Some observations on the Edwards campaign.

[calteacherguy]

John Edwards started his campaign first, and he has name recognition from his run as VP last time with the "likely Democratic voters" often targeted in polling. His campaign has put out more policy proposals, and more detailed ones, than any other campaign. Many of the proposals he has advocated tend to be to the left of Clinton and Obama. He is clearly trying to position himself as the most progressive candidate with the most detailed policy proposals.

However, his position in the polls has been remarkably static for many months. He has stayed in roughly the 11-13% range for a long period of time. And, in Iowa, where he has spent significantly more time and resources than any other candidate, he has still in many months of work not been able to gain a significant and lasting advantage over his competitors.

Edwards continues to put out more and more detailed policy proposals and statements geared to energize the "base," yet these proposals of his seem to be having no affect whatsoever on his poll numbers, and Edwards continues to do more of the same.

Is there something Edwards should be doing differently to raise his standing among likely Democratic voters, or is it ultimately not about his proposals, but about Edwards?

[Triana]

1. I think there's some the the MEDIA should be doing differently in regards to Edwards..

...namely they need to drop their Hillary / Obama Inevitability Campaign. It's not Edwards. It's the media. It wasn't Gore in 2000 either, nearly as much as it was the stinking media.

[calteacherguy]

2. I don't buy that argument.

For one thing, it doesn't explain his inability to gain a significant and lasting lead in Iowa, where he has been campaigning the most and for the longest period of time. Likely Democratic voters in Iowa have seen more of Edwards than anyone else, regardless of the media.

Also, likely Democratic voters know Edwards from his run in 04' and VP candidacy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Post 6 debunks that Iowa meme nt

[Truth2Tell]

13. Who says his lead in Iowa isn't going to be lasting? You? n/t

[karynnj]

19. The national media does play a role even in shaping opinions in Iowa

I would bet the Iowa polls this far out in 2003, showed Dean ahead - not as much as the national - but ahead. It would be hard to believe that national media has no play on Iowa. What Iowa has that is different is the fact that people can with relatively little effort meet the candidates in relatively small groups, This as the caucuses approach can allow them to reject the media favorite.

I think you may be on to something. Edwards has enjoyed good media in the past - in 2004 and in fall 2006 through early 2007. One problem I see is that this years campaign is not directly building on 2004. His positions are so different - they appeal to people who hardly considered him i 2004, but they may allienate the people who chose him because he was the Southern, conservative Democrat hawk.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. You hit the nail on the head

There are many people who think HRC and BO are the only serious candidates for president. How many times have you been asked "So, are you supporting Hillary or Obama?", for instance?

[Triana]

17. those people are buying the inevitability and letting the MEDIA choose their candidate...

...sad. Just sad.

[madrchsod]

3. clinton and obama throw poo on each other

so the media pays attention. edwards is`t getting any press because he`s stayed out of the clinton/obama poo throwing contest. the media loves it when two candidates do nothing but fight among themselves ,after all actually articulating one`s positions is dam boring.

[killbotfactory]

4. I don't remember Edwards hitting so hard on economic issues in the past

Maybe people don't think he's entirely sincere on these issues?
Maybe these issues aren't as popular as other issues?

[rwheeler31]

5. The right is so afraid of him and we have a coward media who

will not say it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Obama has outspent Edwards 4-to-1 in Iowa

Clinton has also spent about 60% more than Edwards in Iowa. Obama has almost as many field offices in Iowa as Clinton and Edwards combined (BO has 28, HRC/JE 29). Clinton has double the staff JE has in Iowa, and Obama presumably has even more than Clinton given the number of offices he has in Iowa. Obama has run ads in Iowa; Edwards has not. You are simply wrong when you say Edwards has spent the most resources in Iowa. If anything, Obama's spending spree in Iowa shows Edwards has a solid base in Iowa. Edwards has been consistent all year in Iowa and has led in most polls there. He isn't going to build a 20 point lead there given Obama's spending spree and given Clinton's popularity, which is partly due to being married to a popular former president.

Edwards is catching Obama for 2nd in the national polls. You forgot to mention that.

Edit: Obama spent $2.2 million in Iowa (the NYT said he spent $1.6 million, perhaps they mistakenly used 1Q numbers) in the last quarter. The figures for the rest are apparently also second quarter numbers.

[calteacherguy]

9. Thanks for the information.

I assumed he had spent the most in Iowa because he's been there since last year, and I heard from his campaign they were basically just going to focus on Iowa.

However, I think recent events would be more likely expressed as Obama slipping a little rather than Edwards "catching," given that there has been no significant movement in Edwards' poll numbers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. You have to remember the obscene amounts of money BO and HRC are raising

Which is partly due to their fat cat and corporate support...At any rate, they simply have more money to throw around. Clinton has raised $63 million (includes transfers of her senate funds), Obama $58 million, and Edwards $23 million. Obama has spent the most so far . He has spent $23 million, Clinton $18 million, and Edwards $10 million. Edwards' figure is not much more than Richardson and Dodd, who have spent $6 million each. The key thing is, though, that in the early states Obama is showering money. He has outspent Clinton 4-to-1 in SC, and Edwards 2-to-1 in SC. I mentioned the Iowa numbers earlier. I have not seen the overall numbers for NH and NV yet.

Valid point, although Edwards has gained a few points while BO has fallen, although most of the deficit reduction is to BO's decline rather than an Edwards surge. However, given the money spent, it seems Edwards is getting more bang for the buck and he is doing this despite receiving far less CMSM coverage than Obama. What do you think the Iowa numbers would look like if Edwards spent as much as Obama has?

Edit: Apparently the Obama numbers (from the NYT) for Iowa are wrong. He spent $2.2 million (from The Hill) there--in the last quarter alone.

[calteacherguy]

11. Interesting.

This may be naive of me, but it just seems that Iowa would not be that expensive of a market. It doesn't seem to me $$$ would be the deciding factor there, especially given the great deal of the time candidates spend there in person, and the fact that most likely caucus voters would (I would think) spend some time listening to each candidate in person. Still, the fact that Obama has run ads there and Edwards has not could make a difference at this point.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Money will not be decisive there, as the polls show, but it helps a lot!

Obama has the money so why not spend it? It is interesting that Clinton is being more restrained in her early state spending. Perhaps Clinton is spending more in Super Tuesday states?

Yesterday I visited an auto racing website frequented primarily by foreigners. Obama was even advertising there. What does that tell you?

[calteacherguy]

14. Given her lead I'm sure Clinton has calculated she can afford to be restrained at this point.

Can those funds be used for the general election should she become the nominee? My understanding is that they can.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Good question

If true that would explain some of it. However, as far as overall spending goes she has spent $18 million to Obama's $23 million. That is roughly 80% of Obama's total. Where is the money going, though? She is spending much less, relatively speaking, in the early states.

[jillan]

16. It's early yet. The polls don't mean much.

He still has plenty of time, and if he does as good tomorrow as he did in the last debate,
his numbers should rise.
And he will do great tomorrow - Labor - it is his #1 passion.

[saltpoint]

18. Edwards' team is running one of the very best campaigns ever run for

the elevation of public discourse on poverty and health care.

It makes a lot of people uneasy to hear someone running on issues which impact the well-being of have-nots.

The media doesn't quite know what to do with a campaign like that. Everyone on cable news is always so nattily dressed in designer duds. The people Edwards speaks for don't shop in those stores.

Polls come and go, and the 08 presidential polls won't be different. In the last two months, Bill Richardson's numbers have risen. In the last month Biden's numbers have risen. Over the same period McCain's have been sliding downward. It's way, way early. At this early inning of the game, Tommy Thompson still thinks he has a shot at the White House. That's how early it is.