Interesting data from exit polls showing Edwards strength, Kerry weakness

[AP]

amongst swing voters (which seems to confirm the hearsay evidence of NBC saying today that Edwards trounced Kerry in OK districts which Bush won in 2000).

Check it out:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll4feb04,0,4991084.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

But in all three states, most voters cited the economy as their top concern. In Arizona, where Edwards didn't seriously compete, Kerry carried a plurality of them. But in South Carolina, Edwards beat Kerry among such voters by 2 to 1; he also won handily among economically focused voters in Oklahoma.

Nor did Kerry run well among voters who said the trait they most prized in their candidate was empathy for ordinary people...Edwards carried those voters by 3 to 1 in South Carolina and more than 2 to 1 in Oklahoma.

Edwards also beat Kerry soundly in Oklahoma and South Carolina among voters who consider themselves moderates or conservatives.

...

The South Carolina and Oklahoma results suggest that in states where many voters lack college educations and consider themselves moderates, Edwards may be able to carve out a niche as a more centrist, empathetic and populist alternative... But results also show that in states where Edwards doesn't have the time or money to offer himself as an alternative to Kerry, the natural inclination of most voters will be to flow toward the frontrunner.

[lancdem]

1. S. Carolina and Oklahoma are conservative-leaning states

we won't carry in 2004 no matter whom we nominate. Arizona is a different story.

[AP]

2. We will, most likely, win many of the states we won in 2000, and will need

to win swing voters in states LIKE OK and SC, if not in SC and NC.

It looks like Kerry might not appeal to the moderate voters.

[lancdem]

7. Kerry appealed to moderates in the states he won so far

You cited the two he didn't win. Check the exit polls in places like NH. As I said before, even Edwards wouldn't win OK or SC. No Dem ever wins those states; even Clinton, who won a number of Southern states, never won SC, and he had two landslide victories. I care about swing voters in states like NH, MO, AZ and Ohio, states Bush won in 2000 but could go Dem in 2004.

[AP]

9. In NH Edwards did well with people describing themselves as moderates, and

with white men, and did better the wealthier they got, even though he has a set of policies designed to help people at the other end of the spectrum.

I think it's pretty obvious that Edwards does better the closer you get to the middle without having to make political compromises to reach those people in the middle.

And we're not talking about winning SC. We're talking about winning moderate voters.

Clinton said the strategy for the president should be to do enough to make the far left know they shouldn't be afraid of you and then mine all those votes in the middle.

Kerry is winning because people are jumping on the bandwagon without considering issues like this. When you scratch the surface, you see that Edwards is the one who can do best what Clinton says you need to do to win.

[Tweed]

12. Ah Edwards

Clark's policies are progressive, but because he voted for Republican before 1990, moderates and Republicans can trust him more. Chalk up another one for Clark.

[DemDogs]

35. Polls everywhere say Kerry does his worst with moderates and conservatives

Edwards does best with those groups. The liberal base will vote (and should, based on their records) with the Democratic candidate. Edwards, not Kerry, can and has reached those moderate and conservative Dems and left-leaning independents. Edwards has done it in the primaries and more importantly, he has done in a general election, winning in NC, a really tough state.

[AP]

37. The amazing thing with Edwards is that he does what Clinton said you have

to do so well: appeal to the moderates and show the far left that you understand them enough so that they aren't afraid of you.

I don't think I've seen a democratic nominee that looked so moderate on the surface and had a core that was so down with the progressive project (flowing power down and out). The far left should LOVE this guy. The moderates already do.

[Tweed]

3. Interesting experiences from real life show Edwards weaknesses

He hasn't completed one term in the senate.
He has next to zero national security experience.

[AP]

4. Neither had JFK at this point in his life, and what do you need to know

about national security that you think Edwards can't or doesn't know?

Should only Secretary of States and former heads of the NSC/CIA run for president?

Do you think Clinton was bad on national security? Would you have thought Dean wasn't up to the job because he had no national security experience?

[Tweed]

8. Please don't compare Edwards to JFK

JFK knew MUCH more about national security and foreign policy at this age then John Edwards. First, his dad was the ambassador to England. That gives JFK just a little bit of an edge over Edwards as a kid. Second, JFK fought in WWII. He was familiar with the the structure of the military from the inside out. Edwards wasn't old enough to fight in Vietnam, not his fault, but he still hasn't served in the military. Third, JFK served a full term concentrating on representing his people first, then running for president. Edwards, well we know the story. Fourth, JFK stared down the Russians in Cuba, but he was also in charge when the Bay of Pigs occurred AND JFK had much more experience then Edwards has.

