Question--What Makes John Edwards so "electable" in the GE to those who say this a lot?

[FrenchieCat]

What is it about John Edwards that makes him the "Most Electable" in the General Election, as folks are saying on DU here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3612930&mesg_id=3612971

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3612930&mesg_id=3612992

and here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3612930&mesg_id=3613060

And everywhere on DU......really?

Is it that he's most experience on National Security issues? I don't think that his resume indicates that.

Has the most Executive experience? He has none to my knowledge.

Is he least mistake free? He has made his share of mistakes, and has "sorry" all over his record to prove it.

is the most Educated? Not compared to the other candidates.

That he is the smartest? I don't particularily think so, and I find nothing that reinforce that he is the smartest in the race.

That he is the most eloquent? Edwards has had good speeches, but nothing to rave about compared to say....Obama.

Has he a longest record of service in Government as a public servant? Not according to the record.

Has he shown that he is the most courageous? Changing opinions with timing in direct corolation with polls, promising a lot of stuff that he'll do when elected, and sitting on the sideline during the campaign shouting directions to the others who have to vote isn't about courage.

That he has the most money? Not by a long shot....and in fact, his choice of accepting matching funds puts him at a disavantage in between the convention and the GE.

That the media will give him the best coverage to help us win? Sounds like the media doesn't care for him since so many are saying he is being "blacked out".

That he is the least known? Well yes and no. The dirt on Edwards has yet to be dug up and presented (has he had relatively favorable coverage through the 2004 election)....but many Americans know he was on the Democratic ticket last time round.

That his wife and children are smart and lovely? That may be true, but so are the spouses and family of all of the other candidates.

That he has been consistent with most of his views? No, cause he has changed many of his views.

So what is it in your view that makes John Edwards soooo electable to the majority of Americans, including Democrats, Independents, moderates, and some disaffected Repugs? :shrug:

Please let me know, cause I'm missing what it is about John Edwards that makes so many here on DU say....."he is most electable".

Thank you.

[Clintonista2]

1. His hair... Kidding!

nm

[XemaSab]

2. He's got pale skin and a dick?

:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

12. Simple and crass as that is...........

you may have given the actual answer. Plus he's from the south (as is Fred Thompson and Huckabee).....

I'm hoping there is much more to this "electability" than the color of his skin, his genitalias, and the type of accent he sports! :(

[motocicleta]

46. I think that's it.

If only he was a governor, not a senator, he'd be a shoo-in.

Speaking politically coldly, that is. I don't like the guy, but if we're going to be stuck with someone I don't like, which describes the top three candidates for the nomination, I would prefer the one most likely to win.

[harun]

75. It's that simple: White, Male, can speak Southern

Repugs in the South will not be motivated to go to the polls to vote against him like they would Hillary.

[Ethelk2044]

102. If it was a White male issue. He would have carried the South when he was running with Kerry.

Edwards did not carry his own state how in the hell can he carry the south.

[harun]

108. Because they didn't like Kerry, who is out of the North East

like Hillary is.

(Not that I don't think we should run candidates out of the Northeast, just the reason I think Edwards is a better choice than Hillary)

[EVDebs]

3. He could recite this poem 'The Ordinary Man' and mean it, while HRC et al could not

If you and I should chance to meet,
I guess you wouldn't care;
I'm sure you'd pass me in the street
As if I wasn't there;
You'd never look me in the face,
My modest mug to scan,
Because I'm just a commonplace
And Ordinary Man.

But then, it may be, you are too
A guy of every day,
Who does the job he's told to do
And takes the wife his pay;
Who makes a home and kids his care,
And works with pick or pen. . . .
Why, Pal, I guess we're just a pair
Of Ordinary Men.

We plug away and make no fuss,
Our feats are never crowned;
And yet it's common coves like us
Who make the world go round.
And as we steer a steady course
By God's predestined plan,
Hats off to that almighty Force:
THE ORDINARY MAN.

http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/show/21351-Robert-W-Service-The-Ordinary-Man

He's lost an election with Kerry awhile back and keeps fighting the progressive cause; his wife's got cancer and he knows what the little guy's problems are, having "been there, done that" for quite awhile. He gets it, where the others don't.

If YOUR job was outsourced you DON'T want HRC to keep that happening to others.

Just so you know now.

[FrenchieCat]

6. What makes him so much more "ordinary" than say......

Richardson, Obama, and Biden. What is Extraordinary about them....or even about Hillary Clinton, that makes John Edwards a better candidate to you?

[EVDebs]

7. Has YOUR job ever been outsourced, FrenchieCat ?

[FrenchieCat]

10. What does my job have to do with it? Last I check, Edwards voted on

some legislation when he could vote that didn't serve those whose job ended up outsourced.

China ring a bell? What about Hedgefunds with locations in the Cayment Islands?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Permanent "Free" Trade Status For China

It's heppin' the lil' guy. Heppin' him right into mah predatory lendin' hedge fund.

Suckas!

