Edwards has a noble platform, but not a winning one

[Alhena]

I think more highly of John Edwards as a person after seeing his planned "poverty" theme of his campaign. But I have a lower opinion of his chances of ever winning the presidency, and I never evaluated them as being very high to begin with.

Bill Clinton knew how a southern Democrat could get elected- he barely could answer a question about his platform without prefacing it with "it starts with a middle class tax cut." I got the feeling that Clinton's platform was poll-driven, but it was still very effective. Edwards' platform, on the other hand, has virtually no chance of being embraced by swing voters.

I think that Obama's theme of bridging gaps between a divided country is exactly what people in this country want to hear at this moment in history. While the hard core Freeper crowd is still thirsting for their cultural war to continue, a lot more people in the middle are tired of the Limbaugh-ization of politics and want this country to be united again. Very, very few swing voters are concerned about combating poverty at this moment in history. In fact, the average middle class voter is going to be actively suspicious about whether the money to combat poverty is going to come out of their pockets.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be. I'm saying it's the way it is. When it comes to politics people look out for their self interests, and the swing voters who decide elections in this country have poverty way, way down on the list of issues that they care about. Edwards' platform is even less of a winner now with Obama presumably in the race, who will run very strong among African-American primary voters who would be very receptive to Edwards' message. Now, Edwards must know this, and the fact that he still chose to base his campaign on this issue tells me that he's a good man who would be a good president. But I seriously doubt that he will ever get a chance to prove it with his platform.

[antiimperialist]

1. Edwards also wanted tax breaks for the middle class

At least in 2004, during the debate with Cheney, I don't know if his position has changed, he said:

Kerry has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts for the American people. We are for more tax cuts for the middle class than they're for, have been for the last four years. But we are not for more tax cuts for multimillionaires. They are. And it is a fundamental difference in what we think needs to be done in this country.

[skooooo]

2. You said...

"I think that Obama's theme of bridging gaps between a divided country is exactly what people in this country want to hear at this moment in history."

How is this so different from Edwards' "two Americas" theme? Doesn't seem like it is. Both politicians could make issues of not only poverty, but race and privilege.

I'm supporting Edwards! I like Obama too, but I know more about Edwards from the last campaign. Let the best Democrat win.

[antiimperialist]

3. Edwards website mentions middle class before poverty

If you carefully look at his website home page, John Edwards cites this one as one of his goals:

Strengthen our middle class and end poverty.

http://johnedwards.com/

[onehandle]

4. Edwards can win in the general, Obama cannot.

I live in the South. Trust me.

I'm not saying that Edwards should be our candidate, but I know that Obama cannot win.

[BluegrassDem]

5. Obama can win cause of the increased African-American turnout

And the white bigot vote wouldn't have voted Democratic anyway.

[onehandle]

7. The theory in 2004 was that youth and African-Americans would throw Bush out.

Didn't work.

The South and (as usual) the rich would bloody Obama in a thousand ways to keep him out of the White House.

Maybe in a decade or so, but not now.

[BluegrassDem]

13. Kerry is not a black man...there will be increased black turnout for Obama

no doubt. Obama has been involved with voter registrations before and no doubt he will do that again as a candidate. He's going to make a lot of red states a lot more competitive, like VA and NC. Obama would do better in NC than Edwards.

[k_jerome]

10. that is funny. nt.

[Alhena]

9. I live in the South too ... and I don't think either would win here

I think Obama would lose the south because he's black and Edwards will lose the south because he's too liberal. Fortunately, we don't NEED the deep South (which clearly does NOT include Florida in a political sense) to win elections these days- states like Ohio will tell the tale.

I think Obama would do better in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania than Edwards for a whole bunch of reasons which mainly go to the fact that I think Obama connects better with people than Edwards does. From talking to people, I get the sense that a lot of people look upon Edwards with suspicion as a slick trial lawyer while most people tend to look upon Obama as being very genuine. I think most people trust Obama more than Edwards though I think Edwards is pretty well liked.

[SaveElmer]

17. I disagree...

The south is gonna be tough for any Democrat...but Obama could have enormous appeal in the midwest and west...

more than enough to make up for any loss in the south...which would likely happen no matter who the candidate is. Edwards won't take NC, Warner may have taken VA, and Florida is always close.

Obama is not my first choice, though I think very highly of him and would be very happy to support him if he is the parties choice...but I disagree that he is not electable...I think he is enormously electable.

[hijinx87]

19. I think we lost a strong candidate when warner announced that he wouldn't run

southern governors have a strong record in presidential
elections . . . from both parties.

[SaveElmer]

22. True, but I think the dynamics have changed somewhat...

The north is becoming more solidly Democratic...something that could not be counted on 15 years ago. Southern states are not as important as they once were in building a winning strategy. The west is where Democrats will make the most gains in the near term.

[hijinx87]

23. I disagree

but 2008 will prove it one way or another.

still, I would hate to win the white house but lose the entire
south.

