Both Edwards and Clinton Would Win The White House

[ruggerson]

It's just that Edwards would win by a greater margin, perhaps far greater, and I'm not sure we want another nail biter.

I'm fine with either as nominee, but my vote will go to John Edwards in the primary, and not because I think Hillary is unelectable - I think she's very electable - but I want to demolish them this time.

I want to leave them lying as roadkill, demoralized for a good eight years.

I want them to taste total, crushing defeat.

[splat]

1. I agree. Racism and sexism are very alive.

I think an Edwards-Clinton ticket would be a huge step for America, and would be about as much change as people could take.

[itsrobert]

2. Plus Edwards is not part of the "Cultrue of Corruption"

He doesn't take money from the big lobbyist like Clinton does.

[calteacherguy]

3. I disagree. I think Edwards would lose.

In any case, the issue is moot. He won't be the nominee.

[Inspired]

6. I disagree.

He very well could be the nominee. You're jumping the gun a little bit....but if it makes you feel better, so be it.

[itsrobert]

7. Don't worry

He's probably on the Clinton payroll. Probably worried about his next paycheck since Hillary has to pay back those shady donations she received.

[calteacherguy]

18. Nope, just a poor teacher.

:hi:

[Pyrzqxgl]

8. Don't be too sure about Edwards not being the one.

Its a long long way between now and Feb.and lots of water to flow under the bridge. If he does get the nomination,
I agree, he wins big and carries a lot of folks in with him. I want to see those 67 votes in the Senate and with
John leading the way I think we can do it.

[Catchawave]

16. Oh cal, you say that in all the threads.....

we want to WIN the General :hi:

[calteacherguy]

17. I think Edwards would be characterized as weak and effeminate by the right.

And I think he would lose. I really do. Also some irresponsible things he has said about Iraq and other foreign policy issues would come back to haunt him.

[patrice]

4. We could seal this deal if it were:

Clinton:Kucinich or Edwards:Kucinich.

[Clark2008]

5. But neither one will.

And I don't have a clue who I'm voting for in February.

[cobalt1999]

9. Clinton, Edwards, or Obama win in a landslide.

If ever an election was a slam dunk, 2008 is one.

[Lucinda]

19. From your lips...

I cannot see how it could possibly slip away this time. They are all a zillion times better than the Repub nominees.

[ihelpu2see]

10. If Calif. changes its way of giving out electoral votes Hillary cant win. nt

[sampsonblk]

11. There is no greater defeat than to elect Hillary Clinton

They will all need serious intervention if Hillary wins.

[Hieronymus]

12. I agree, Edwards is a much more attractive candidate.

[Anarchy.X]

13. It would be a landslide

Although I'd rather it be Edwards as President, I think this would be a perfect combination. They would cover all the South, minorities, as well as the moderate Dems/Liberals. Hell, they would even get a good amount of Independents. It would be a landslide for sure. It also seems plausible since it was shown that Hillary and Edwards do talk, especially after the microphone taping at one of the debates this past summer.

[abburdlen]

14. polling seems to indicate

that Sen Clinton does NOT hurt Dems down ballot
Open Left: Poll Shows Clinton Would Not Hurt Democrats Down Ballot

Personally I would have liked to have voted for Clark but it wasn't in the cards - I'm more concerned making sure whomever wins be it Clinton or Gravel, gets a solid majority in the Congress.

[knight_of_the_star]

15. I want the GOP dead, not beaten

They need to suffer a serious wipeout, a rock-solid repudiation at the ballot box, not another 51-49. That would perpetuate the same climate we've had for the past seven years.