[1932]

32. hey, Manny, how does the CATO institute rank Edwards on free trade?

You never reply when I tell you he had the lowest rating of anyone running in 2004, including Kucinich and Gephardt.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Link?

If you're saying he usually votes against "free" trade - he pulled a Hillary, i.e., he voted hard right on the only ones that really matter (China, NAFTA) and left on the much less important ones.

[1932]

51. I've given it to you 20 times. Here it is again.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

And, by the way, it's not "permanent free trade status" -- it has to be voted on every year.

[MannyGoldstein]

84. Earn $10 For Your Favorite Charity

If you can find even two instances where you gave me that link, I'll send $10 to your favorite charity. It's possible that I missed it once - but I'd be quite surprised by missing it twice. 20 is right out.

As to the link that you reference, it's down now - I'll check it later. But I'm pretty sure that he just pulled a Hillary.

[1932]

91. I'll get it for you the next time you make that claim and I have to give you this link.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. C'mon - Use DU's Search Function

Can't be that difficult. Earn a quick $10 for the Edwards campaign (or whoever else).

[1932]

96. Here are five times I've responded to you about this:

1: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3334630#3335641

2:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3334630#3337654

3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3334630#3339273

4: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3285628#3285768

5: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3285628#3285737

[MannyGoldstein]

111. I Count A Total Of Zero References To That Link

Sorry, no $10.

[1932]

113. The link is in those threads. But I guess if you close your eyes and cover your ears

you can keep posting whatever uninformed BS you'd like to post and still have a clear conscience?

Are you saying that you didn't see the link and you didn't read the rest of the posts in that thread, but you did read my post?

That's quite an effort you're making to be uninformed. Keep your ten dollars and buy a book.

[1932]

117. Here are numbers 6, 7, 8 & 9.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2844201&mesg_id=2844582

[EVDebs]

22. Last I checked Hillary was in the pocket of Tata Consultancy

So you'll all know who to thank when your job ends up going overseas. Just say Ta-Ta to your job.

Critics tie Clinton to offshoring
Touted company’s promised local jobs never materialized
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/168082.html

[Clark2008]

67. Bingo.

And he was hardly "ordinary."

He grew up Upper Middle Class - not dirt poor, as he likes to allege. There is NOTHING wrong with Upper Middle Class making it big, don't get me wrong - it's just his lying about his roots that bothers me.

[JDPriestly]

81. Are you claiming to know the income of his family when he was

Please tell us just what you know about it. It is my understanding that his father worked in lower middle management of a local mine, and his mother worked part of the time in a post office. I may be wrong. Management at the local level of a mining company is not upper middle class. Not by any measure. Not unless he had an ownership interest in the company. His father may have had a desk job, but that does not mean much. I don't think you know what you are talking about. If you do, please prove it.

[MannyGoldstein]

85. His Father Was In Charge Of The Mill

He sure wasn't poor.

[JDPriestly]

89. What is your source for that?

The family moved several times during Edwards' childhood, eventually settling in Robbins, North Carolina, where his father worked as a textile mill floor worker, eventually promoted to supervisor; his mother had a roadside antique finishing business and then worked as a postal letter carrier when his father left his job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards


1. Johnny Reid Edwards was born June 10, 1953, in Seneca, S.C. His father, Wallace, was a textile mill supervisor and his mother, Bobbie, ran a furniture shop. They borrowed $50 from a bank to pay the hospital bill when their son was born.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070201/1edwardsfacts.htm

Edwards, the eldest of three siblings, was born in 1953 in Seneca, in the northwest corner of South Carolina. By the time his family landed in Robbins, N.C., another small town, a dozen years later, his father had risen from floor worker at a cotton mill to supervisor.

"My children were well fed and well clothed, and we lived in a decent house, but we had to be very careful with money because there was no extra," his mother, Bobbie Edwards, recalled in a phone interview with the Monitor.

His father advanced to production supervisor in a textile mill, but felt that his lack of a college degree stood in the way of further promotions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0920/p01s01-uspo.htm

In other words, John Edwards' father was a capable man who rose to the highest level of responsibility at the mill that he could given his limited education. If you need more clarification, that means that John Edwards' father was most probably hard-working, reliable and smart and made a living for his family. That John Edwards' mother worked at the post office, however, suggests that his father did not make a managerial salary.

It is one thing for a woman of her generation to work outside the home as a teacher, nurse or secretary, quite another for her to work at the post office. Working at the post office was not a job that had a lot of prestige. It was tough, relatively physical, repetitive work. It was not the kind of work that the wife of a factory manager or mill manager did. Face it. You are wrong. We cannot go back and check on Mr. Edwards' pay stubs to see what he was making, but the Edwards family, compared to the Bush family, the Rodham family (a banker by profession) or most of the other families of candidates (with the exception possibly of Obama about whose family I know little), Edwards was relatively poor. There were no extras, and sending a child to a state college meant sacrifice. That is why Edwards correctly considers himself to be of working class origin.