[SaveElmer]

24. Well that is likely no matter who we nominate...

The only southern states really in play are Florida, and possibly West Virginia (if you consider that southern)...

The vote could be closer than usual in Virginia and North Carolina.

On the other hand, Democrats have an excellent shot in states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico etc. I think Iowa will also return to the fold, and Ohio may swing our way.

Republicans won the Presidency for many years despite a solid Democratic South. The opposite could easily happen this time.

[Warpy]

6. Um, check out Brian Schweitzer

He won the govenorship in one of the reddest states in the country, Montana. He won by talking like a progressive and not talking down to the voters. He is a plain spoken man who knows how vitally important kitchen table issues are to the vast majority of voters. He won a large majority.

Clinging to DLC campaigns of the past is a recipe for total disaster. The DLC was lucky with Clinton, who had enough charisma for 10 men. They have not been lucky since, and their campaigns have ensured elections that have been close enough for GOP dirty tricksters to steal.

Conservatives are the problem and can never be part of the solution. People have been hammered by conservative economic policy from both parties since 1969. It's time for the conservatives to realize they can never win the confidence of enough voters to win. It's time that voters were given hope instead of business as usual. It's time for conservatives to offer advice but realize their attempt to run things has been a catastrophe.

The GOP has fear and hate on its side. It can be utterly destroyed if we create hope on ours. Conservatives can't do that.

[hijinx87]

8. interesting.

in another thread the argument is put forth that his populist
message is exciting huge crowds. ;-)

his ability to appeal to crowds was always a strength, of course.

[davidwparker]

11. wow. you didn't get to Obama until the 3rd paragraph.

"Obama's theme of bridging gaps between a divided country is exactly what people in this country want to hear at this moment in history"

And how is this different from Edward's pointing out this with his Two Americas?

on edit: switched to DU's funky and annoying method of indicating html.

[IndianaGreen]

12. It is up to the voters to decide what is a winning platform, not the political hacks!

Selling the platform to the voters is the purpose of retail politics.

[cali]

14. Platforms don't win campaigns

Candidates do, and John Edwards is an appealing candidate- as is Obama.

[DemDogs]

18. This is true

Course, we don't know yet whether Obama will have anything to say. I expect he will crawl as close to Edwards' message as possible. All signs lead to it. Hope is on the way from Edwards becomes The Audacity of Hope. Edwards turning the page from 2004 is used verbatim by 2006 Obama. Whatever he says, I think voters will listen to both of them because of their personal manners. Also think Iowa will look at the message and electability. Kerry edged Edwards in Iowa last time selling himself as the only electable candidate. If they liked him, they didn't like him enough to stick with him in 2006. Edwards 2006 Iowa numbers look a lot like his 2004 numbers. Kerry's electability no longer sells in Iowa and his personal manner is not enough to carry him.

[hijinx87]

20. I completely disagree

platforms are huge.

are you saying that charisma counts for more?

[cali]

25. Platforms are important but no

matter how the platform resonates, it has to have a good representative. And yes, I think who the candidate is- not necessarily charisma- is more important than any platform.

[hijinx87]

26. you must be in marketing.

;)

(I jest, of course)

[spooky3]

15. You make an interesting point

IMHO (I have no evidence to support this) noblesse oblige isn't felt if one is feeling very nervous about his or her own financial or personal affairs at the moment. People who are worried about keeping their own jobs and making ends meet, affording a house, staying healthy, educating their own kids, etc., are going to be less generous and concerned about those less fortunate than are people who feel comfortable and secure. Right now my sense is that many people in the middle class and other classes except the Bush base are very nervous about their own situations. They are worried about the future's being jeopardized by Bush's profligate and irresponsible spending (undermining social security, and creating bigger and bigger debt that they and their kids will have to pay off, etc.), the shift of good-paying jobs out of the country, as well as his endangering national security. So while an anti-poverty stance may be highly ethical, it alone won't be a winning platform, and the platform will need to be at least as recognizable by the majority as addressing the concerns of the middle class.

[Jai4WKC08]

16. When Bush puts 40K more troops into Iraq

And fucks it up even worse than it is now, America will be looking for someone who can straighten things out and bring our boys (and girls) home.

Just like they turned to Eisenhower to get us out of Korea.

It won't be Edwards or Obama. God help us if it's McCain, Giuliani or Gingrich.

[cleveramerican]

21. great post

I do think being everybody's second choice can pay off if something unforeseen happens.
I like the guy and I'm glad he's in the race. He is a long shot at best for the nomination.

A slim chance is still a chance.

[BlueManDude]

27. Alhena's right - "poverty" IS a losing issue.

Middle income Americans struggling to deal with raising kids, education, hetalt and housing costs are not intested in dealing with those in poverty.

They've got enuf on their plates. Edwards needs to talk about the middle class. He may have parts of his platform that address the middle class but he if gets stereotyped as the "poverty" candidate - he's toast.