Edwards: I can win across the country; "If Hillary comes to Missouri, we can write it off."

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: October 19, 2007
Edwards: I can win across the country

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Friday he’s the Democratic presidential candidate who has the best chance of winning closely-divided states in a general election.

“The press and the pundits think the most electable candidate is the one with the most money and the most ties to Washington,” Edwards said Friday at an event in Los Angeles. “The problem is the press and the pundits have confused the candidate who would win an election inside the Beltway with the candidate who can win an election in the rest of America.”

Supporters of Edwards also held a conference call Friday, arguing Edwards offers the best chance of winning swing states.

“Here's the deal — If we don't have a good person at the top of the ticket - someone who can help stop the hemorrhaging in Missouri, then we'll go red,” Missouri state Minority Whip Connie Johnson said. “It's as simple as that. And it will affect state reps, state senators, treasurers, governors, everybody."

“If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off,” Johnson added, referring to Democratic field’s frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/19/edwards-i-can-win-across-the-country/

[saltpoint]

1. Speaking strictly to Edwards' appeal nationwide, it would be very

instructive for Republican "moderates" to see their demographic base splinter into several pieces, the nutbag fundies stomping out in fury because the Pukes' slate is too "liberal" and the moderate -- "moderate" -- GOP voters choosing John Edwards' extremely impressive domestic agenda and/or Joe Biden's sure-footed vision on international affairs.

That would leave a few kooks out there like Bill Kristol wondering what hit them.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. He couldn't even deliver his own state last time - where's this "national appeal"?

Are all the polls really wrong?

[struggle4progress]

34. Kerry decided not to campaign in NC: National Dems were barely here before they were gone again

[BootinUp]

42. As the election got closer

it was not considered in play based on their polling.

[struggle4progress]

60. It was a statistical deadheat a few months earlier, thanks to adding Edwards to the ticket ... so

seems to me the Kerry campaign blew yet another good opportunity

[Adelante]

70. Did Kerry stop Edwards from speaking there?

Say you can't go there?

[struggle4progress]

71. Do you remember 2004 ? In presidential races, voters attend most to the top of the ticket.

You know perfectly well most people don't say, "Hey! I voting for X for POTUS because I really really like Y as VP." The VP slot mainly affects swing voters.

And there's plenty of polling from 2004 that shows Edwards moved a chunk of swing voters, not only in NC but across the country, into the Dem camp. Solidifying that movement depended on winning attitudes towards the top of the ticket by the undecided electorate. And there, the Kerry campaign fell flat.

Do you remember the swiftboating? Do you remember Kerry's non-response to the swiftboaters? When the volatile fraction moved back into the Repug camp, only a effective response by Kerry might have changed it. No such response was forthcoming: instead, the campaign simply abandoned states.

Edwards did, of course, speak in NC during the campaign -- and also in much of the rest of the country. Perhaps you noticed that our side actually won the national contest, but the Republicans cheated in Ohio. Kerry, after promising not to capitulate in the Ohio vote count issue, then promptly caved.

Whatever candidate you support, the best way to win 2008 is to really be ready for another barrage of the dirty tricks that helped Repugs steal the Oval Office in 2000 and 2004.

[BootinUp]

40. Please don't post facts

You just gonna start a fight. ;)

[surfermaw]

67. Reason, N.C Jese Helms strong hold

[youthere]

2. SOme of the comments on that article...Oy.

[Adelante]

3. It seems from this it's debatable that's the actual case

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102001/Fifty-Percent-Democrats-Back-Clinton-Latest-Trial-Heat.aspx

[MethuenProgressive]

4. He's in full denial mode, isn't he?

His people are hiding all the polls from, aren't they?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[SaveElmer]

5. Tactic has been tried before...

Bob Kerrey said the Republicans would open up Bill Clinton like a soft peanut if he were the general election candidate in 1992..how'd that work out?

John Edwards might want to concentrate on his own state before insisting he will win others...

He currently leads in the polls in exactly ZERO states including his own home state...and there is scant evidence he could take NC in the general either...

The last President to win without carrying his home state was James K. Polk I think...

[durrrty libby]

9. He's been running for president for years. He sure hasn't learned much

[w4rma]

20. The Republicans opened up Bill Clinton like a soft peanut in 1994, instead. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

21. Uh...no they didn't...

But that familiar canard was expected...

[AdHocSolver]

53. Bill Clinton won in 1992 only because Ross Perot took Republican votes from Daddy Bush. n/t

[1932]

69. That's not true. Condorcet analysis showed that Clinton would have won with or without Perot.

[wyldwolf]

72. why do people on the left keep pushing this RW myth?

[surfermaw]

62. Why would Edwards wast money in a Jesse Helm's strong hold

HOwever he did beat the Helms machine for Senator, something even the beloved son and former Governor James B. Hunt couldn't do...

[cobalt1999]

7. This is really a dumb strategy for Edwards to use...

He's close to being my #2 pick right now, but a strategy that emphasizes "electability" in the primary season, is doomed. It projects a fear of the republicans (not a trait that people want in our candidate).

Someone needs to slap his campaign because that strategy will kill his numbers. He needs to go emphasize his populist approach.

[wtmusic]

8. Excellent points

and it's ironic that the more Edwards' obsesses on electability, the less electable he becomes

[AdHocSolver]

54. Edwards is pointing out it is Hillary's supporters and the media who claim her as "electable"

Clinton is trying to pull the same baloney that John Kerry pulled in 2004, namely, that the Democrats should end the primary campaigns and anoint him the nominee, as Kerry was the only "electable" candidate. This was stupid beyond belief, since it eliminated the excitement from the Democratic campaign and took away almost all media attention from the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton, not Edwards, is the candidate who is trying to pull the "I'm the only one who is electable" balony by pointing to how much money she has, and how polls taken a year before the general election show her in the lead. Edwards is trying to point out that she is not the electable one, but the one most likely to energize the right wing base to come out and vote. That translates not only to a likely Republican win, but Clinton could well take down Congressional candidates with her.

The polls pitting various Democrats against various Republicans over a year before the general election are meaningless. They are irrelevant. Edwards is trying to inject some common sense into the situation.

Moreover, Edwards has been making speeches and putting forth position papers on many policy issues for the past several months. The corporate media ignores them, or limits their distribution. As an example, Edwards put forth his proposals for health care reform last spring. From the media, nada, zilch, nary a squeak. Then, a few weeks ago, Clinton comes out with her proposed health care reforms, which sounded pretty lame, and the media was reporting all over the place.

The corporate media likes Hillary because the Clintons have always played ball with the corporations (anyone remember NAFTA?). Edwards succeeded in his career by litigating against the corporations. So whom do you think the corporate media, and the corporate pollsters, are going to favor?

[MadHound]

10. Johnson is spot on with her analysis in our state

Sure, Hillary will eek out a very narrow win in the St. Louis and KC metro areas. In Columbia, the liberal heart, she may not, because there are lots of people who will go Green or stay home if she's the nominee. Meanwhile, the rest of the state will come out strongly against her, and she will lose in Missouri. Not a good sign for the rest of the country.

[Divine Discontent]

11. State Rep Connie Johnson said that about Hillary, but I'm sure John agrees as I do!

I have nothing but full belief that the battleground states like MO, NV, NM, AR, NC, and FL can all be written off completely if Hillary's our nominee.

Her supporters will simply say prove it, which is a demand they know they can't expect to be proven, it's just fact that these states are tilted to Republicans, and if you're going to have a choice between Republican-lite vs. Republican you're going to cause several hundred thousands of voters in those state to not even show up at the ballot box.

Hillary represents the special interests and Wall Street, all the big money donors are pushing her as our nominee b/c the rest jeopardize their stranglehold on our pocketbooks - simple enough.



If you're on the bubble between HRC and Obama, please please please side with Obama, same with HRC & Edwards - please choose the true progressive viewpoint that protects the workers instead of the one that will side with big money.

I'm sure several people have already stopped even discussing in these type of threads, but as long as new items come out showcasing her allegiance and her staff's, to that of union busters, and war profiteers, I'll keep speaking my opinion, I hope even a few of her supporters will turn from the magazine poster girl candidate of the corporation!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. What a farce

Edwards left the senate because he knew he couldn't win as an incumbent in his home state and probably provided the losing margin as VP in 2004. Reporters utterly despise him, and yes, appealing to reporters is a big part of how you win elections.

Nationally he now consistently polls behind someone who's not even in the race. And he's fading in the one state he's practically lived in since 2004.

His current argument is that he would be less of a drag at the top of the ticket. It's just a straight-up prejudice play. Any non white male will be a disaster in "real" America. Only Johnny Edwards can save us. Polling doesn't support that theory, of course. But it has a certain racist/sexist appeal.

He's desperate and becoming offensive about it.

(IMO, Kerry/Clark might have picked up the few extra votes needed in an election with national security as the top issue.)

[liskddksil]

14. left the senate

Edwards left the senate in 2004 because he made the clear decision that he would be putting his efforts into running for President a decision he made when he had virtually no national recognition and months before he began to pick up momentum that carried him to second place in Iowa.

[Rhythm and Blue]

22. The fact that he was about as popular as athlete's foot back home

had nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

[struggle4progress]

26. You're a Chicago expert on views down here in NC, eh?

[Rhythm and Blue]

39. Here in Chicago, we have things called "newspapers,"

in which they print things called "polls."

[struggle4progress]

41. 63% in NC held favorable opinion of Edwards in July 04 USAToday/CNN/Gallup poll

Below are poll results based on telephone interviews with 848 registered voters in North Carolina ...

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the following people?

A. John Edwards
2004 Jul 9-11
Registered Voters
Favorable 63
Unfavorable 29
Never heard of 2
No opinion 6

[struggle4progress]

43. "A Mason-Dixon poll of 625 North Carolina voters May 14-17 found Bush and Kerry would be in a ...

found Bush and Kerry would be in a statistical tie in the state if Kerry had Edwards as his running mate. A Bush-Cheney ticket drew 46 percent support, compared with 45 percent for a Kerry-Edwards option. Bush's lead was 48 percent to 41 percent for Kerry if a running mate other than Edwards was selected"

Kerry Picks Edwards as Vice Presidential Candidate (Update11)
By Kristin Jensen and William McQuillen
July 6 <2004>
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a21PzTFNJiEg&refer=us

Edwards helped the ticket but Kerry ran a lousy campaign -- and then Publican dirty tricks literally stole Ohio.

[last_texas_dem]

55. It'd be nice

if you actually had any proof to back up that statement. I've seen similar claims made on here by several posters; none of whom can ever provide any evidence to support such claims when asked to provide it.

[struggle4progress]

57. They can't support it because it's just a babble-point from the wingnut blogosphere

[MGKrebs]

27. Well he wasn't able to deliver NC for Erskine Bowles either.

Granted, the country was turning a little red right then, but the point remains that he was an incumbent who lost his seat to the other party.

[struggle4progress]

29. Bowles' loss reflects the unpopularity of the Clinton White House with NC independents

and the inability of DC's inside-the-beltway crowd to pick a winning candidate in NC from afar.

The Clinton White House, to which Bowles was closely tied, was not very popular in the South after nearly a decade of rightwing smears. One learned this from Bowles earlier failure in enter the Senate and he should not have run again: there were several Democrats in NC who could have won that seat in a fight against Dole. But the inside-the-beltway crowd decided to push Bowles anyway, providing enough money and support to prevent better candidates from prevailing in the 04 primary.

The Bowles races suggest to me that Senator Clinton would not carry NC in a general election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. No Democrat Has Carried The Tar Heal State Since Jimmy Carter

DSB

[struggle4progress]

32. Dems won almost every statewide office here last year, control General Assembly, hold Governorship

NC has always been one of the more liberal southern states. The Congressional Delegation has been about evenly split ever since I've lived here. And some of the nearby cities have clearly become less conservative in the last decade.

Translation: NC is not static -- and it's currently purple.

I believe Kerry would have carried the state, if he had really conducted a campaign here. But after a minor effort, he threw in the towel and walked away before the summer of 04 ended.

[MGKrebs]

45. But Edwards did endorse Bowles, and if the fact is that the relatively remote

Clinton White House was able to pick and support and fail a candidate over the influence of an incumbent Senator, then I think that reinforces the point. Did Edwards know he was a bad candidate? Was he not able to exert some influence? Why did he feel compelled to back the bad DC candidate?

[struggle4progress]

49. I think you really know nothing about the 2004 NC senate primary

:hi:

[surfermaw]

63. Bowles lost because N.C. is a narrow minded Helms strong hold

North Carolina has been a strong hold for Helms and the likes of him for many many year, in fact since the seat was installed....the o nly time was a Carter win, that was because of the mess Nixon made of his administration.

[struggle4progress]

73. Though Dole fills Helms former seat, Democrats have often occupied the other seat

After Sam Ervin (D) sat in it twenty years, that second seat has alternated each term between the parties in a succession of single-term senators, including Terry Sanford (D) and John Edwards (D).

Of course, the great late "country lawyer" Sam Ervin may not be among the heros of those who cannot remember Watergate

http://images.encarta.msn.com.nyud.net:8090/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t054/T054867A.jpg

http://img.timeinc.net.nyud.net:8090/time/magazine/archive/covers/1973/1101730730_400.jpg

[AdHocSolver]

56. Kerry lost in 2004 because he was a lackluster candidate with a losing campaign strategy.

Kerry decided not to run in "red" states. If he had, he might have won some "red" states by getting the "anybody but Bush" vote, and the vote stealing in Ohio would have been irrelevant.

I read a post around election time by a guy who's grandmother, a staunch Republican, told him she would never vote for Bush. He asked her if she were going to vote for Kerry. She said that she would not. Why not? Because Kerry never came to her home state to ask for her vote.

It's like the guy who wants a prestigious job, but tells the boss he is too busy to come for an interview. Kerry came across as the snooty liberal the Republicans claimed he was.

As head of the ticket in 2004, it was Kerry's prerogative in deciding where to campaign. If Kerry didn't carry North Carolina in 2004, it was his fault. To say that people didn't vote for Kerry because they didn't like Edwards is ludicrous.

Edwards has obviously learned from Democratic mistakes in 2004. Clinton is running her campaign based on the same logic Kerry used when he lost in 2004. Moreover, Clinton has a built-in hostility factor that Kerry didn't even possess in 2004, which makes her candidacy an even bigger question mark.

[surfermaw]

64. AdHocSolver ... You Got the Answer,...right on!

[DURHAM D]

13. Sounds like Missouri has a lot of work to do.

They need to get busy and stop whining. Cry baby.

[Rhythm and Blue]

15. dupe delete

[Rhythm and Blue]

16. That's not what polls are showing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3626991

[DeepModem Mom]

17. I noticed that, and posted in the thread. It would seem to counter the article in my OP. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. LOL@John Edwards

"Missouri Poll

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=85f5230e-01f6-4d1b-8cbe-7d3c130373dd&q=40145



Had trouble w/the other links, but they're all on the surveyusa aite...

HRC beats knit-witt Romney 50%-41%

HRC beats McCain 48%-45% (though this is probably in margin of error)

HRC beats Thompson 51%-42%

And the other day, I attchaed link w/her beating Ghouliani in Kentucky..."

-Hawaii Hiker

[Cameron27]

19. Thanks for the stats.

Edwards is getting tiresome touting his electability when the polls tell a different story.

[Froward69]

23. Polls mean nothing this early on.

Thats a fact.

[Cameron27]

24. And predicting his electability

this early is absurd.

