Zogby has Edwards leading in SC

[PurityOfEssence]

He's at 10%, Dean at 9%, and Kerry and Lieberman at 8%.

Yet the headline says that "...four candidates tied..."

Okay, sure, within the margin of error, it's technically a tie, but why can't they give the guy his due? It's certainly the norm for others. Hell, Junior's an "enormously popular president" when he's in the fifties...

Fine, so I'm partisan, but it's an ongoing collusion of the right to marginalize or simply ignore him, and a very complex dynamic on the left that denies him reasonable (in my opinion) coverage or acknowledgement.

It's very frustrating, because I'm trying to be fairly fairminded about my support for him while enduring some serious hardballing from other partisan camps. Yeah, right; boo hoo.

Look at it this way, though: the guy does well with those who come in contact with him. He has some oomph and an undeniable electability. He's also from the working class, unlike most of the other real contenders, and he's a true progressive. He's very warm, caring, engaging and has extraordinary charisma.

Hey, of the bunch, when asked by Jon Stewart who he liked, Dennis Kucinich only mentioned Edwards. Is that a certain litmus test for humanity and decency, or what?

He's leading in SC. Admit it, dammit.

[CMT]

1. ok he is leading in SC

but in a way Dean's showing is even more impressive. In January he had 1% and he is now in second place only 1-point behind the Senator from the neighboring state of North Carolina. However, it is a wide open race from the look at the numbers and the undecideds.

[Bombtrack]

2. tell me about it, this won't get any coverage

they don't control the media, but they do control parts of it.

NO positive Edwards news has been reported widely, and every possible chance to report negatively on his campaign has been taken.

There is hard tangable evidence that he is the candidate they don't want to face.

Compare Edwards surprise fundraising victory(no coverage) to Dean's surprise victory (complete saturation). Compare Dean and Kerry's exploratory committee anouncement(republican glee) to Edwards(huge reaction smear memo, accompanied by millionaire trial-lawyer, running for veep, talking points

they also put up anti-edwards billboards in Iowa and have sent disruptors to his townhalls and fundraisers, both through front-groups

[mlawson]

28. I really fear that the Dem 'establishment' will deliberately bypass him.

I know I am Johnny One Note on this, but I suspect that the Dem power brokers will install someone next year who can not beat bush, JUST LIKE in 1984. We have three Mondales and two Gary Harts right now, with Edwards as one of the two. I hope I am wrong about this.

The three Mondales just have too many political chits to cash in. That's the way it works, tragically.

[Yupster]

3. A tie is reasonable IMO

when four guys are running 10-9-8-8

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Bias, though often very subtle, is still bias.

Think what difference it would mean to people wavering or not set on anyone to hear that this "lightweight" and "inexperienced" guy is actually leading ANYWHERE? It makes people stand up and take a look.

That's a look that's deserved, might I add.

Imagine an analogous Dean situation: there'd be derision and hyperbole by the boatload. If Clark was "cheated" in this way, there'd be gleeful cheering and barking sports rhetoric.

[blm]

34. The media will not trumpet ANY poll

that doesn't have Dean in the lead.

When Edwards raised the most money in the 1st Q, he did not get Schneider's Play of the Week, but Dean did the next Q. There is something even more completely off than usual about the whole media these last 8 months. They would NEVER give any Dem press, even Kerry and Gore throughout 2002 when they were pounding Bush, but, then when Dean came along and started attacking other Dems and the Dem party first, the press couldn't cover him enough.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Hell yeah, Purity. Edwards is making his move, in spite of being

ignored by the media. You are so right - when people meet him, they connect. He is such a great candidate.

And he's leading in SC, dammit.

[PurityOfEssence]

31. the surviving of two threads in our own LBN reads "Dean surges in SC..."

when nothing like that exists in the headline of the article. The article reads that it is a tie, and there was one thread started in LBN that reads that way, but the moderator locked it instead of the "Dean" one that is in complete violation of the rules.

Favoritism? I don't know. Having observed that moderator for quite some time it seems weird; that person seems generally fairminded, so I presume it's just luck of the draw. Yet things like this seem to happen everywhere.

deandeandeandeandeandeandeandeandean. To some people, that may be the "real story", but there are plenty of bits of evidence of Dean gaining momentum everywhere; from a purely "news" standpoint, I'd say the "real story" is this "other guy" getting some footing. Thanks to this, though, it's just more proof in our forum that Dean is transcendently triumphant.

[CentristDemocrat]

5. John Edwards has to win SC. Period.

It's his home turf.

[BurtWorm]

6. Isn't he from NC?

Shouldn't he be leading by more than the margin of error in neighboring SC? That's not exactly good news for Edwards, is it really?

[CentristDemocrat]

7. Yes, he should be leading more.

Statistically speaking, it is a tie.

[SCantiGOP]

9. Edwards is from upstate SC

But he has lived in NC all of his adult life. His adds all stress how his father was a millworker in SC.