There is a difference between being a supervisor in a mill and being a manager of a mill. A supervisor in a mill may be lower middle management but may simply be a laborer who is reliable and trusted by the management to organize the floor workers. Do you have evidence that he was the mill manager? I have not seen it. Please produce it.

[1932]

97. He quit his job at the mill because they wouldn't promote him without a college degree.

There was room to go higher and other people with less experience were promoted over him.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. He usually does well in head-to-head match-up polling

He's a white male, good looking, southern and widely unknown nationally beyonf people having seen him onve or twice on TV in 2004, so he has a lot of "curb appeal" as a candidate. There's no telling whether he would maintain that likability when he was defined by campaign.

But that's why people say he's the most electable.

[patrice]

5. He has Populist appeal in the South.

His health care proposal, and election and campaign finance reform policies are the most Progressive.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Does Progressiveness actually make one a "More Electable" candidate?

Last I check, that isn't supported by past elections.

John Kerry was much more "progressive" than Bush.

Mondale and McGovern were also more "progressive" than their opponents.

My question was not why is John Edwards more electable to Democrats...but rather more electable in the General Election...which is the line I keep hearing. :shrug:

[EVDebs]

20. Yeah, let's regress with HRC, not THAT's a real campaign slogan

[FrenchieCat]

24. I believe that many in the general population don't believe that

Hillary is "regressive"....and that is what we are talking about.....what the voters think that pick the winner via the general election....

[EVDebs]

64. Hillary's theme music -- "It's Money That Matters"

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

"It's money that matters in the U-S-A"

[patrice]

42. Their War makes Both parties look hugely hypocritical.

It unavoidably reveals to grassroots Democrats AND Republicans how little we actually matter. Being a War Slave is extremely unpleasant to all kinds of Americans. Anyone who offers something that looks like it might change politics as usual, which is what put us in this situation, is, unlike Hillary, going to reach across party lines.

[cascadiance]

50. I think there's a distance between appealing to populist moderates vs. corporate "moderates"...

I think that Edwards appeals to those independents and other moderate Republicans that are looking for those that aren't corporate beholden so-called "moderates". I think someone like Edwards appeals to them for this reason while the other candidates don't even if they are supposedly more "moderate" than Edwards is.

Bankruptcy affects independents and conservatives just like it affects progressives. Smart conservatives and moderates understand that, and understand that those that support legislation like the bankruptcy bill are NOT moderate but corporate in their makeup.

If progressive Democrats like Edwards frame their message properly (as I think Edwards is currently doing better than other candidates) they CAN get cross over votes even if they are supposedly more "liberal" than the other candidates and so-called "common wisdom" suggests that they shouldn't get as much support as these other "so-called" moderates.

[harun]

77. Progressiveness sets the MSM against you but that isn't going

to work as well this time. No one but the 29%'rs are still watching the MSM.

[FrenchieCat]

92. If what you said was so.....Kucinich would be higher in the polls.....

We might "wish" that those who will be voting aren't watching the media...but they are.

[harun]

107. Yah, far too many probably are (n/t)

[EVDebs]

18. Say that again only louder, some of these HRC posters don't get it.

[Honeycombe8]

36. The last I checked, the South votes solid red, for most part. nt

[robinlynne]

47. well not really. Clinton and Gore were both southern white men, and both won.

[BootinUp]

49. Gore lost his home state as I recall.

And Clinton is arguably the smartest and best campaigner in the last several decades.

I don't see Edwards guaranteeing any Southern states.

[JDPriestly]

82. The South used to vote Democratic -- when Democrats stood

for populism.

[Clark2008]

68. What South is that?

I live in "The South" and no one here even talks about him.

Heck, just two months ago, the people that I work with couldn't even remember who he was.

Populist? Scheesch.

[geek tragedy]

79. Why isn't he winning a single state in the South

in the primary race, including his birth state (trailing BADLY) and the state he represented in the Senate?

[slick8790]

87. Uhhhh....no.

Trailing badly?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nc/north_carolina_democratic_primary-275.html

I see one, count that, one poll, where he's outside the MOE. Anyone who's taken a statistics course can tell you this is an outlier. Sorry, you're wrong.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. The Predatory Lending Hedge Fund?

But it's a humble predatory-lending hedge fund, so most common folks can feel empathetic.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. But I thought you didn't obsessively start anti-Edwards threads...

Haven't you said that repeatedly as you've repeatedly created them?

I rather suspect that if Clark saw him as the front-runner he would probably endorse him...

[FrenchieCat]

Did the person who's post that I am responding to say something worth anything

and that addressed the issue that I raised?

I tend to doubt it.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Nope; just nattering static in kind. On this topic, over time, you're the equivalent of white noise.

Polls do. Polls in turnable states like Oklahoma and Kentucky do.

If the question is sheer electability, simple statistics are plenty.

[Clark2008]

69. Clark would never endorse Edwards.

Sorry.

[PurityOfEssence]

98. I don't think he's as bitter as a lot of his supporters

Not sorry at all.

