As frontrunner, Edwards would be BURYING Bush in the polls

[Awsi Dooger]

Come on, people. I expect the media to be remarkably ignorant of the significance of the new national polls, but DU?

Kerry 53% Bush 46%
Edwards 49% Bush 48%

Those numbers don't suggest Kerry is most electable, they scream it's John Edwards.

Just apply basic math and common sense: No primary wins. No major magazine covers. No surge in nationwide name recognition, facial recognition, and therefore popularity. Down 49 to 14 to Kerry in the latest preference poll among registered Democrats.

Yet John Edwards is within a few points of John Kerry's exalted status vs. Bush.

My job is statistical analysis, albeit sports related. Monday night I called my old college professor -- 30+ years in the business and a registered independent with no love for Edwards -- what the numbers signified to him. "Simple. If Edwards had won Iowa and New Hampshire, even by lesser margins than Kerry did, Edwards would be leading Bush by at least 10 points in that poll, probably 12 to 14."

Those were my estimations also. It tears me apart that we are comically overrating national security concerns and a military background while ignoring the most basic trump card in a general election -- John Edwards' natural appeal.

[T Bone]

1. you might be right

People around here (dems and repukes) seem to talk a lot about Edwards positively, and there is not that much coverage of him around here. If Kerry gets the nomination he will have to beg Edwards to be on the ticket, before anyone else I think. IMHO.

[Snappy]

2. Kerry and Edwards

I suspect that will be the winning team.

[spooky3]

3. and a lifetime of success at everything he's done.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Like Edwards Alot

but I don't see what mathematical formula would lead one to believe that Edwards or any other candidate's lead over * in the polls would grow exponentially with his lead in the Democratic primaries...

Just my plug against fuzzy math...

[Bombtrack]

6. No, actually it's political law that increased name recognition,

at the outset almost always leads to better head-to-head numbers on there face.

That's why ANY head to heads against Bush compared with other candidates in ANY states other than IO and NH(where they know all the major candidates best) are extremely tedious. And other factors are much more worth considering, such as history, demography, biography, and ideology(comparison of candidates and electorates stance on the issues)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. If Polling Success Is A Function Of Recognition Why Is Bush

Clobbering Lieberman In The Polls And Why Is He Beating Howard Dean Too?

[Bombtrack]

11. Because they're both horrible candidates(Dean and Liberman)

and people have had enough time ro get to know them, at least compared to other candidates, to know that.

That's why I said "at the outset"

I suspect once people learn what Kerry is like Besides being a war-hero, and hearing the gigolo/botox liar/ Mr. Howell jokes he wouldn't be beating Bush in the polls more than Edwards, or ESPECIALLY Clark

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Like Clark, Edwards, and Kerry Equally But I Don't Think It Will Be

A Cakewalk For Any of Them...

The Pugs will try to exploit Edwards's lack of experience and his ties to trial lawyers...

The Pugs will try to exploit Clark's lack of governing experience and temperament...

The Pugs will try to caricature Kerry as a tall Michael Dukakis with medals...

Of course, most of these attacks lack substance but when was the last time a campaign was won on substance...

I think Kerry is capable of pulling off the Gore + strategy... Hold all the Gore states and "steal" West Virginia , New Hampshire, and possibly Arizona, Colorado...

I don't think even Clark or Edwards could duplicate Clinton's modest success in the south which included carrying five southern states, most be pluralities, not majorities...

We'll see..

[Bombtrack]

14. Wrong, Clark could win FL, AR, and LA

they would become swingstates automatically with a Clark/Graham ticket, and NC, TN, GA, and VA would all become longshots for him.

All of those with would be off limits completely for Kerry(with the exception of FL if he has Graham as runningmate) meaning the GOP could concentrate on EVERY swingstate more.

And Kerry's negatives WOULD stick alot more than Clarks(what are they again? the fact that he hasn't had to become part of the campaign-politico-complex?).

It is a FACT, that Kerry is the richest member of the senate, has married not one but TWO women worth over 300 million dollars each, does communicate in congress-speak, etc etc. Those things would hurt him, and constantly bringing up Vietnam will only get him so far before that starts being joked about.

I'm way more for Kerry than Dean but what will work on candidates is NOT all relative. There is an order that the GOP wants to face, and from most to least it's Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Opinion Masquerading As Fact...

I haven't seen any polls that show Clark or any Dem beating Bush in Florida...

In fact, every Florida poll shows Bush beating any of his Democratic challengers by double digits....

Of course that can change.....

Also, the fact that Clark is a war hero is no guarantee of success against a Bush in Florida... After all, Jeb cleaned war hero Bill McBride's clock in the 02 gubernatorial race....

I will grant your point that Clark and Edwards put the south in play to a infinitely greater extent than Kerry but I need to see more polling data to make a firm conclusion how much... I'd also like to get closer to the election...

We agree on one thing... A Dean candidacy would be a disaster of McGovern or Mondale like proportions...

A Dean candidacy could put the Dems in the same position as the Republican were in the immediate years after Watergate...

[patricia92243]

5. Rather have him than Kerry

[joshcryer]

7. "Democratic nominee" is beating Bush in the polls with similar...

...numbers. I think you're grasping at straws here.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Fuzzy Math...

And it's fuzzy regardless on whose benifit it's being advanced....

[German-Lefty]

10. Edwards might be a good strategy for progressives in the long run.

There's a tendency for people to want to write off the red states. What we need to do is win them back. We have to change the minds of the people living there. This isn't going to happen in just one election.

I think in the long run though we can win back what was lost under LBJ. The right has a hold on these areas because they run people that are white, God talking, Christian acting, that pretend to be Southern.

I say run a charismatic Southerner that reminds these guys of themselves. Clinton almost pulled it off, he carried some southern states. Gore couldn't even get Tennessee.

Right now we've got a bunch of elitist right wing crazies that these people think they relate too. If we hit them with some honest middle left candidate, we can blow Bush out of the white house.

If we can do this in the long run, we may be able to change the political persuasion of the south. Imagine if the white and black, rich and poor church communities stood on the same side of social issues as Martin Luther King. Then the south will truly be reconstructed.

Maybe I'm dreaming. I have no idea if Edwards will bring us on this way. I have no association with any candidate. If we could find a young clone if Jimmy Carter, I'd be pulling for him.

[bowens43]

12. Let's se if I have this right

Edwards is behind Kerry in almost every poll and Kerry beats Bush by more points then Edwards in every poll so Edwards must be the most able to beat bush?

BTW most of candidates are within few points of bush now in the polls.

This isn't a matter of Edwards popularity, it's a matter of bush self destructing.

Let's hope the voting public doesn't elect someone because they have 'natural appeal'.

[LuminousX]

16. Pure speculation