Doug Schoen: Edwards is the Strongest Candidate in the General Election

[saracat]

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:eB4y7lkuKAUJ:www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/behind_the_horse_race_numbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_genera

l_election_match_ups+Doug+Schoen+on+Edwards&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


Behind the Horse Race Numbers: Edwards Strongest Democrat in General Election Match-ups
A Commentary by Douglas Schoen
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Advertisment
The most recent Rasmussen Reports data show that all of the most likely Democratic nominees lead their strongest prospective opponents. At this point John Edwards appears to be strongest in individual match-ups leading Giuliani by 9%, Thompson by 10%, and Romney by 11%.

Hillary Clinton holds almost as big a lead, but falls just short of Edwards' margin. She leads Giuliani by 5%, Thompson by 8%, and Romney by 9%.

Barack Obama holds a more narrow 5% lead over Giuliani, a 6% lead over Thompson, and a 3% lead over Romney.

How do we explain these findings, in the wake of Edwards' third place showing in Democratic primary trial heats?

First, one naturally points to Edwards' southern roots. Since John F. Kennedy's victory in 1960, the only Democrats to win the Presidency were southern Democrats Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Second, Edwards--despite his current left wing rhetorical appeal--is actually perceived as more conservative than either Clinton or Obama.

Overall, 44% perceive Edwards as liberal in comparison to 51% who percieive Obama as liberal and 57% who see Clinton in this way.

By contrast, 13% characterize Edwards as conservative, compared to 8% who see Clinton and Obama in this way.

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.

All of this may well be academic as Clinton leads national trial heats for the Democratic nomination according to the Real Clear Politics average. She also holds double digit leads in New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina and every early or important primary state. Rasmussen noted earlier this week that a Clinton victory is not inevitable, but she is the clear frontrunner.

The only place Clinton doesn’t have a solid lead at the moment is Iowa. Rasmussen noted recently that Iowa has become a must-win state for Obama. Despite his success in general election polling, the same is true for Edwards.

Douglas Schoen is a founding and former partner of Penn Schoen & Berland, and a Fox News Contributor.

Schoen was President Bill Clinton's research and strategic consultant during the 1996 reelection campaign.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. This is third incarnation of this article that I've seen.

What IS it about this lame article? :shrug: MKJ

[saracat]

2. It certainly isn't lane.Unless you think Schoen is lame? Or Rassmussen? Odd, when it supports Hillay

it is thought to be Fabulous and accurate. But "lame' wjen it doesn't Hmmm.

[aquart]

6. Must you make Edwards look so petty?

He deserves better.

[saracat]

10. I do not support Edwards for his "electability" but it is still a factor to be considered.This is

answer to tyhe Hillary folks who "insist' she is the most "electable' anfd that theire are "No' polls indicating Edwards is the most electable. I support edwards because I feel he is the only candidate that represents the people.JMHO.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

8. Sorry, the author of the article about the Dems needing to "bend", I kid you not, to the R's

just like Pres. Clinton (!) is the same Doug Schoen to whom you refer.

Someone whose style and substance I've apparently yet to grasp.

He sure churns out a lot.

MKJ

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. It's called "damning with faint praise, I believe". The sting is in its tail.

And it really is a sting in the sense of an elaborate 'con trick'. That, after all, is the business of the lobbyist, and none have served greater beasts in a bloodier jungle, it seems, than our friends.

"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.

All of this may well be academic as Clinton leads national trial heats for the Democratic nomination according to the Real Clear Politics average. She also holds double digit leads in New Hampshire, Florida, South Carolina and every early or important primary state. Rasmussen noted earlier this week that a Clinton victory is not inevitable, but she is the clear frontrunner."

Note the weasel contradiction between the first word of the first of the two paragraphs above, and the seminal import of the whole of the final paragraph, were it true. Indeed, the whole body of the article, bar the last paragrpah, is effectively meant to be an attention-grabber, for them to finally lower the boom! It's as if they called out, at the end of the article, "Ever been had, Dumbos?"

[aquart]

3. No one should base his primary vote on "electability."

Basically, that's giving your vote away to somebody else's supposition and it completely violates the basic premise of democracy: majority rules. And the majority IS DETERMINED BY VOTE, NOT SUPPOSITION.

You must vote YOUR choice, NO ONE ELSE's. That's the only way to determine the true majority.

Frankly, "electability" arguments are beneath contempt.

[saracat]

9. I would rather not "lose". with Hillary as the nominee.I see Hillary as a lose/lose proposition.

Even if she can eek out a victory, we lose.JMHO.

[babylonsister]

4. This guy's working overtime!

:crazy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587277

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. Perhaps, in an effort to counter the worst possible publicity represented by

Hillary's Blackwater lobbyists and pollsters. Forget their name.

[babylonsister]

18. That would be Penn, SCHOEN and Berland (PSB). Indeed! nt

[robinlynne]

19. yes, interesting....

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Heck, I hadn't realised. I know saracat was/(is) a Clark supporter, and though she'd

expostulate, it explains a whole lot to me.

[saracat]

21. I wasn't a Clarkie. My husband supported Clark.I supported Kerry in 2004.

I respect and like Clark.Does that make me a Clark supporter? I am an Edwards supporter this cycle.And I am pretty die hard about it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. Good on you! Though I'm puzzled as to how you can respect and like

such polar opposites, or indeed peddle the "findings" of such an infamous firm of lobbyists.