[bpeale]

105. that's because Clark is a warmonger

[1932]

114. ...primarily because Clark doesn't believe taxes should be higher on capital gains, I'm guessing.

And secondarily, because Clark believes that the US should use the threat of force (if not force itself) to ensure American hegemony allowing us to keep flows of capital into the US large enough so that we can get by without raising taxes on capital gains for as long as possible.

[1932]

13. Because he clearly stands for something that really matters, and does a great job of articulating it

A couple weeks ago there was a series of OPs asking if _____ wins the election, at the end of their term they will be remembered for __________.

For all the other candidates, the answers were all over the board. You really couldn't find more than two or three posts where people were seeing the same thing in a candidate. For Edwards, all the answers were very similar. Edwards will be rememberd for revitalizing the middle class and helping working people.

That's why he would do best in the general election. Because he wants to be something, he makes his argument about it to the public, and the people understand what he's saying better than they do for any other candidate.

[1932]

17. furthermore, why isn't the answer to this question, "because he is"?

Is there a Dem vs Repub poll that doesn't show him matching up better than all the other democrats?

The question isn't "is he the most electable?" The question is, "why is he the most electable?"

(Which I answered above.)

[FrenchieCat]

19. It is a valid opinion that you have, when you say.....

"the people understand what he's saying better than they do for any other candidate"....but really, isn't this just your opinion based on your longtime support of John Edwards. If his argument was so great, wouldn't he be ahead in the polls....or at least in 2nd place?

Wanting "to be something"....like the President, doesn't make one so much more electable than the others who also want "to be something".

[1932]

25. See my second post. This is why he matches up against Republicans better than anyone else.

If you want to know why he's behind in the polls agains the people he's running against right now, you need to check out how much money they're spending in each state.

In Iowa, Hillary is outspending him by a factor of something like 10, right?

Just like in 2004, when EVERYBODY gets coverage in the last couple days before the primary and when one more TV ad isn't going to make a differnce, then you'll see whose MESSAGE makes a difference.

And what he wants to be isn't "president" -- it's the things that people said in their posts in those thread I'm talking about above. He wants to revitalize the middle class by helping people who work for a living. Everyone gets it, even if he's not their number one pick right now. But when it comes down to it, this is going to be the reason he has the best chance of winning the general election.

If you can run a candidate who already stands clearly for something good, you're going to have to worry a lot less about the Republicans making that candidate into someone who stands for something bad.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Edwards "wanted" to be President when he had moderate views and

and was pushing war in Iraq, and Edwards "wants" to be President now that he has more progressive views and wants to get out of Iraq.......

In otherwords, his views have changed, but his aspiration for what he wants for himself have stayed exactly the same; he has constantly wanted the presidency. That's a fact based on his running for the same office since 2002.

[1932]

29. I'm not sure you get what I'm saying.

I am willing to bet that if you ask 100 people what each candidate would do as president, the number of similar answers for Edwards would be double or triple the number for any other candidate, Dem or Repub.

And then I bet you that if you listed all the answers that appeared more than 5 or 10 times and asked people to rank them in order of importance, the answers for Edwards would rank highest.

Do you understand why that translates into electability?

[dogman]

56. He stands on sand.

Wait for the sand to shift if you want to know the direction he'll take. He tells the people what he has been told they want to here. He has a gift for swaying the jury. That isn't leadership or predictable.

[1932]

that's not analysis. that's spin.

[Clark2008]

74. If it's spin, then why do so many people know this?

[1932]

90. ...I'm still wating for the quote from Pelosi's daughter you were so sure you read.

[1932]

58. that's not analysis. that's spin.

[dogman]

70. That's his record.

The only consistency is his desire to be POTUS.

[Clark2008]

71. Too bad he didn't stand for it when he could have done

something about it.

This populist schtick is crap - he's trying to be Dean and isn't quite pulling it off.

[maximusveritas]

15. Pretty simple - he's viewed as the more moderate/conservative of the candidates

The Pew poll of voter impressions showed this pretty clearly.
That impression is based upon his 2004 candidacy moreso than his current one. It explains why Edwards is losing the primary while doing better in general election polls.

[skipos]

35. Rasmussen polls don't back up your statement at all

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_ideology

[maximusveritas]

41. Actually it does

Though not to the extent of the Pew poll (which I trust more anyway)

The numbers in your link are for Democrats only.
Look at this one instead:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election
Overall, Edwards has less people who consider him liberal and more who consider him conservative than Obama and Clinton.

[Honeycombe8]

38. I don't think so. He's viewed as solidly left, I believe. Further left than Biden or Richardson.

Not sure if he's viewed further left than Clinton. (Don't forget...for all the expressions in DU that Clinton is a Republicrat of sorts, the right views her as far left. Probably just because they hate her so much, but still...)