[Froward69]

25. I Agree.

[MGKrebs]

28. Polls do mean something this early.

If you are expecting them to be a foolproof predictor of the results next year, you are not using them in a way that is, well, useful. Apparently Edwards has some work to do to make this claim valid. He does not seem to be there right now. If he runs an effective campaign, maybe he can prove himself right. Hillary Clinton has steadily worked at reducing her "negative rating" so that now it's at about 44%. Remember when it was over 50%? They knew they wanted to improve on that, and whatever they have been doing has been effective, and we can see the results of that. That is all worthwhile.

I understand that the "polls are useless" idea is a common strategy for candidates and their supporters who are behind. But I think it is healthier to look at what a candidate is doing right and doing wrong to attract votes rather than just ignore what amounts to the only empirical evidence that we have. It's a fascinating process.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. John Edwards Is Playing With Fire

If you go to other sites there's already folks suggesting the assertion embodied in the argument that John Edwards is making for his electability is that folks should vote for him because Americans won't vote for a black guy or white woman...

I'm not saying that's what he's doing but it is out there...

[Adelante]

33. Of course that's what he's doing nt

[struggle4progress]

35. What a sleazy way to make a sleazy accusation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. I Made An Observation Not A Judgement

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.


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

[struggle4progress]

44. Sorry: repeating guttersnipe accusations doesn't count as "making an observation"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. If You

If you think concerned and committed Democrats like Ms. Marsh are "guttersnipes" there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

It's also been posted on mydd ...You can go there and search if you're so inclined...

[struggle4progress]

48. I don't care who first posted that sleazy pseudo-quote or where: the dishonest stinks

[surfermaw]

65. Can't believe you said that

In Iowa , polls were saying Edwards with 5%, and Edwards votes in Iowa were only 2% percentage points below Kerry's, in fact if Clark hadn't entered the race Edwards would have beaten Kerry.

[knight_of_the_star]

51. Something to point out with those though

Not a single one has her past 51% in favor and the GE campaign season hasn't even started. That's a serious problem.

[Quixote1818]

52. About 10% of those being polled probably think Bill Clinton is on the ballot nt

[surfermaw]

66. That is what I have been thinking

[zulchzulu]

36. Negative coat tails are certainly one of the fears Democrats should judge with a Clinton nomination

There have been articles referring to this possibility and in terms of strategic emphasis on a Clinton nomination, it is best to balance that into the equation when considering the choice of her as the nominee.

Besides having the Republicans practically drooling at the chance to tear her apart as well as the added bonus of rehashing the Bill Clinton/Monica disaster, the name "Clinton" to use by Republicans is going to be a gift that the Democratic Party can ill afford. Losing the House and Senate and having lots of Republicans out in droves to vote against the Clintons and strip mine Democrats from local positions is certainly a very real possibility.

On Edwards seeming to think he is the "most electable", his one term as Senator and his record as a co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution with Joe Lieberman is frankly his Achilles Heel that would make him actually pretty unelectable if that truth is taken to a more strident point. Apologies for being an intrical part of the war's complete failure are not enough. With his lack of being able to cash in on the "Southerner" part of the ticket in 2004 when running with Kerry seals the fact that his perceived strength to be "electable" is not exactly proveable.

Obama has more cross appeal with the wide rainbow of political flavors in my view.

I certainly wish the best for the Edwards campaign, but another nail in the coffin is the fact that the campaign has chosen to take public funding, which is probably due to lackluster campaign contributions.

[MODemocrat]

46. Just how many lives did the Clinton/Monica disaster take?

Having a sleezy affair is hardly a disaster; a disaster is when the president starts a war he lies us into, and doesn't have the brain to end it. Killing thousands upon thousands of people is a disaster. NOL was a total disaster. Having oral sex with a consenting person is not a disaster.
I'm thinking about sitting this election out period....it just sickens me to see all this nonsense every day. Where does this get us? :mad: :mad: :shrug:

[Yukari Yakumo]

37. des-par-ate

Eddy is pretty much sinking at a steady rate. The more people get to know him, the less they like him it seems. Is his campaign doomed? I think it is. The only hope for him is that both Hil's and Obama's campaigns experience a cataclysmic collapses in less than 80 days.

He essentially maxed out his own name recognition in Iowa ages ago. And now that Iowans are getting to know Hil and Obama more, the less they seem to like Edwards. And there is really nothing he can do to turn his campaign in Iowa around at this point.

[liskddksil]

The way I see it, we've only just begun

27 thousand spent so far in ads for Edwards in Iowa versus millions spent by Clinton, Obama and Richardson. Edwards has been trashed relentlessly by the corporate media with a fake affair story, irellevent haircut, and house nonissues. I think being tied for second in Iowa and only down by 6-8 points is quite good. Edwards knows that the race is fluid in Iowa and New Hampshire and people will change their vote in the weeks leading up the caucus. He's got major union support to help his ground game and major inroads in the most rural areas which will have a huge impact on the overall delegate count. Despite all the nonsense that he has been smeared voters will ultimately recognize his bold vision and the historic change that his presidency will bring to America.

[liskddksil]

50. The way I see it, we've only just begun

27 thousand spent so far in ads for Edwards in Iowa versus millions spent by Clinton, Obama and Richardson. Edwards has been trashed relentlessly by the corporate media with a fake affair story, irellevent haircut, and house nonissues. I think being tied for second in Iowa and only down by 6-8 points is quite good. Edwards knows that the race is fluid in Iowa and New Hampshire and people will change their vote in the weeks leading up the caucus. He's got major union support to help his ground game and major inroads in the most rural areas which will have a huge impact on the overall delegate count. Despite all the nonsense that he has been smeared with voters will ultimately recognize his bold vision and the historic change that his presidency will bring to America.

[V4Edwards]

58. Quote incorrectly attributed to Edwards

Please change the title to your OP. It is inaccurate and misleading. The quote "If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off" appears to be by Edwards in your title - when in actuality it is by Missouri state Minority Whip Connie Johnson. This is such a strong and divisive quote that you should make it clear who said it because some might think it arrogant if Edwards said it in those words.

Edwards has said he is more electable than Clinton, which can be debated, but he did not use the words in your title.

[struggle4progress]

61. Thank you!

And welcome to DU

:toast:

[V4Edwards]

68. Thank you for welcoming me,, struggle4progress

It's nice to be welcomed to DU by someone.

But obviously, it's no secret who I support. Nobody asked but I'll tell you why anyway. Yes, I am from North Carolina. When I first heard of John Edwards it was in 1998, I guess, when he ran for senator. I saw his TV ads and immediately thought "Who does this good looking guy think he is, running for office - They're just having him run because of his looks" Terrible for me to judge this way - I know. But then I did some research on him and liked what I read about him. I felt that he understood us middle class folks more than I initially thought. Then when he ran for president in 2003, I heard his "Two Americas" speech and it blew me away. And then when he initially announced for President for 2008 I knew I would support him, but I didn't have any real specifics for why, except for the little bit I knew about "two Americas". I decided to visit his website and I couldn't believe it. EVERYTHING on there was what I believe. His proposed policies, his fighting for the little guy, his understanding of what needs to be done to restore America in the eyes of the world, his energy stance, healthcare - everything - was exactly how I felt.

And to stay on topic - the above reasons are why he is the most electable. People in a state such as Missouri - whether they are democrats, independents, or even some moderate republicans - can relate to the populist message of John Edwards. Yes, he is very wealthy today - but I can tell you he grew up in one of the most economically depressed and depressing areas of this state - and I know he has seen the face of poverty first hand, went to public school and was friends with very poor kids and I know he will never forget what he has seen, and he is fighting to change that.

[surfermaw]

59. Going to happen all across the south

Here's the deal — If we don't have a good person at the top of the ticket - someone who can help stop the hemorrhaging in Missouri, then we'll go red,” Missouri state Minority Whip Connie Johnson said. “It's as simple as that. And it will affect state reps, state senators, treasurers, governors, everybody."

“If Hillary comes to a state like Missouri, we can write it off,” Johnson added, referring to Democratic field’s frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/19/edwards...