Is Edwards "the Most Electable"?

[DeepModem Mom]

WP "Fact Checker," by Michael Dobbs


John Edwards (Evan Vucci/AP)

John Edwards statement to Good Morning America, September 3, 2007: "And the same polls that you're talking about, if you look at the general election match-ups, show very clearly that I'm the strongest Democrat to beat the Republicans in the general election."

The Facts

National head-to-head polls collected by Real Clear Politics do not support Edwards' claim. They vary week by week, alternately favoring one candidate, then another. The most recent poll averages suggest that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have as good a chance as Edwards in many head-to-head matchups. We include the decimal points in the following September 24 data from Real Clear Politics, even though pollsters caution that they imply a level of precision that no poll can possibly have. Hypothetical winners of each contest are marked in bold. (NOTE: Chart at WP link below.)

Asked to provide factual support for Edwards' statement, Edwards' campaign spokesman Eric Schultz pointed to polling by Rasmussen (LINK: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics) that showed Edwards outperforming Obama and Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against the four leading Republican candidates. But other polls have shown Clinton or Edwards with a slight edge.

"The polls do seem to suggest a structural advantage for Democrat (sic) candidates against Republicans at this early stage," said Washington Post director of polling John Cohen. "But there are no consistent, reliable data showing Edwards with a better chance than other Democrats."...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/john_edwards_strongest_democra.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I Think Any Of The Big Three Can Beat The GOOPERS

I think Edwards slight advantage is he's the "formula" Democratic candidate that has won every election since 1960- Protestant southern male....

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Interesting! "Protestant southern male...." Could be. nt

[Kuni]

3. Not if he’s going to wuss out and fail to point out Romney spent $2000 on makeup.

When what he spends on haircuts is used against him.

[Apollo11]

4. Edwards should tell us why he should be President

I do not like it when he sends out this message that he is the most electable candidate.

It is one step away from saying that it would be a mistake to nominate a woman or a person of color.

White men are a minority of voters and yet they have always (until now) held the Presidency.

I think we should look closely at all the candidates' qualities and qualifications.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have a lot of positive qualities.

I like Edwards, but he needs to show us why he is the best person for the job.

[JDPriestly]

10. He is the most electable candidate but not because of his race or gender.

IMO, Obama is very personable, but Clinton has better knowledge and understanding of the issues than Obama.

So why do I prefer Edwards? Because Edwards is as personable as Obama, has the knowledge and understanding of Clinton, and speaks with more clarity, insight and compassion than either Obama or Clinton. Hillary attracts the hate of the right-wingers. Edwards' has a humility that makes it difficult for those who would like to attack Democrats to get him to react to their hate. At a spiritual level, he turns to something beyond himself when put on the spot. You can see this happening, and it is disarming. There is no way to attack that. Hillary, on the other hand, bristles and talks back. Edwards fights from a source greater than himself. Hillary is all about Hillary, so she can't go beyond herself when attacked.

Obama talks about bringing the country together. But he leaves out the first step in that process: acknowledging the divisions and their causes. Edwards is acknowledging the divisions and identifying their causes. That is the first step in bringing the country together. There will be no healing unless we go through that first step.

As I think this through, I come to the realization that I believe Edwards should be elected because he is spiritually (and I'm not exactly talking about religion) the best able to handle the job, and especially the healing process the country needs to go through. I suspect that he learned, either consciously or unconsciously, a lot about healing emotional scars from the loss of this son. He may also have learned a lot about it from his work as a plaintiff's attorney and dealing with injured people and people who have suffered serious losses.

I am moved by the fact that the Edwards are such a close couple in spite of having lost their son. Very often, the loss or injury of a child destroys the relationship between the parents. The Edwards apparently did not mire themselves in self-pity, but found a higher purpose for their lives and learned to give up some of their ego. I guess what I am saying in a word is that I want Edwards to be president not because he is a man, but because I believe he is a better human being with more integrity than any other candidate. And by integrity, I'm not just talking about how a person handles money or whether they never make mistakes in such an area, but the extent to which they genuinely seek to live by values that transcend their own interests. This is not to say that any of the other candidates are bad people. Hillary's polarization however is a response to something awry in her on a spiritual level.