[maximusveritas]

44. But more moderate/conservative than Obama and Clinton

The only exception is the recent Rasmussen poll which showed Clinton as being seen as more moderate among Democratic voters.
However, prior Pew polls and Rasmussen polls have backed up my statement.
I do accept that Richardson and Biden are seen as more moderate, but they are not well-known enough to do well in general election matchups.

[karynnj]

59. My guess is you are likely both right -

I have seen no data, so this is conjecture. I think the distribution over the political spectrum may be bi-modal. Where the two peaks are where he positioned himself in 2004, slightly to the left of his voting record and where he re-positioned himself for 2008. If he is the nominee, a challenge will be to create an image that loses few of the people who like him for the position they think he has. He also needs a better narrative on what changed him. The two positions are very far apart, so the catalyst for change needs to be defined. Simply saying that a large number of early positions were wrong doesn't seem a good strategy.

He is not alone on this - Hillary has attempted to be everywhere at the same time on Iraq - while her campaign praises her for not flip flopping like the far more consistent John Kerry. (I find her recent comments that there is no military solution, it has to be a political and that the Iraqis will not be pushed to change without a deadline an improvement, but find it hard to forget her sarcastic comments when John Kerry said just this over a year a ago.

[JDPriestly]

83. You are wrong. Oddly enough, Obama and Hillary are viewed as more leftist

by the general public. It may be due to racism and sexism, but that is the reality.

[FrenchieCat]

94. The general Public doesn't really know where Edwards is on the

Political scale....cause he's been on each side......and so those who aren't following might find him more moderate based on their last experience with him...while those who listen to him now believe him to be to the left.........because that is where he has shifted in order to get the netroot dollars.

I'm sure that if he wins the nomination, we will all be "educated" on where Edwards might be standing at that time.......compared to where he stood before.....or compared to where he stands now.....of that I am certain!

[JDPriestly]

99. You can be "educated" right now if you go to his website

and read his policies and statements.

Since leaving the Senate, Edwards studied and worked on poverty issues. It would not surprise me if he changed his viewpoints on many issues as a result of his studies.

It is rather sleazy for a politician to change an opinion to match his pollsters' recommendations. But I respect a politician who is willing to change his or her opinion based on new information or new insights. That is what John Edwards did with regard to the Iraq War. So if he changed his mind about other issues for similar reasons, that is great as far as I am concerned.

Many of the great social changes of our time have been made possible because people lived and learned and changed their opinions. A couple of big ones are racial integration and women's liberation. Lots of politicians had to change their stances in order for laws ensuring equality to be passed.

[bpeale]

104. he's a candidate both liberals & conservatives can live with

[dogman]

112. You're right, a windsock.

What ever the prevailing wind blows his way. He can root for war again, just as quick as he turned to peace.

[seasat]

110. That's been my thought too.

I followed that general Rasmussen poll for months and noticed that Edwards was initially considered the most conservative/moderate of our candidates. I also noticed that as the perception shifted to him as more liberal his favorable/unfavorable spread dropped. Now he's -1% favorable according to Rasmussen. He started off with a higher spread than any of our candidates. He'll have a tough time tacking back more to the center if he's our nominee.

[CK_John]

16. Because he provides cover for those afraid to vote for a black or women. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

23. But that doesn't make him "Electable".....it just makes him a default choice then.....

But in the GE, if he won the Dem nomination, he would no longer have that default "scared to death" racial/gender "edge" to work for him....cause now, he would be the same as the other candidate...in terms of his demographics; the White man.

BTW, I see McCain on the rise (I think he was marginalized on purpose by the MSM for a nefarious purpose)....and that can't be good for someone like John Edwards.....as McCain has the edge as viewed by the general population in having been in the military and a POW for six years....and Arizona ain't the south, but I don't think it hurts McCain.

[karynnj]

60. Obama and Clinton have that same liability

I think none of the current candidates actually saw combat, though Dodd was in the Coast Guard I think. That is a danger, but McCain has his deficits. I would love to see Kerry, Gore or Clark (in that order) against him rather than any of the media and party pushed three.

This year should be easy for the Democrats though.

[illinoisprogressive]

21. Alot of people see him as someone who will fight for the working man and woman

I am not saying one way or the other if that is true or it. I am going by what people who support say.

[1932]

28. As I said in my posts above, the key part of this is that, unlike other candidates,

there is a consensus about Edwards among voters where voters are clearly receiving the message that Edwards is trying to send. I don't see this for any other candidate. For other candidates, there's no consensus and candidates are having a hard time transmitting their messages.

Hillary's message is, "I am inevitable" I guess, but that doesn't really get you anywhere in a general election. It's not a message that makes people want to vote for you.

[frazzled]

27. Because he's a white male?

Meaning he's not a woman or a black man. I truly believe that is the coded message being sent when people say he is more "electable."

Not that he's ever been elected to much, except one very close state race. But I do have to admit, he does not have breasts or nappy hair!

[EVDebs]

65. Because he'd do what the people want, not corporations

Synopsis of the film
http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312

Only Edwards would put corporations 'in their place'. HRC won't and Obama neither. Sorry, truth hurts.

[JDPriestly]

30. Edwards is sincere and likeable.

He grew up in small town America and understands people. He is a leader. He presents an idea, and Hillary and the other candidates agree with it. Edwards is wealthy because he was able to persuade juries to vote for his clients.

He is running a campaign from his heart. He is saying what he thinks. People who listen to him sense his honesty about the issues. He is polling better than any other Democratic candidate when pitted against the Republican candidates.

Edwards has experience running in a national campaign. Hillary has experience with her husband's national campaign. But she has never run in a national campaign before. Hillary is a highly coached candidate. She is running by the polls. Edwards is not running for the polls. He gives the impression that he is running on what he believes.

Obama does not have experience in a national campaign. I am glad he is running because he is gaining the experience he will need in the future.

Edwards is the candidate of change. America needs and is ready for change. That is the most important reason why Edwards is so electable.

Hillary represents the past. She represents politics as usual. Same old. Same old. Her style of politics is very polished, but does not have a genuine feel for our time.

Obama represents change, but he is just not quite experienced or well enough known on the national level.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Obama is sincere and likeable too......

YOu say Edwards is a "leader"....but how as he led? What were the issues, and how did he actually affect change on those issues?

You say that He presents ideas....but I believe that they all do that. Biden presented an idea on partitioning Iraq that Edwards came around to agreeing with. Is Biden a more effective leader than Edwards than?

"Edwards is wealthy because he was able to persuade juries to vote for his clients"......so you think that he can do that on a national stage? He didn't when running against Kerry. He didn't when running on the ticket with Kerry.

"He is running a campaign from his heart. He is saying what he thinks. People who listen to him sense his honesty about the issues."....I think that is a subjective opinion from one of his supporter. Good you think these things, but I don't know if other Dems really think that too.

"He is polling better than any other Democratic candidate when pitted against the Republican candidates."...because he has yet to be in the spotlight. Just like Fred Thompson was polling high till he got national exposure.

"Edwards has experience running in a national campaign".....and lost.

"Edwards is the candidate of change"....some will argue that electing another White man from the South is not a change....and in fact it applies the same limitations to who can run this country that have always been there. If this is the most important reason why Edwards is so electable, that's a sad testament to what "Change" in this country actually signifies.

[JDPriestly]

78. I have no problem with Obama other than that he has not

managed or participated in a national campaign yet. You ask why Edwards did not show some of the qualities in 2004 that he is now showing? That is because he did not have the experience of a national campaign under his belt. Edwards has had four years in which to review what he did and did not do in 2004. There were no doubt lots of things he would do differently now. In my view, Obama needs some experience and then some time to think about his experience. That is one of the reasons I prefer Edwards.

How has Edwards led? He was the first to come out with a lot of his plans including the plan for universal health insurance. He challenged the others to do the same and they followed. I believe he was the first to work with a health worker for a day -- to work in the shoes of a health worker. The other candidates followed suit.

Check out the Edwards website and you will see that he has detailed plans and ideas about what to do about many, many of the problems facing America. No other candidate has thought through his policy proposals and presents them with such clarity.

I like the fact that Edwards is not taking money from lobbyists for the big corporations or from the big corporations. I like the fact that Obama is trying to avoid to much influence from lobbyists and corporations also.

As for change -- Edwards' many policies make very clear the kinds of change he wants. He recently made a speech in Keene, N.H. about the ways he wants to change D.C. Check it out. The biggest change is refusing lobbyists money. That is the key to the rest of the change.

As you might guess, my big issue, bigger than the rest all put together, is corruption. I realize that stamping out corruption entirely may be an idealistic, unachievable dream. But I think we can do a lot better. I am not worried about Obama being corrupt, but I am worried about Hillary continuing the political culture of corruption.

Edwards explains that he was disgusted by the corruption he saw while in the Senate. He particularly condemned the purchasing of senator's votes and mentioned the famous incident involving Boehner's offers of money and political support for vote right on the floor of Congress. Edwards is targeting the issue of corruption with more focus than any other candidate. That is not to say other candidates are corrupt (other than possibly Hillary). It is just to say that Edwards is targeting the corruption more than any other candidate IMO.

[bpeale]

106. look, if your mind is made up & it sounds like it is

then why are you creating arguments about it on DU? just vote for your candidate & quit starting flame wars.

[MaggieSwanson]

52. I have to disagree.

I've met John Edwards on several occasions and found him to be neither sincere nor likeable. Which is a pity, because his mouth is saying all the right things.

Just my 2 cents.

[ecstatic]

31. He's kind of looks like JFK... I think we all know the reason... nt

[karynnj]

61. No he doesn't - not even if you squint

He is good looking - in a kind of middle manager way, rather than Hollywood. JFK had a more outdoors rustic look than he did.

[Adelante]

73. I've always found his looks ordinary

Half the males in my family look like him and a good many of the kids I grew up with. Maybe it's familiarity that makes his appearance sort of a neutral thing to me. He does keep himself in very good shape for his age, but I've never found him sexually interesting.