[saracat]

30. I thought Clark was "genuine" but I must say he disappointed me with his endorsement of Hillary.

but I should have expected it as I presueme the Clintonistas were behind his candidacy in 2004. The Arkansas Connection. Mary Steenburgen and Ted Danson introduced me to Clark and they have that same connection, at least Mary does. And they are also supporting Hillary .Sooo, my presumption may be true. Clark is a very brilliant man, and he to has a wonderful wife, that counts with me. I interviewed Clark and I liked him. But I really liked Kerry.

[saracat]

22. I hadn't considered that.But still, the Hillary people seem to like them so, I posted this!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Hey... You Can't Deny He's Prolific

eom

[Mass]

5. yawn - Polls about GE more than one year before election day and

before the nominee is selected are just that, meaningless.

I understand why Edwards's supporters are happy to promote that and to push anything going in this direction, but, honestly, I will not vote for electability only, neither for Hillary or Edwards. I will support a candidate I can moderately believe in, at least until there is a nominee.

[aquart]

7. Only right way to do it.

[w4rma]

11. Most electable. Most progressive. Best choice. (nt)

[flpoljunkie]

12. Consider the source!

[babylonsister]

13. Amen-and the motive(s). nt

[saracat]

23. But my "motive" is to let the Hillary people read what their own say!

[babylonsister]

31. Not your motive, why Schoen would be writing anything about

Edwards given his allegiances.

[saracat]

32. Something to ponder but as i say, I thought the Hilly people might like something by their own.

Nothing posted by anyone who doesn't think she walks on water has made a difference.And facts don't make a difference so, though I am disgusted by the Penn Pollsters, they might like this!

[jefferson_dem]

15. Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters, by Glenn Greenwald

Thursday September 27, 2007 11:04 EST
Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters
(updated below)

One of the more baffling aspects of "political journalism" in the United States is the mind-numbing obsession which most of the political press has with "horse race" analysis. Read any of the mainstream political magazines -- The New Republic, National Review, Politico, the major newsweeklies -- or view any of the cable news shows filled with the analysts who think they are the super-sophisticated insider political types and virtually all they ever do, literally, is prattle on in the most speculative and gossipy manner about which presidential candidates are winning and losing.

Aside from all the other obvious critiques made of this practice, the resulting chatter is unbelievably boring. I say it is "baffling" because it is hard to understand why someone would want to become a political journalist and then spend most of their time engaged in this sort of petty, substance-free chatter about which campaign has inched ahead and which one has fallen behind every day. It's all transparently baseless and meaningless. Look at any of the polling data or the predominant conventional wisdom for the last several elections months before the first primary vote was cast and, in retrospect, it all ends being completely misinformed.

In September of 2003, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean led every Democratic poll, and all of the cable news and political magazine horserace chatter was a complete waste of air. For people who chose for their careers to write about political issues, don't they have any interest at all in covering more substantive matters?

In any event, the Hillary Clinton campaign certainly recognizes that, in light of how our mainstream press covers the presidential campaign, perception of polling success is one of the critical factors in determining how a candidate is discussed -- certainly far more important than the substance of what the candidate is actually advocating. That is why Clinton's campaign is dominated by the execrable pollster Mark Penn, who manages single-handedly to embody, all in one person, everything that is sickly and wrong with our political establishment.

Penn has the perfect long-time (now former) partner in Douglas Schoen, whose purpose in life is to argue that Democrats must accommodate George Bush and his radicalism (by, among other things, embracing Joe Lieberman) -- and repudiate their embarrassing and rabid base -- as much as possible if they want to succeed. One of the most disturbing aspects of a Clinton presidency is that individuals such as Penn and Schoen -- along with the likes of telecom lobbyist Jamie Gorelick and Iraq War cheerleader Mike O'Hanlon -- are highly likely to occupy critical positions of power in a Clinton administration, just as they did in the last Clinton administration.

MORE ---> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/27/schoen/index.html

[saracat]

16. But the point is the Hillary people like these guys and even they say Edwards is the most "electable

Sheesh.What part of that concept is not understandable? I don't care about Schoen myself but somehow when he supports Hillary they all cheer.When he states Edwards can win, he is evil.They can't have it both ways!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. This Is My Two Cents For Whatever It's Worth

I think Clinton, Obama, and Edwards can beat any potential GOP rival with Edwards having a slightly better chance than Obama and Clinton and Clinton having a slightly better chance than Obama... Edwards comes from the mold that has produced the last three Democratic presidents, and the only Democrats elected president in the past 48 years... The mold being a Protestant white male from the South...But the past is not prologue and a black man or a white woman have just as much right to that ring...

That being said, Iowa is win or go home for Edwards ,no matter how bright his prospects are in the general election...

[saracat]

26. And I tend to agree DSB!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Try To Be A Realist

I try not to confuse what would be nice and what is...

[Hieronymus]

24. John Edwards is our great hope to restore the Democratic party.

[saracat]

28. I agree with that as well!

[Nutmegger]

33. R&K for Edwards!!!

:thumbsup::kick:

[Catchawave]

35. Too bad Tim Russert didn't read this article

before he "grilled" Edwards today :evilgrin: