hilary. Her polarizing effect is even greater than that of a Obama...and he's black man running for office in the USA!
-
yeah.....
An Edwards/Obama ticket would rock mightily.
But no....the people who brought you that towering pussy Kerry will pick Clinton and we will most likely lose to the troglodytes who rub their two brain cells together and come up with "Hitlerly is a lezbean" and pull the switch for whatever scumbag the Republicans offer.
Yeah. Depressing.