[Cameron27]

33. Read a few of Mudcat's pieces,

he's been a big force behind the "can win everywhere" theme:

“Known by his backwoods nickname, “Mudcat,” he’s a self-described “rural liaison” who is helping Edwards craft a populist message of economic equality for “Bubba,” that catchall for the traditional white, male voter living in rural America.

snip: I guess that means southerners won’t vote for a woman, an African American or a Hispanic? Winning “everywhere” seems to be the latest in a cavalcade of reasons to vote for Edwards. It’s dizzying.

snip: The Edwards I can win everywhere pitch, backed up by Mudcat Saunders’ urging to go south, is filled with pitfalls. It’s yet another reason why the Edwards campaign is having so much trouble today. They’ve never had a cohesive strategy and now that they’ve walked away from the one issue, Iraq, that could win them solid support, it illustrates a deep issue within the campaign that, along with the public financing realities which Markos and others outlined so well, proves that the campaign is utterly clueless when it comes to message discipline and unprepared right now on how to win a general election. It makes me unbelievably nervous, because we simply must win back the presidency in 2008, or we will see the Middle East go up in flames and the arms race explode. Threading the southern needle seems a prescription for heartbreak.

Additionally, bubbaland is filled with people we could reach, but only if you cut out the conservative cretins, which Mudcat and Edwards seem to want to try and convert instead."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26356

[robinlynne]

48. Actually, 2 out of the last 3 dems to win the presidency were southern white men.

And in both cases, the southern vote helped. As did the populist bent, which he also has.

[karynnj]

63. Making inference from this small number of observations

ignores the complexity of reality. Look at all the elections since 1960, when there was no Democratic President

The ones we undeniably won, were:

JFK - who beat an unlikable VP. He won not through huge differences on issues, but charisma and visionary ideas. Even with Eisenhower undercutting him, by saying that he couldn't remember anything Nixon did, this was still a close race.

Carter - In 1976, we were in the first post watergate election and Ford had pardoned Nixon. You could make a better case that Carter won because he was an outsider and a person seen as intensely honest.

Clinton - In 1992, GHWB was below 40% most of the year and was at 33% at election time. Three terms of Reagan & Bush had out worn their welcome. Clinton was seen as young and Charismatic. He did however, poll 3 out of 3, until Perot imploded and left the race in what looked like a loony act.

Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had two of best years for Democrats.

Now, the races we clearly lost:

Humphrey - had a very tough year, where Nixon posed as the peace candidate and Humphrey would not stab Johnson, who was working to secure peace in the back - which angered the anti-war factions of the party. Not to mention, many Americans were extremely affected by the anger and violence of the convention. To put it mildly, Humphrey did not get a good chance to introduce himself at the convention at which he secured the nomination. (Compare to any other candidate having a good day when he clinches the nomination and a chance to define himself at the convention.) Still this was a close election.

McGovern - In a nasty race a WWII fighter pilot hero was labeled with being for amnesty, abortion and acid. The soft spoken, honorable McGovern had no chance, even though the media was not pro-Nixon. (Even without Colson, Rove's spiritual grandfather, Nixon likwly would have won.)

Mondale - Reagan was near the peak of his popularity and likely couldn't have been beaten by anyone. Again, not close.

Dukakis - Another nasty race - from Atwater, Rove's spirtual father. This is likely a race that could have been won by a better candidate, though Dukakis was a very good person and could have been a good President.

Races that were likely lost only through unscupulous measures -

Gore - he won. In terms of the political climate it was in the middle but worse for Democrats than Republicans. There was acceptance of the Democratic positions on things but there was also a fatigue with Clinton. It was also the first year where the media had shifted to a position that was biased against the Democrats.

Kerry - had there been adequate voting machines in Ohio or if Bush did not misuse the government terror levels for political purposes - in effect terrorizing the country, in the real sense of the word, he would have won. Other than 1984, this may have been by far the toughest year to run - when you consider that Bush was a wartime President and the media had shifted further than it did in 2000.

Looked at in this level of detail, area of the country really doesn't come into play. Given the circumstances under which they ran, it would be very likely that had (a time shifted if needed to keep their experience what it was when they ran) Humphrey or Kerry would likely have easily won in 1976 or 1992. Time shift either Carter or Clinton (with their level of experience when they first ran) to run in 1968 or 2004 and my bet is they lose. (Obviously, I can't prove these contentions.)

Another way of looking at it is to add the last category to the wins - and eliminate Gore because he was VP making his position very different. Then, you have 2 Southern Governors and 2 MA Senators with initials JFK. To get an idea of how indefensible using Carter and Clinton to say that Southern governors are the only solution - think how silly it would be to say that the best candidates are MA Senators with the initials JFK and thick hair, for that matter, are the best candidates.

[EVDebs]

66. Edwards is taking 'em on in DitchMitchMcConnel country, their HOME TURF

Edwards campaigns in Lexington KY
http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/2007/07/little-town-of-.html

Hilary and Obama won't even show their faces there. Period.

[superkia]

40. I think all of our candidates are electable when compared to...

a republican. I just think that one of them is hated enough to give us some problems, other than that, I cant see a republican winning?

[BootinUp]

43. I will have to let others answer

I have no idea myself. Edwards is the least skilled politician in the running. Now he does make a good impression in debates occasionally or maybe mostly. I recall that his debate in Iowa in 2004 seemed instrumental in his rise there combined with Deans collapse. But good in debates is just not enough folks.

[patrice]

45. "Electability" is a hugely over-rated self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Elect her because she is electable."

Polls are a single "frame" out of a moving picture, a frame that is engineered to the customer's specifications.

People say they will vote for her, because they don't know shit, but they do recognize her name and they are told she will win.

There's a lot of Republican money in HC's campaign, because she's a win:win for them. If she wins, they win. If she loses, they win. That money translates to higher numbers of persons paid to think and say what they think and say. High numbers of paid aparatchics results in high poll numbers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Because He's A Southern White Male

And the last three Democratic presidents have been southern white males...

[cleveramerican]

54. IF he were to win an upset nomination victory......

he would be on such a roll, that he would be swept into office on that momentum.
I feel the same way about Obama and Biden as well.

[EVDebs]

72. He's the political Seabiscuit !

[JNelson6563]

55. All supporters of all candidates think that

While I have no candidate in the race I can easily see why any dedicated supporter of any candidate would say that about their choice.

In this case I would have to guess that Edwards supporters say so for many reasons but two come to mind that many in my real world travels have mentioned: He's white and here, in the very far north, many are conviced Obama wouldn't win any states in the south. He's male and, let's face it, much of America thinks the President should be male.

Just my observations for what little their worth. I do believe all of our candidates have something that make them more electable than any of the GOPers but again, just my .0125 worth.

Julie

[cmd]

57. My non-political, independent friends really like him n/t

[Sparkly]

62. I don't see any huge difference between any of the top three.

Three lawyers, three senators, three candidates with essentially the same positions.

Sometimes there are primaries with stark, dramatic difference in biography and/or platform, but this isn't one of them.

:shrug:

[Generator]

76. He's hot

Oh yes-not kidding and not bashing.

This is a dumb ass superficial country in case you haven't noticed. Yes, it is. Yes, that's "hot" is a Paris Hilton phrase. Paris Hilton gets at least as much media as the Iraq war, and certainly more than health care or global warming. Or Brittany Spears. Or Anna Nichole. Or O.J. Simpson.

Whatever- it doesn't have to be a hot blonde-though O.J killed one but I digress. Oh anyway-what was Bill Clinton's big over the hump factor-fuckablity. It all comes down to sex in the end. Even Michael Jackson-how about-Larry Craig-do you SEE a common thread? All our national obsessions. S.E.X.

Edwards is just damn fine looking with a southern accent to boot. C'mon! And a smart and sick wife-surely that as good as the pity factor with Hillary-"he cheated on me waaaaah and NOW I deserve to be president or else."

Most honest post ever here. I know some will despise it.

Also-I like Edwards and think he's genuine. I adore his wife. He has many flaws-yes he is a lightweight in the foreign affairs thing-but Jesus Christ on a stick-he's better than a war loving corporatist like Hillary.

Also the reason that Kuchinch can't win. Not HOT! (though his wife is-which I do believe Bill Maher OF COURSE noticed)

PS I really do think that his appeal is that he is geniunue. And he fucks up too. SO what. He's HOT.

[Rhythm and Blue]

80. Rich white male.

That's all I can think of.

[libodem]

86. He's frickin' cute

AND HE'S NOT hILLARY cLINTON.

[FrenchieCat]

95. I don't find him particularily attractive.......

But then, I'm not a White Girl!

[LoZoccolo]

88. If anyone says "white male", I think they should explain why other white males aren't doing as well.

I think it's a combination of recognition from the 2004 election, a personable style of presentation, and being from the south.

[cleveramerican]

100. When you have nothing to say, Make something up.

[FrenchieCat]

103. I believe that what I stated in my OP was much more thoughful and rational

than the post you wrote.

One sentence smart ass comments rank as high on the "not a real comment" debate meter when one is ironically speaking of "having nothing to say". :eyes:

[cleveramerican]

109. sayin he's "electable" is like saying nothing at all

Its a phrase that has lost all meaning. You can pin it on any donkey.
You might as well say he loves his mother.

[FrenchieCat]

115. That was my point......

Folks saying he's "electable" all of the time never really give a reason that makes much sense in a General Election.

And it appears that being a good looking (to some) White Male from the South seems to be his main appeal in terms of "electability"....which like you said means nothing to begin with.

[cleveramerican]

116. That was my snarky one-line point,too.

sometimes at 6am snarky is all I can manage. I didn't mean to offend.

[Perry Logan]

101. Deleted.