Running for President in 2004, yes, you should be an expert on national security. We are at a time in our history when our international relations have been severed, we have troops keeping the peace in two countries, and we have a dictator with nuclear capabilities who is against our country. Not only should the president in 2004 have extensive national security experience, but anyone running against Bush should have more experience then Bush to make it an easier choice for the American people.

Clinton was good on national security, but he didn't have to deal with the situation we are in today right off the bat. He was able to break into the Presidency. The President in 2004 will have no time to do that. Howard Dean certainly should not have gotten the nomination due to that exact fact. You are dead on about that one.

[AP]

10. Please don't pretend that being good on national security is something

available only to the sons of ambassadors and people in the military.

[Tweed]

11. I won't. Please don't pretend that John Edwards could beat George Bush.

I'm glad that you didn't have any point to counter that time. Also you realized that JFK has more experience then John Edwards, alot more actually.

The Republicans would tear John Edwards apart as being too green and weak on defense. Edwards' strategy of 'I can win because I'm from the south" is absurd. Does he remember the last election against the very same man he claims he can beat based on his Southern roots? Al Gore! Tennessee! While Edwards might win two or three Southern states the Democrats historically lose, even Clinton didn't win half of the South against Dole. Edwards' lack of experience could cost us numerous states in the end to counterbalance any gains he would have from the South. I don't know about you, but I would rather support a candidate who's main claim has something to do with policy then with geography.

[AP]

13. I know he could beat Bush, and he'd be better on foreign policy than JFK.

Edwards can beat Bush because he highlights the strenghts of the democratic party: hope, optimism, a better tomorrow, equality of opportunity, middle and working class opportunity, and "American" generally -- playing football, driving around in a Plymouth Duster, marrying your girlfriend from school and staying married.

He's not a candidate who sacrifices all those ideas in a sad attempt to patch a weak point for the Democratic party (national security) which will end up being turned into a weakness anyway.

[AP]

14. kick.

[Tweed]

16. Pure comedy

Edwards is better then JFK because he married his girlfriend from school, plays football and drives a Plymouth Duster? You kind of left that claim out in the air, probably because there is nothing to back that claim up.

I have no idea what kind of car Clark drives, but Clark married a woman he met while attending college and he has stayed married to her this whole time. He is even a grandfather. Getting to actual points that will matter in the election...

I'm guessing your comments were some kind of absurd attack on Clark, so I'll defend him once again. Clark highlights hope and optimism by seeing a better tomorrow. The reason he is running for President is because he sees where America is now under George W. Bush and he wants to take Bush out of the White House. Clark is not running on a platform of fear suggesting "I can beat George Bush because I'm from the South and no non-Southern Democrat has won the White House since 1960." He is not out there suggesting that people vote for him based on where he has lived. He is for equal opportunity for all candidates regardless of where they have lived in the past. Wesley Clark actually walks the walk and is for middle and working class Americans. Let's compare their tax plans!

WES CLARK'S PLAN

Provides tax relief for all middle-class families with children.
Provides substantial tax relief - about $1,500 for typical families.
Raises the income tax rate for millionaires. Wes Clark pays for his sweeping proposal by raising the income tax rate for families earning over $1 million annually by 5 percentage points. In addition, Wes Clark closes corporate loopholes.

JOHN EDWARDS' PLAN

Leaves out most middle-class families: only 13 percent of families have capital gains and only 17 percent of families have stock dividends.
Provides little tax relief - $33 on average for middle-class families.
Does not raise income taxes for millionaires. The Edwards proposal does not raise income tax rates for millionaires. It does take a much smaller step of raising capital gains rates for capital gains in excess of $1 million.

Wesley Clark has worked with Americans from around the country and lived in all of the different regions in this country. He represents all of this country, not just the South.

He stands for everything that Edwards stands for, including being from the South, except he does it better. In conclusion, Wesley Clark make quite a happy happy attempt to change a Democratic weakness into a strength while Edwards seeks to continue the stereotype.

[AP]

17. Edwareds is RAISING taxes on cap gains and dividends.

he's asking those people to assume a bigger burden. The point is that these additional taxes DON"T affect most Americans, just the ones who have been unburdened in the last 30 years.

And, yes, Edwards is a better candidate because he is a symbol of what's good about America, and not what's frightening.

[Tweed]

19. Would you care to expand on your attack?

Instead of just throwing it around. The proper way to argue is to provide points, facts, information, etc. Please explain how Clark is about what is frightening about America. I believe that George Bush is everything that is frightening about America myself. I'm not sure what kind of Democrat you are.

[AP]

21. National insecurity. Can't think of a Democrat who has run on this and won

not even in frightening times.

Can you?