We need a Ghandi to lead our country at this time, but Ghandi is not running in this election. Edwards is not extremely close to Ghandi, but he is the closest we have in my opinion. Obama may develop into a Ghandi, but he is not there yet. Gore might be capable of being a Ghandi to us, but he is not running. Edwards is the best we have. I hope that he continues to develop spiritually and to become a Ghandi figure to our country. We certainly need to be led out of the domination of the corporate state.

[Apollo11]

11. You're comparing Edwards to Ghandi !!??

I am not sure that I agree with what you posted. Especially: "Edwards' has a humility that makes it difficult for those who would like to attack Democrats to get him to react to their hate. At a spiritual level, he turns to something beyond himself when put on the spot. You can see this happening, and it is disarming. There is no way to attack that."

I remember the debate in Chicago where one man stood up and told a heart-wrenching story about not being able to afford healthcare for his wife. You probably saw it. The "what's wrong with America?" question - which for some reason was addressed to John Edwards (I think it was Olbermann chairing the debate).

The audience applauded this guy's bravery for having the courage to stand up and tell his story.

Edwards was grinning from ear to ear - showing all his teeth. It was like he could not believe his luck at being the candidate who got the chance to answer this question.

I must say I thought that smiling in this situation was inappropriate. Some people will say it was out of sympathy with the guy who asked the question. But I think it was more like "This is great. Now I get to tell everyone why I support universal healthcare."

I respect politicians who have strong values ingrained in their character (like Al Gore).

I am suspicious of anyone who "turns to something beyond himself". That sounds like the kind of religious garbage we have come to expect from Republican politicians.

But then I don't believe in a higher power. At least not one who helps candidates answer questions.

[JDPriestly]

12. I am not talking about religion or belief.

It is something intangible and hard to describe. Hillary is an example of someone with a huge ego. Rarely does she forget herself. Yet she makes a huge show of being very religious. Romney is another example of total ego. He too makes a big show of being religious. I'm not saying Edwards is at the level of Ghandi. I'm saying that, on a continuum, he is a bit closer than most of the other candidates.

[JDPriestly]

5. I've been watching the Rasmussen polls which pit the Dems against the Repubs

and Edwards is consistently ahead of Clinton and neck and neck with Obama. The Post needs to take another look.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Think The Post Is Looking At Several Polls And Not Just Your Favorite One

eom

[rinsd]

9. Rasmussen isn't the only one to do head to heads

Real Clear Politics has all the head to head matchups

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

The Post is still full of it by using brand new polling data to disprove something Edwards said nearly a month ago.

[Kelly Rupert]

7. Given the head-to-head polls, the answer is, "No, Hillary is." n/t

[rinsd]

8. While I don't think Edwards is the most electable, this is a BS hit piece using new data

They are taking something he said on Sept 3rd and are using polling data from 3 weeks later to disprove it.


The last 2 months have seen head to head numbers have show more movement than the Dem primary polls.

[Cameron27]

13. The Edwards campaign is still pushing his electability:

"In a mixed audience of decided and undecided voters, Elizabeth Edwards promoted her husband as the most electable and progressive Democratic candidate during a Friday afternoon house party in Lee."

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070923/FOSTERS01/709230063

[Think82]

14. BIDEN is the most electable

dems, ind, and repubs respect him. In fact, his iraq plan is up for vote today, and has several dem AND republican co-sponsers. He has a long, esteemed track record of working in a bi-partisan fashion to get things done. Don't let the msm dictate who you vote for. And watch these short videos before dismissing him. That's all I ask:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFWNQZVoiDs&mode=user&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaY_i97xaKo&mode=user&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-N-Sm_TnO4&mode=user&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjzaCrjY448