Why John Edwards Is The Most Electable Democrat
by Michael 4 Edwards, Thu Oct 04, 2007 at 10:45:19 AM EST
I had to write and post this in a hurry on my way out the door, but the substance is there for those who want to read it.
As many of you already know, earlier this morning Clinton loyalist Doug Schoen admitted that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/behind_the_horse_race_nu mbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_gene ral_election_match_ups
I am going to use this opportunity to do two things. Provide a link to the overwhelming evidence that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat (the compilation is being constantly updated),
and debunk the "No New York" theory that some Clinton supporters are trying to advance.
If you are going to try to cite RCP averages, read review first.
The "No New York" theory is basically that Clinton will keep New York blue and Edwards cannot. The New York theory is based on Edwards losing the state by 1% to Giuliani in the latest Survey USA poll of that state.
This theory is absurd. But it should be dealt with.
I should also update the current Survey USA recap...
Out of 51 match ups so far...
Edwards outperforms Clinton 35 times. Clinton outperforms Edwards 15 times. They tie once.
Edwards outperforms Obama 46 times. Obama outperforms Edwards 4 times. They tie once.
The theory does have a little bit of truth to it. Clinton does do better against Giuliani compared to Edwards than she does against Romney and Thompson compared to Edwards. She does do better in New York, she is strong in Florida right now against Giuliani. However, it should be noted that she is far more familiar with voters than Edwards is (familiarity is much different than name recognition...you can recognize a name and still be more familiar with another one. This actually hurts Obama as well, though not as much as his supporters claim it does. He has had a high profile for since the 2004 convention speech, and he has been the co-media darling for quite some time now. However, especially against a household name like Giuliani, Obama deserves some slack.
Back to my point...
Edwards clearly outperforms Clinton against Romney and Thompson.
But my point is that nationally, Edwards consistently outperforms Clinton against Giuliani, and he would be a much better candidate to secure 270 electoral votes.
Here is the explanation why, and some of the reasons why the "No New York" theory is so ridiculous.
The first major problem with this theory is that it is mathematically nonsensical. Edwards does better than Clinton does against Giuliani nationally by enough that the support he receives must come from somewhere, and those people are live in states with electoral votes as well. Sure the electoral college is not perfect, but with Edwards doing anywhere from 3 %to 7% better than Clinton vs. Giuliani nationally there is no way that Clinton has more electoral votes. Unless of course you want to argue that he somehow gets 100% of the vote in ID, UT, WY, SD, and MT or something like that.
Even if Edwards were trailing in NY (the poll the Clinton supporters point to has him down by all of 1% point) then, to reconcile his national performance, he must be doing so well in states like TX, OK, MO, KY, WV, VA, TN, NC (a PPP poll recently had him tied or beating every one of the "four tops" there), and GA that not only would he make up for the lost electoral votes in NY, he would gain a whole bunch more.
Another problem for this theory is that the people who promote it do not understand seem to "natural closing". Natural closing is the term given to Democratic leaning voters ending up where they were always going to end up, with the Democrat. The same happens on the Republican side. When natural closing occurs New York will be safely in the Democratic problem.
Yes, natural closing will happen on the other side as well. But part of what makes Edwards so electable is that he does so well now that even after the closing occurs he will still win or compete in IA, MO, OH, KY, WV, VA, NC, TN (against anyone but Thompson), AR, GA, FL and probably even in "death row for Democrats", ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, and TX, NM, NV, and CO.
Not only will New York and similar states be in Edwards column once the race begins, Edwards will be able to compete against Giuliani in states that Clinton simply cannot. Why? Well, Doug Schoen's analysis (I can't believe I am quoting an orignial memebr of the DLC Hack Pack) gives us some insight...
"Finally, Edwards at this point demonstrates the greatest appeal to Independents beating Guiliani by 13%. Obama wins Independents by 5% and Clinton wins them by 3% against Guiliani"
Thank you Doug, for helping prove my point. When natural closing occurs Edwards will have the current blue states in his pocket (I could potentially see Giuliani making a run in New Jersey, but like I said before those electoral votes will be more than made up for) and Edwards' superiority among Independents will ensure that he can compete against Giuliani in states Clinton could not dream of competing in.
That is the point in all of this. In an actual election he can keep the blue states blue and expand into a lot of red states that no other Democrat can.
