Edwards Will Again Push Clinton On Electability

[jefferson_dem]

Edwards Will Again Push Clinton On Electability
29 Aug 2007 08:48 am

Sen. John Edwards knows that Sen. Hillary Clinton's biggest vulnerability among Democrats is the perception that she is not electable. A polling memo prepared for internal campaign consumption but obtained by this semi-checked out column shows the reasons why.

Pollster Harrison Hickman summarizes the national numbers:

Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani.

Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is virtually identical to that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin. Edwards also outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.

The buried news here is that Barack Obama does almost as well -- except against Giuliani, where Edwards does a little better. Edwards is smart to make an argument out of the Electoral College map: Giuliani puts New Jersey and Pennsylvania into play almost instantly, and the Democrats will need to find ways to force Republicans to spend money in previously red states... Virginia among them.

<SNIP>

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/edwards_will_again_push_clinto.php

[BOSSHOG]

1. I'm a General Clark backer and will be until we get a candidate but

I have to chuckle that a man who lost a presidential race (okay he had it stolen from him) is talking about the electability of a candidate who has never lost. I like Edwards and Clinton and Obama and will proudly work for whomever the candidate is but the "perception" of electability does not work for me and I believe takes up time and effort which should be directed elsewhere.

[JDPriestly]

6. BOSSHOG, Do you really want to hear nothing but

Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, failed opportunities to get Bin Laden during the '90s, tales of nights in the Lincoln bedroom, Sandy Berger's documents in his pant legs, in short a rehashing of the '90s for the remaining months up until the election in 2008? That's what would be a real waste of time for Democrats. That's what a Hillary campaign will mean.

We have the opportunity to put our country on the right track toward solving the basic issues we face -- like improving our economy through energy independence, getting a real negotiator in the White House with a proven record of standing up to and defeating corporate opponents, rewarding competence, not political favors with government appointments, universal healthcare through a means that will not bankrupt ordinary Americans, an independent military that uses equipment made in the U.S., renegotiation of NAFTA with fair labor provisions, a justice department that works for all Americans, open government, a campaign to get to the truth about the causes of cancer and certain other diseases and getting an honest government that serves all Americans not just the big money donors. All we have to do to get that opportunity is to vote for Edwards. He not only offers the best solutions for America, but he is offering his big heart, his brilliant mind and his exceptional integrity. In addition, and on top of all that, the polls show that he beats every Republican in the race.

Hillary is OK. But she just does not measure up to the standard that Edwards sets. And when you weigh her baggage and when you think about the distractions that she brings with her, it just makes no sense to nominate her. Edwards polls better against Republican contenders than does Hillary for reasons, many of them.

[BOSSHOG]

7. And I promised myself

I would not enter into any democratic primary discussions.

[mantis]

10. uh...

When exactly did Edwards lose a presidential race? And when was it stolen from him? I totally don't
understand your post. Edwards lost the nominating process...which isn't the same as a "presidential" race. Kerry lost a presidential race.

[BOSSHOG]

11. Lets see

Edwards was on the democratic ticket in 04 and "lost." There has been speculation that republican chicanery in Ohio caused the race to be "stolen" from the dem ticket. It was also said that Clinton was unelectable when she ran for U. S. Senate.

I do not see the value in saying a frontrunner is unelectable unless of course, he who is saying it is desperate. Per many democrats Bill Clinton was unelectable in 92; they wanted to sacrifice him to the unbeatable GHW Bush and then he would go back to Arkansas never to be heard from again.

And as I feel I must - I WILL WHOLE HEARTEDLY SUPPORT WITH GUSTO AND WITH AS MANY BUCKS AS I CAN SCRAPE UP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I live in Mississippi, our primary is late and irrelevant so I will have very little to do with who gets the nomination.

[mantis]

16. lets see...

You do realize a VP candidate doesn't lose..or win...a presidential race...right?

I actually think at this point in time...ANY democrat can win...even Dodd or biden or whatever. After bush....anyone looks good to the electorate.

[BOSSHOG]

18. Oh thank you for the civics lesson Mantis

I don't know how the fuck I have retained my citizenship without your assistance.

[emilyg]

12. Amen. Good post.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. The article doesn't mention Obama loses FL, PA, and OH

How does Obama get to 270 electoral votes? He does well in the popular vote but winning 52-48 means nothing if you lose the electoral vote. Clinton is actually more electable than Obama with Edwards being the most electable of the trio.

