Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is this the Kerry 2016 thread? [View all]ucrdem
(15,512 posts)45. About the Edwards-Cheney VP Debate:
You might be thinking of the Cheney-Lieberman debate which did have a negative impact on Gore's polling. Edwards however did just fine and the consensus seems to have been that if anything Kerry-Edwards got a slight boost:
Edwards, Cheney Split Debate Polls - Posted by staff on October 6, 2004
Senator John Edwards beat Vice President Dick Cheney 41-28 percent of "uncommitted voters" who viewed the debate, with 31 percent saying it was a tie, in a CBS News Poll conducted by Knowledge Networks immediately following the debate. The poll concluded that "Edwards also greatly improved his standing among the uncommitted voters. Cheney made more limited gains."
Cheney beat Edwards 43-35 among RV viewers, with 19 percent saying it was a tie in an ABC News Poll conducted by TNS after the debate. One cautionary note in the ABC News report on the poll: "One factor is that more Republicans tuned in 38 percent of viewers were Republicans, 31 percent Democrats, the rest independents." Nonetheless, the poll showed a 1 point gain for Kerry-Edwards in the WH horse race among the poll's respondents following the debate.
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/donkeyrising/2004/10/edwards_cheney_split_debate_po.html
That accords with my own perceptions. Cheney had a good line about never seeing Edwards in the Senate, but Edwards held his own and worked in a mention of Cheney's gay daughter which may have been a low blow but nevertheless scored a hit.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well there's a reason Newt came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination.
Drunken Irishman
Jan 2013
#25
Here is why Hillary and Kerry candidacies are not what we should be talking about.
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#39
mainly because half the people I was with believed it until I explained the situation to them
uppityperson
Jan 2013
#36
You keep looking backward. This is 2016 we are talking about and Clinton should have been allowed
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#64
True. Hillary is not ordinary, but I genuinely hope we can find someone younger
JDPriestly
Jan 2013
#72
Clinton was a loser too - she got less far than Kerry, who had Ohio not been rigged would have
karynnj
Jan 2013
#59
She is the same age as Hillary45,without the resume. Has the senate even been in session yet?
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#42
To do one specific thing her fans want her to do. She is not going to be like say
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#63
Where is the sarcasm smilie? This is the silliest idea I have ever heard of.I would NOT vote for him
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#41
yeah, and John will be sitting in a corner on 1/17/17 applauding President Hillary Clinton 45.
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#44
Be nice to Hillary45, you need her to keep JKerry on as SOS to beat McNamara's SOS longevity record.
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#48
for vp. Hillary45/Biden. History set. Then in 2020, Hillary45/Michelle46
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#53
Did you say that about FDR? Gore? JFK? Bobby? John Quincy Adams? Jerry Brown?
graham4anything
Jan 2013
#77
Out of all of the potential and viable Democratic Party presidential candidates for 2016.....
OldDem2012
Jan 2013
#75