George Bush is making America frightening to win elections. Running Clark steps into the trap.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

32. Perhaps they don't bother because they know they'll suffer same fate as C.

?

Jimmy Carter won, by the way. He beat a guy who had PRESEDENTIAL experience. And he was beaten by a guy with no foreign policy experience. Know why? Because national insecurity is homefield advantage for Republicans. They used Iran to make Americans think only of national security, and then beat a Democrat with presidential experience running a guy with no foreign policy experience at all.

[ngGale]

25. John Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence Committee and...

fought big corporations for 20 years. Also hasn't been on 'The Hill' long enough to have a 'love fest' with his friends.

[Tweed]

29. Yes, he is no JFK

Thank you for proving my point. Edwards does have near the experience JFK did.

[AP]

33. Conviction and motivating principles in line with what America needs in

a historical sense (a focus on the transfer of power between the bottom and top) are the most important things for the president to have in 2004.

We're headed for another great depression, not a world war (or at least, if we can avert the first, we won't have the second).

We need experience that can deal with that problem.

[arewethereyet]

15. and Clark's

He hasn't completed any term in any office including supreme commander of NATO.

His notable experience in national security was the security of VietNam and the former Yugoslavia. And we remain in the latter which seems odd if we "won". Neither of which was a huge threat to the US.

[Tweed]

18. Actually, his notable experience in National Security....

Timeline of General Wesley Clark's Army Career

July 1962 - June 1966 Cadet at United States Military Academy (West Point)
Aug. 1966 - Aug. 1968 Rhodes Scholar at Magdalen College, Oxford University
Aug. 1968 - Oct. 1968 Armor Officer Basic Course, United States Army Armor School, Fort Knox , Kentucky
Oct. 1968 - Dec. 1968 Ranger Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Dec. 1968 - May 1969 Company Commander, A Company, 4th Battalion, 68th Armor, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Riley, Kansas
May 1969 - Jan.1970 Assistant G-3, HHC, 1st Infantry Division, Vietnam
Jan. 1970 - Feb. 1970 Commanding Officer, A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division, Vietnam


Summary of Post-Vietnam Assignments

May 1970 - Sept. 1970 Commander, C Company, 6th Battalion, 32d Armor, 194th Armored Brigade, Fort Knox, Kentucky
Oct. 1970 - May 1971 Armor Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Armor School, Fort Knox, Kentucky
May 1971 - July 1971 Staff Officer, Plans Group, Office, Special Assistant for the Modern Volunteer Army, Office of the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
July 1971 - July 1974 Instructor, later Assistant Professor of Social Science, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, New York
Aug. 1974 - June 1975 Student, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Aug. 1975 - Aug. 1976 White House Fellow, Office of the Director of Management and Budget, Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Aug. 1976 - Aug. 1977 S-3 (Operations) Officer, 3d Battalion, 35th Armor, 1st Armored Division, United States Army Europe, Germany
Aug. 1977 - Feb. 1978 S-3 (Operations) Officer, 3d Brigade, 1st Armored Division, United States Army Europe, Germany
Feb. 1978 - June 1979 Assistant Executive Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Brussels, Belgium
Aug. 1979 - Feb. 1980 Executive Officer, 1st Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado
Feb. 1980 - June 1982 Commander, 1st Battalion, 77th Armor, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado
June 1982 - June 1983 Student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.
July 1983 - Sept. 1983 Chief, Plans Integration Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, United States Army, Washington, D.C.
Oct. 1983 - July 1984 Chief, Army Studies Group, Office of the Chief of Staff, United States Army, Washington, D.C.
Aug. 1984 - Jan. 1986 Commander, Operations Group, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
Apr. 1986 - Mar. 1988 Commander, 3d Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado
Apr. 1988 - Oct. 1989 Director, Battle Command Training Program, United States Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Oct. 1989 - Oct. 1991 Commanding General, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
Oct. 1991 - Aug. 1992 Deputy Chief of Staff for Concepts, Doctrine, and Developments, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia
Aug. 1992 - Apr. 1994 Commanding General, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas
Apr. 1994 - June 1996 Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, The Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.
Jun. 1996 - July 1997 Commanding General, United States Southern Command, Quarry Heights, Panama
Jul. 1997 - May 2000 Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe, Belgium

Summary of Joint Assignments
Aug. 1975 - Aug. 1976 White House Fellow, Office of the Director of Management and Budget, Old Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. Grade: Major
Feb. 1978 - June 1979 Assistant Executive Officer to the Supreme Allied Commander, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, Brussels, Belgium. Grade: Major
Apr. 1994 - June 1996 Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J-5, The Joint Staff, Washington, D.C. Grade: Lieutenant General
Jun. 1996 - July 1997 Commanding General, United States Southern Command, Quarry Heights, Panama. Grade: General
Jul. 1997 - May 2000 Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe, Belgium. Grade: General

Ponder that for awhile, thanks

[Rooktoven]

20. I'm pondering...

When was he ever elected to anything?

[Tweed]

22. I'm pondering if Edwards could get reelected if he ran again

I've got friends from North Carolina and they all don't support Edwards. They say he was a terrible senator.

[AP]

23. And Edwards has friends who say about Clark...

...oh never mind.

[Tweed]

30. :D

:D

[arewethereyet]

24. well lets see

1997-2000 NATO - incomplete
1996-1997 Southern Command - protecting us from banana republics
1994-1996 Strategic plans - OK getting somewhere here but got rewarded with Panama
1992-1994 Cavalry Division - admin post
1991-1992 Concepts doctrine etc - doesn't hurt
1989-1991 Training center - admin post
1988-1989 Director of training program - had to do some work here

the rest is all normal Army progression.

Of course the one that matters most is the last assignment, the incomplete one.

[Tweed]

28. Incomplete because he was standing up for innocent citizens

Clark tried to get the government to scrap its plans to bomb Kosovo and not use ground troops. Clark wanted to use ground troops so the only people that would have been taken out would have been people who attacked U.S. troops. Clark tried his best to get his voice on the air to get this accomplished and it didn't please his superiors. Any human should applaud Clark for his attempt to save lives.

[arewethereyet]

31. yeah I keep hearing this

but we all know there is more to it than that. And if it was so troubling to him then why was it not a problem up to that point ?

At least you're honest enough to admit he was fired, I have to respect you for that. Most Clark supporters are in denial about that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. I agree with your analysis.

"in states where Edwards doesn't have the time or money to offer himself as an alternative to Kerry, the natural inclination of most voters will be to flow toward the frontrunner."


my question is, in what state(s) does he have the time and money?

[AP]

6. There will be time before March 2

(that wasn't my analysis, btw -- that was from the article).

[iamjoy]

27. Edwards/Clark/Kerry

There is plenty of dirt on every candidate for the Repugs to use in the GE.

We could argue resumes until the cows come home, but I do believe a lot of this is going to come down to just how likable a candidate is.

That being said, I'm as much ABB as any one else, but let's not vote for a candidate simply because we think he can beat Bush.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. Sadly, AP, we're right and they're wrong

To blatantly steal a line from James Carville.

9/11 and Bush' success in the 2002 midterm have blinded and petrified our base. As a result, we're hoisting a candidate based on fears of how the other side will attack in the fall, not someone who best exemplifies the fundamental beliefs of our party.

AP, your post #13 was brilliant in that regard. We needed a candidate who the moderate swing voters will enthusiastically vote FOR, aka John Edwards. A Kerry nomination, in contrast, is 100% dependent on anger and dissatisfaction with Bush. NEWSFLASH: Bush will trounce Kerry in the likeable, have-a-beer-with category of those debates, and the swing voters and therefore the White House will be forfeited as a result.

Unfortunately, the Democratic masses have chosen poorly. When the Republicans were saddled with the shame of Watergate and loss of the presidency, they didn't foolishly search for a lilly-white, scandal-free patchwork savior. They found a Ronald Reagan, the messenger most capable of thriving in the public spotlight and therefore swiping from the middle. We get national security on the brain and elevate someone who waded through Vietnam 30+ years earlier. Brilliant. And tonight I'm reading stuff about the dire need for a manly man...

Fifteen years ago I moved to Las Vegas to wager on sports. Only a handful of us who came here at that time have survived and prospered. The others failed because of remarkably commonplace priorities, master-of-the-obvious critique of every team and situation. Tragically, the all-aboard 2004 Democratic primary voters fall very much in line.

[spooky3]

36. You've expressed my fears and concerns also. If JE does not get the nomin

ation, I hope that we are wrong about our predictions.

[AP]

38. Thanks for the comments about post #13

I was wondering if anyone understand what I was talking about.

You explained what I'm trying to say better than I did.

I said this about Dean, but I'll say it about Clark and Kerry too: these candidates are the reactionary candidates. I.e., they're reactions to Bush. Edwards is the one candidate of the four who stands on his own and defines himself. (Kucinich defines himself as well.)

When you're the reactionary candidate, the way you're defined is entirely within the control of the person to whom you react. It will be too easy for Bush to change who he is (with the help of the media) and leave Americans with an entirely different image of Kerry than the one he needs to beat Bush.

McGovern set himself up as the reaction to Nixon. He lost because you can't win on being the anti- candidate. Yes. The democrats have to pick the candidate who embodies their ideals and articulates them the best. Edwards.