[Dawgs]

3. Huh?

"Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the ONLY Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani."

Don't the Edwards supporters realize this info is available to anyone?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/21 - 41.8% 45.8% Obama +4.0%
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/23 - 43.0% 45.0% Edwards +2.0%
Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/14 - 44.4% 44.6% Clinton +0.2%

Fred Thompson (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/21 - 35.3% 48.8% Obama +13.5%
Fred Thompson (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/23 - 35.7% 48.0% Edwards +12.3%
Fred Thompson (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/15 to 08/14 - 41.0% 47.3% Clinton +6.3%

John McCain (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 07/12 to 08/13 - 38.7% 46.7% Edwards +8.0%
John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 07/17 to 08/13 - 38.7% 45.3% Obama +6.6%
John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 07/17 to 08/16 - 42.3% 46.0% Clinton +3.7%

Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
RCP Average 06/20 to 08/16 - 36.5% 50.0% Obama +13.5%
Mitt Romney (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
RCP Average 06/20 to 07/19 - 37.3% 49.7% Edwards +12.4%
Mitt Romney (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D)
RCP Average 06/21 to 07/18 - 38.3% 48.0% Clinton +9.7%

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. The president is elected via the electoral college. Show us the EV totals for each match up... nt

[mitchtv]

4. undecided, but like Edwards, but,

He should stick to selling his ideas, and if he wants to attack , the GOP has a great big target on them. -points off again, JE

[dmallind]

8. I understand and somewhat agree

...but then he isn't running against Republicans yet. I certainly don't suggest Dems start going through each others' garbage in search of porno films on hotel bills or crap like that, but I don;t think it's necessarily bad to point out your advantages against other candidates. Head to head polls, especially ones which incorporate state level detail and EC implications, for the general seem like fair game to me.

[mitchtv]

14. He should be running against the Pugs

and for himself. Building himself up.Here's one old time Dem who doesn't like this shit . worry about your own electabilty, John. Pointing out one's advantages can be done without negative implications to your competition

[BeyondGeography]

9. "Electability" has to be pinned to something more compelling than "I'm not her"

Think back to 2004 with Kerry the War Hero vs. Dean the Guy Who Didn't Serve. Many people switched to Kerry late becuse they saw the value of running a veteran in an election that was bound to turn on national security. Kerry had a critical and differentiating piece of biography that helped him win the electability argument against an established frontrunner. Eventually in this campaign, people will again decide between big ideas, whether it be change vs. experience, winning at all costs vs. winning (or running the risk of losing) with integrity, competency vs. charisma, etc. Edwards, Obama and all the other challengers will have to fill in one of those big spaces to beat Hillary. "I don't have her polling problems" is not one of those big spaces.

[rinsd]

13. Excellent post.

[Adelante]

15. Ambinder's more recent post

Rereading The Polls: Does Edwards Really Do Better Against Giuliani?

29 Aug 2007 03:00 pm

Does John Edwards consistently beat Hillary Clinton in head-to-head matchups against Rudy Giuliani in national polls?

Says a senior Clinton adviser of this memo from Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman: "If 'Edwards' is Hickman’s secret code name for 'Hillary Clinton,' then he is correct."

They point out that, because Edwards has dropped into single digits in some national Democratic primary polls, fewer pollsters are testing him against Republicans.

And in some of the most recent national and state polls, Clinton seems to have a comparable lead -- or even, in case, a bigger lead. Consider Quinnipiac's six-day national survey ending 8/13.



Clinton: 46 Giuliani: 43

Edwards: 43 Giuliani: 42


The California-based Field poll:



Clinton: 52 Giuliani: 37

Edwards: 47 Giuliani: 42


The Concord Monitor's latest poll (July)



Clinton: 47 Giuliani: 45

Edwards: 43 Giuliani: 44

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/rereading_the_polls_does_edwards_really_do_better_against_giuliani.php


At the bottom of the link in the OP, he had cautioned:

I've written about this elsewhere; I think the case is less cut-and-dried than Edwards makes it out to be, but it's not my case to make -- it's Clinton's.

[SaveElmer]

17. Is this an admission on Edwards part...

That he cannot make headway against Hillary based on a differentiation in their positions, so is trying to scare Democrats into believing Hillary is somehow unelectable?

[jsamuel]

19. this is some person speculating on what Edwards is going to do

too many people here are acting like this is Edwards speaking...