John Edwards Raises Most Money In Southern States (More than top 3 Repubs Combined)

[Blackhatjack]

Edwards is the candidate who can win the South, and he appeals to the independents/undecideds and unaffiliated voters. And in head to head matchups, he is the only Democrat to beat EVERY REPUB.

Dems need to understand the power of a candidate who can bring the South onboard. There are lots of electoral votes in the South.

This election is about which Democrat can WIN in Nov 2008 against the Republicans. IMHO Edwards is the best candidate who can do this.

LINK

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18435016/

WASHINGTON - North Carolina’s John Edwards says he’s the only Democratic presidential candidate with any chance of winning the coveted South.
If early fundraising is any indication, he might be right.

<snip>

Counting only Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, Edwards raised $2,723,000. That’s more than six times Clinton’s take of $440,471 and nearly four times the $705,650 raised by Obama, according to numbers compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine.org, an online repository of campaign finance data.

Among Republicans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the way with $1,127,484, compared with $603,723 for Arizona Sen. John McCain and $384,500 for Giuliani.
“For Edwards, he’s a Southern guy and there’s a comfort level there,” said John Anzalone, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster. For Clinton and Giuliani, “it’s kind of like the Pace Picante Sauce commercial: They’re from New York City.”
MORE

[movonne]

1. link please

[Blackhatjack]

3. I added it to the OP --thanks for the reminder!

[saltpoint]

2. The Edwards campaign is fiercely resourceful while the 2008 GOP

is offering no vision distinct from the failed two terms of the Bush administration.

Good post. Recommended.

[usregimechange]

4. He will be the next President, nothing I can do to stop it nor do I

want to.

[Catch22Dem]

5. "More than top 3 Repubs Combined"

That, my friends, is good! I'm still holding out hope that Wes will join the race, but I have NOTHING bad to say about Edwards and would be honored to have him as my president.

[gaspee]

6. First off

After Gore (who isn't running) Edwards is my choice.

But. Do we need to win the south? It would be nice to, don't get me wrong, but I think we can win without winning the south. The numbers add up. We'd just have to carry the northeast (in the bag) and the midwest and far west. Midwest could be a problem because it's full of fundies, too.

With Obama or Clinton, we will lose the south. Obama needs Secret Service protection already for chrissakes-- soley because of his race. He will not carry a single southern state. I'm afraid Clinton won't either. She's a woman and women belong at home, according to the fundies who are the biggest voting block in the south.

I don't see how anyone could POSSIBLY vote for a republican these days, but those wacky republicans aren't known for their logic.

[saltpoint]

7. We'd be very pleased to have support in the American South, yes.

I don't think Tom DeLay represents the progressives in Texas. Newt Gingrich doesn't represent progressive Georgians. Jesse Helms, in his day, did not represent progressives in North Carolina.

Progressives seem to be an overwhelming minority percentage of voters, but the moderates are out there and we need to fight for their allegiance by persuading them that -- in Howard Dean's words -- they vote against the interests of their own children by supporting the Republican platform in education, health care, and so on.

Dean had it right.

I support his 50-state strategy and that includes Dixie.

[Blackhatjack]

8. So well said nothing more need be added... Good Job!

[saltpoint]

10. The kudos are all belong to you, Blackhatjack, and more power to ya.

You lit the blaze on a fire that needed to burn on this issue.

We just can't give up anything. We should fight for all of it.

[gaspee]

11. Sorry

I wasn't clear enough. I reread my post and see it wasn't completely clear. I 100% support the 50 state strategy. I'm voting for Edwards in my primary that doesn't count.

But. If Edwards isn't the nominee, I don't think either Obama or Clinton will carry a single southern state. I still think we can win.

Of course, I'd prefer to see Edwards win the nomination (as long as Al doesn't run.) My dream ticket is Gore/Edwards.

While a large minority in the south is progressive and getting more so, they aren't the majority. And in our stupid winner takes all system, the majority controls 100% of the electoral college votes.

It's kind of sad that the only candidate with strong support in a general election in the south is Edwards.

[saltpoint]

13. Hi, gaspee. Maybe I'm the one who didn't get the right emphasis.

I think that Dean's 50-state strategy is better than what's been tried in the past. People often point out to me that it won't convince everybody in the country, and I realize that, but I like the idea Dean has of confronting voters of both parties in the South about their personal, familial and community interests. The Democratic platform puts them in a much better place than the tax-cutting, bomb-and-abandon Republican platform.

And Louisiani should be ours in 2008; a couple of reminders of which party was in the White House when no aid showed up should be a forceful point in our favor.

Nixon did us in pretty good south of the Mason-Dixon Line. I'd sure like to gain some of that territory back with a coalition of moderate and new-era Democrats.

[1932]

17. It's not a question of whether we need to win the south.

It's a question of whether the Democrats can win anywhere if they don't have a message that Americans in the south understand.

The Democrats core values about who should have power in American should speak directly to a majority of people living in the south. I don't see how the Democratic candidate can win anywhere if they're not talking about things that most people in states like Georgia and Alabama and Arkansas understand on a very personal level.

[jsamuel]

9. the best part is not that he can win the South, it's that he can do it WITH OUR IDEAS!!!

He isn't doing it by going to the right or the center, but coming to where WE ARE and being RIGHT on the issues!

[waiting for hope]

12. He's My President....

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: You are sooo right:

"but coming to where WE ARE and being RIGHT on the issues!"


K&R!

[1932]

18. That is the most significant thing about Edwards's appeal in the south.

He's not getting this support in the south by being anti-union or racist or an authoritarian. In fact, it's the exact opposite, and people who wouldn't otherwise vote democratic are understanding these core democratic issues on a very visceral level when they listen to Edwards talk about them.

[Lex]

14. As you noted the best part is:

. . . in money raised in the South, Edwards was the leader. From Louisiana to the Carolinas, Edwards easily beat his Democratic rivals and—perhaps more importantly—raised more money than the top three Republican candidates combined.

[Blackhatjack]

15. It is amazing how the MSM ignores this kind of information when it does not benefit their choice....

Turn it around and ask if they would be broadcasting this if one of their choices had these numbers?

[AnnInLa]

16. Happy to say I am one of these donors for Edwards....n/m

[Blackhatjack]

19. A useful exercise, count the electoral votes up for grabs in the South if Edwards is Nominee...

... then look at the polling that shows ONLY EDWARDS would beat every Republican candidate.

Then check the other candidates, subtract the number of electoral votes in the South from the total, and look at how many electoral votes they have to win elsewhere to win the General Election.
It sure is a lot more daunting for them to win than John Edwards.

[Blackhatjack]

20. Electoral Votes in the South Up For Grabs...

Alabama 9
Arkansas 6
Georgia 15
Louisiana 9
Miss 6
N. Car 15
S. Car 8
Tenn 11

Total 79

Total Number Needed to Elect 270 out of 538


A Non-Edwards Dem Candidate Needs 270 out of 459 = 59% of Non-South Electoral Votes


IF Edwards competes evenly in the South He needs 270 of 538 = 50% of Non-South Electoral Votes

If Edwards wins the South, he needs 191 (270 - 79) = 191 of 459(41.6%) of Non-South votes


This is why Edwards is the most electible candidate we can nominate.