Thursday, January 17, 2008

John Edwards is the Most Electable


The proof is in polls from Oklahoma and Ohio. OK, this is going to be a rant.

In Oklahoma John Edwards performs 18 to 26% better than Hillary Clinton depending on who the GOP candidate is. Obama gets even more blown out of the water. Bush won Oklahoma in 2004 by 31% and by 22% in 2000.
If the two winners of the 2008 New Hampshire primary are paired up together, Clinton would lose by roughly the same margin as Kerry did in 2004. The Democrats would not be making any sort of electoral progress.

Democrats tend to get swept in Southern states but a John Edwards candidacy puts these states in play. John Edwards was chosen as the VP in 2004 partly because of his strength in the south but obviously that did not help. The Democrats are just going to have to elect him as the nominee if they want to compete in the South.
In Ohio pretty much the same results, only Edwards wins Ohio against McCain and Huckabee. Obama or Clinton go down to defeat. Some of the Democrats versus the Republicans results from the Ohio poll:
Edwards: 47 percent
McCain: 40 percent
Undecided: 13 percent

Huckabee: 45 percent
Clinton: 43 percent
Undecided: 11 percent

McCain: 46 percent
Clinton: 42 percent
Undecided: 12 percent

McCain: 45 percent
Obama: 42 percent
Undecided: 14 percent

Obama: 44 percent
Romney: 38 percent
Undecided: 18 percent
Obama or Clinton would be the John Kerry of 2008 in the South and in the battleground toss-up states.

Democrats in Texas do not realize this as Edwards remains in third in the latest Texas Democratic primary poll. Current and last month results.
Clinton 46% (51%)
Obama 28% (17%)
Edwards 14% (15%)
I can see the Democratic establishment has gotten in the habit and seems to like to lose but can someone explain to me what the average Democrat in Texas sees in repeating the same John Kerry mistake in 2008?

So far all I've heard is it's historical or that Obama and Hillary will grow on people. It was historical when the Democrats had a losing female vice-president. Being historical doesn't get the job done. By this time Hillary has done all the growing on people she is likely to do.

I am sure Obama is going to be torn up in the Republican lying buzz-saw. I have already seen CNN and Fox News running a few spots with the wrong color filter on clips about Obama where he looks like he has jaundice and needs a shave and looks the closest thing to a terrorist.

If you want to have a much easier time to take the presidency and elect more Democrats vote for Edwards. If you want to make an historical statement but that could lose vote for Hillary or Obama.

2 comments:

Jake said...

Russ Feingold on John Edwards at Acropolis Review:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-for-president_18.html

Gary said...

Sen. Feingold is ignoring that all three candidates are running on his record while not voting with him. Edwards is the one who has most repudiated his past votes.