[StopTheMorans]

12. that's what I say

and why I say his support is weak. Dean is a "brash northern liberal from a tiny state" and Edwards is from the state next door, and his support is this thin? Not impressive, only impressive for the other candidates who polled so well in his neighboring state.

[tjdee]

15. You mean like Dean and Kerry?

Oh PLEASE.

Dean and Kerry are right next door from NH, but let one of them be two points ahead of the other, and watch the bouncing off the walls.
(And yes, I know that Dean is now comfortably leading in NH. He wasn't always.)

[StopTheMorans]

19. yes, like Dean and Kerry

they are both next door to NH, and they are (make that "were" as of the last Zogby) both front-runners there and have been for many months. Can Edwards say the same?

[tjdee]

27. You're saying something different.

First you were saying that it's not impressive because he is from a neighboring state.

Now you're saying that he should have been the front runner there for many months because it is his neighboring state--I remember when Dean was in single digits, and what I heard was "they don't know him yet".

Edwards is gaining, that is good. That's pretty much my point.

[SCantiGOP]

8. That's not what we're hearing

I live in Columbia. The last poll I saw here had Leiberman with a large, almost 10%, lead. Dean, Kerry and Edwards were all tightly packed in 2nd place.
I attended the Dean meetup in Columbia last night. I was one of 5 that attended the first one; we had about 60 last night. Dean will have a HQ open by Oct 1, and there is a large and growing group of volunteers on the college campuses. I think Leiberman will win SC, simply because of how conservative the state is and the fact that most of the cross-over republican votes will go to him as the "least objectionable" Democrat. A second place finish will be a huge boost to Dean. Anything short of a win or a close second will probably finish Edwards. I still think Edwards is really running for 2008.

[cjbuchanan]

10. 1 point in a poll is not a lead

And this goes for any and all candidates. Now 1 point on Election Day, that is a lead.

As for polling, it always comes with a margin of error and we cannot forget that. The proper way to read this poll is to say that there are four candidates tied for the lead. How is stating the truth not giving this guy his due?

Please do not think I am saying anything bad about Edwards because he does seem like a great guy, but people in this poll were not asked if Edwards was a nice guy, they were asked for whom they would vote. Don't blame the poll if the candidate has not yet made a connection with the participants in this poll. And don't blame the media if they report the poll accurately.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. Comparitively, other polls this tight often mention the "leader"

Yes, statistically, it's within the margin of error.

Have we seen other polls declare leaders with similar stats? Sure. Do I see a pattern with the marginalization of Edwards? Yes. Do I realize that asking and answering my own questions is annoyingly Rumsfeldian? Yes.

Just frustrated, that's all...

Regardless of the slimness of the margin and the fact that he might be expected to do better so close to home, numbers are numbers. I'd be very happy to have it announced as a "tie" with the guys named in order, but even that seems to be asking too much.

[chimpymustgo]

17. And the real headline: Edwards overtakes Lieberman in SC.

That's the news, folks. Edwards has slowly been building from 2% to now 10% in SC. Lieberman has held a steady lead since the beginning.

Edwards 2004

[cjbuchanan]

23. I understand your frustration

I guess so many other people taking polls out of context also frustrate me. I don't like it when anyone uses a poll where their person is 1,2 or 3% up to say they are the leader. However, I do think you are right, they should mention the people in order of the poll results while saying it is a tie.

For what it is worth, I first heard a lot about Edwards when he raised so much during the first quarter. I saw more then a few positive stories then. However, I don't think his campaign did much to capitalize on it. In my humble opinion, they should have used that moment to do a news blitz.

I don't think anyone should count Edwards out, but I also think he needs to do something to give his campaign some momentum. Actually, the debate tonight might be the thing to do it. He is one of the best debaters in the field and if he makes a good show tonight, who knows what happens tomorrow. If he makes a strong "hit" on Dean, he will get a lot of press tomorrow. Too bad all the others will be doing the same thing.

[Starpass]

14. Have to ask this

I was going to post this a few weeks ago but never did. Was watching Washington Journal and they do that cut away to Hot Line to get the political news from the campaign trail. It's usually some straight poop. Anyway, they said that it was expected on the "trail" that Edwards will be the first to drop out. They said the Edwards camp said they would give it to about mid-October to make the decision. The reason for all this was that he is getting pressure about running for his Senate seat. Thus, he has to be either real certain he can win the nomination by mid-October. Apparently, the repukes are real squeezing him. Sadly, I don't know how anyone of these guys could even remotely predict where the hell they will be in the primaries by mid-October. So, I do expect he's going to drop. That's too bad because I liked him. He wasn't my first choice but I liked him. I have no idea what that means in terms of a possible VP slot.....

[ShaneGR]

16. I'm an Edwards guy and I know one single thing about his strategy

It's ALL based on winning South Carolina and getting a ton of free press because of it.