If you are accepting both Survey USA numbers and the national general election polls then that would mean that Clinton's national numbers are helped by huge leads she in states that are going to go for the Democratic candidate anyway. That means that Edwards makes up the deficit her lead in blue states gives her in the national vote and then a whole lot more in competitive states. In fact, Clinton's huge lead in solid blue states actually helps the Edwards electability argument, because that means that Edwards is consistently outperforming Clinton nationally against Giuliani by a considerable amount because he does well enough in the states Clinton cannot compete in to make up for her lead in solid blue states, and then give him around a 5% advantage Vs. Giuliani compared to Clinton.
You can either accept this, or throw out either the national GE polling or the Survey USA polling. You can't accept both and not cede that Edwards is doing extremely well in places Clinton could never compete ion.
The "No New York" theory also assumes that national primary polling is accurate, and thus Giuliani is the frontrunner. People need to remember that only 7-11% turnout for primaries. That means that the vast majority of the sample will not even vote. Senator Clinton and Giuliani both are both more familiar with voters, and especially in Senator Clinton's case, "low-info" voters (that is not a slur, by the way, person who thought I called you stupid last time, that is a commonly used term) think that they are supposed to support her. But they are not very likely to vote in a primary and even less likely to show up and caucus.
Rasmussen, who uses a tighter, but still not nearly tight enough screen on their national primary polling sees a significant increase for Thompson and Romney. Their order is usually Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, than McCain...as opposed to Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney. And that is what an only slightly tighter screen does. Though Giuliani is doing better in NH, he is struggling in IA and SC. And his "firewall" - FL, is up fro grabs for Romney (Jeb Bush anyone?) and Thompson as well.
My point is that Clinton supporters try to muddy the waters on Giuliani, but the truth is that not only does Edwards do better against him in a GE match up, but he is far from a lock to be the nominee.
I think it is good that at least this group of Clinton supporters is admitting that Edwards is the most electable against Thompson and Romney. They are two-third off the way there.
Some Clinton supporters have said out that if I don't have maps to go along with the numbers they are "worthless". There is one problem with the map requirement. Survey USA is not releasing numbers for every state, so many of those states are going to be, at best, educated guesses.
There is ample proof that Edwards can compete for WAY more electoral votes than Clinton can, no matter who the GOP nominee is, and making a nice little map of just the Survey USA numbers in certain states interpreted by Clinton supporters...or for that matter Edwards supporters is highly misleading.
I have said it a hundred times...look at the totality of evidence.
Another problem is that the Clinton supporters that have been spinning their own special methodology. For instance, though the margin of error is around 4.50% it can expand to them depending on who is winning or losing and by how much. If Clinton is trailing by anything less than 6 or 7 she is "within the margin of error". But because Edwards trails Giuliani by all of one percent (with the match up in the mid 40's) he "turns New York red." If Edwards leads Giuliani by 8% then somehow the margin of error magically expands and "it is within the MoE so he'll probably turn that state red too". Yet if Clinton is leading a Republican by as little as 2 or 3% then she "beats them easily". You cannot have it both ways.
Some of the Clinton supporters' maps are as disingenuous as the Giuliani campaign's maps.
Obviously Clinton supporters don't like that I bring this up and they will try to throw any spin out there just to mitigate the damage. Debunking your claims is fun, and easy, so please keep them coming. All I can say is that the evidence is overwhelming, and I wish you would actually look at it for once, but I am betting that you will continue your cognitive dissonance. If you have a problem with my averaging out the results against the Republicans at the general election polling review then take it up with pollsters like Rasmussen, because they do it to. And if you have a problem with my pointing out that John Edwards is by far the most electable Democrat, take it up with a key Clinton advisor.
We need someone who can bring the country with them to do things like make Universal Health Care a reality. We need someone who can appeal to the hearts and minds of the American people.
A wise man once said that John Edwards could "talk an owl out of his tree". That man was none other than former President Clinton.
So a top Clinton advisor admits that Edwards is the most electable.
President Clinton admits that he is extremely persuasive.
And Senator Clinton has already endorsed his Universal Health Care plan.
Who would have known that some of John Edwards' strongest advocates would be from the Clinton campaign?
Links
Survey USA
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a spx
General Election Polling Review
http://esrc08.blogspot.com/Any theory about electability advanced by supporters of other candidates can be debunked at the link above.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