[retread]

18. Must be a huge undecided.

*

[sandnsea]

20. Let him slide up from the outside

Like Kucinich thinks he's going to do, but Edwards really CAN do! The last thing Edwards needs right now is to start having attacks before he ever gets out of the gate!!!

Maybe this will work in his favor... at least you can always hope!!

[RobertFrancisK]

21. I think Clark will win SC

By a big margin too. I like Edwards, but let's face it, he won't win. He voted for the war, so he won't get the liberal vote. He's new in politics so he won't get the estalishment vote. Once Clark enters he'll lose the southern vote. He just has very little going for him right now. I say get out, gear up for the senate reelection and map out some clear objectives for things he wants to do in the senate, make an impact, go to Iraq, get some foreign policy experiance, build up union support and give it another shot in 8 years.

[AP]

22. Bill Clinton wasn't part of the establishment but the establishment

was smart enough to see that he was the one who was going to beat Bush.

I think the establishment is going to have the same realization about Edwards.

As for the war vote, I think we'll see things play out in way that proves he did this right.

[RobertFrancisK]

25. What???????????????

"As for the war vote, I think we'll see things play out in way that proves he did this right."

Please please please elaborate on that.

[AP]

26. I think that it will turn out that

you'll never get a majority of Americans to believe that America shouldn't take on real or perceived threats to national security.

I think that, perhaps after it's clear that Blair isn't going to fall down over WMD claims, it will be discovered that Hussein was probably developing a nuclear program which he hid outside the country. I think that, although this isn't quite worthy of the bullshit Bush perpetrated on Iraq in my mind, a majority of Americans will think that invasion was the right thing.

I think that Dean will be made to look silly for opposing the war.

I think people who phrased the issue as follows, "we didn't have the option of ignoring the intelligence which was presented without any evidence at the time that it was incorrect" and "what matters most is what we do next...we have to allow Iraq to control its own destiny and profit from its own resources; we can't let a dictator, whether it be an Iraqi dictator or an American dictator pillage the nation's wealth", will be the ones who played the issue right.

Of course, I think that if Dean gets nominated, it will play out this way. If anyone else gets nominated, the administration will play it in a way that does maximum damage to that candidate. I just think Dems have a much better chance to win if it's the latter rather than the former.

[RobertFrancisK]

30. I disagree

I think that Bush can't handle the occupation and it will blow up in his face. I bet Saddam had WMD also, but not enough to be considered an immediate threat to the US. And I highly doubt he had nukes. Quite frankly, I don't know how a dem COULD run against Bush if he supported the war, for that takes away any legitimacy that candidate has to criticize it. AL-Queda is regrouping while our soldiers are stuck trying to be police in Iraq, and Bush will get caught in his web of lies sooner rather than later. I really can't se how any dem could've voted for the war. Edwards must have been out of his mind if he though Bush would handle the occupation well and there was NO evidence that Iraq was an immediate threat. If he did think that Saddam needed to go, which truth be hold he did, then he should've just voted against the war, let Bush tighten security over Iraq and waited until a trustworthy Dem was in office. I couldn't vote for someone who would give Bush the power to go to war. Edwards needs to do some growing up and penance for his sins before he can become president.

[AP]

32. I disagree with that. I think voters are going to separate

a badly executed plan for post-invasion Iraq from the question of whether invasion was right. In fact, in believing there was a right way to do it, there's an implication that it was right to be there in the first place (and I'm sure that Rove-Cheney haven't missed this implication).

[Sophree]

33. I agree with you, AP

"I think the establishment is going to have the same realization about Edwards."

If they're smart they will.

[AP]

35. A note on post-92 Dem establishment

Whereas Republicans pick their candidates with extreme cynicism -- they pick the person whom they know has no conscience and whom they can control, and then they lie and manipulate until they get that person into office -- it seems teh Democratic establisment doesn't care about things like, "will this guy be manipulatable, and will he transfer money to the vested interests". They ask, will a majority of Americans vote for this guy because he has a message which creates a better America for a majority of Americans.

Why in the world did the establishment go with Clinton. He wasn't part of the NY-Washington Axis of political and economic power. He was just a guy who connected with the middle class. The Democratic establishment valued that above all, and that's part of the reason I like the Democratic Party.

[uptohere]

24. COOL ! I love Edwards, I'll take all the good I can get !

n/t

[chimpymustgo]

29. Welcome to DU uptohere! It's great to see another Edwards supporter.

We have had some lonely days and nights around here - but that is changing - along with Edwards' popularity. Go Johnny go!

[angee_is_mad]

36. well he should he was born there, lol

How embarrassing if he were to lose North and South Carolina. And he is leading the pack by a whole percentage point. Amazing, let's have a party!
If nothing else he could say he won S.C his place of birth by one point. It would be a great story to tell his grandkids after he retire from the senate.