Edwards, Not Hillary, Is the Dems Best Chance

[illinoisprogressive]

I personally think it's Obama but, I can live with Edwards quite nicely...



According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a rout. Key to her current appeal is the assumption that she's the party's most electable candidate. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 54 percent of Democrats described her as their best hope in 2008. (The other candidates lagged behind.)

There's only one problem with this faith in Clinton's electability: it's wrong. On paper, John Edwards is the party's best chance for a victory, even though his latest fundraising difficulties have made it increasingly unlikely that he will ever be the nominee.

Sure, Clinton often runs ahead of the Democratic pack in polls that track the candidates' strengths against possible GOP opponents. But that's because she has already assumed the role of a nominee, and the others have not. If Edwards or Barack Obama won the nomination, that air of certainty would transfer to either of them.

In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her electability probably haven't been reading the latest polls carefully. In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn't looking particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning signs that Clinton's presence at the top of the ticket could be a disaster for her party's congressional candidates in many closely contested races.

Mapping it out

The electoral college is currently more equally divided between the two major parties than it has been at most times in history - hence the now-cliché Red- and Blue-State analysis. Democrats and Republicans each enter 2008 with about 200 of 538 available electoral votes, 270 of which are needed to win. The key, then, for the Dems, is to get the other 70 either by winning the toss-up states or, better yet, also winning some states Republicans are taking for granted because they're in the GOP base of the South and mountain West.

Clinton's problem is that, according to some polls, Rudy Giuliani is currently running even or only slightly behind her in New Jersey, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - up-for-grabs states Clinton has to sweep in order to win. Given his current showing, it's likely Giuliani will win some of those contests in November 2008 and deny Clinton a majority.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/edwards_not_hillary_is_dems_be.html

[Colobo]

1. Obama > Edwards > Biden > Clinton > Any Other Dem Candidate> Pile of Poop > Republicans

[Ken Burch]

14. You're probably right...

Where can I get my "Pile O' Poop '08" bumperstickers?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

2. Yup someone

who can't make it in the primary is going to win big in the GE. Yawn.....

[Colobo]

3. Obama is the one that will bring the big Dem win in 08.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

9. I agree

as VP.

[Colobo]

13. No. As President. As OUR President. He won't dissapoint you.

[ShortnFiery]

4. I'm beginning to come around - IF Edwards/Obama get together then the vote would not be split.

If Obama dropped out with the understanding that if Edwards scored the Nomination, Obama would be his running mate. THEN, ole' HRC would have a true RUN FOR HER MONEY! :thumbsup:

[Colobo]

6. Let Edwards drop and endorse Obama. I mean

Why should Obama drop?

[ShortnFiery]

8. LOL - well, I'm thinking about a few more years scoring the top spot for Edwards, but point taken.

:hi:

[Nutmegger]

5. R&K

It's time for true leadership.


:thumbsup::kick:

[Trisket-Bisket]

7. Gosh,

I am so glad that you can "live" with Edwards! I wouldn't want you to die or anything.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Hillary is our weakest GE candidate. Obama and Edwards are much stronger

[Captain Hilts]

11. Then why is NC a three-way contest still? nt

[illinoisprogressive]

12. read the article.

[napi21]

15. I can tell you Obama doesn't stand a chance of winning ANY of the

southern states! I've spent the last 6+ months arguing about either Obama or Hillary, and all I keep hearing is "the Dems could easily have a rout in this election, and what do they do? Promote a black man and a woman! NEITHER CAN WIN!!!!" I don't think you really understand how strong the racism still is in the South, and there sure are a lot of people still alive that believe women have no place in leadership! I hate it, but damn it, it's true!

I don't know if Edwards can or not. My problem with John is that he's too soft spoken. I want someone who is strong and can go TOUGH against the Pubs, and I just haven't seen that with John.

I happen to think Biden is the best candidate, but I'm obviously in a small minority.

[BenDavid]

16. For the first time, a majority of Democrats

nationwide supports HRC for the party's nomination. Clinton's support in the Washington Post-ABC News poll jumped 12 points from last month, to 53 percent. She's 33 points ahead of her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama.Great news...

Last week CNN/Gallup did a poll and for the first time HRC's negatives dropped below that magic numer of 40%. She stood at 39%...So, her nationwide polling would be 53% favorable.....39% unfavorable.....Not too damn bad.....Bush would like those numbers....

Ben David

[autorank]

17. I think it's Gore but of those running, I agree. But what about the 2013 remark & this?

In NH last week, he refused to commit, as Pres. Edwards, to have us out of Iraq by 2013.

Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States of America when Bush ordered the attack. The attack violates international law pertaining to war, therefore it’s a war crime.

Who is worse? The arsonists who sets the fatal fire or the firemen who, knowing there is a fire,
stand by and do nothing Anonymous internet poster.

Los Angeles Times

Friday 14 September 2007 (Now)

Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top One Million
Original Source - ORB Polling, GB

By Tina Susman

A British survey offers the highest estimate to date. At least 4 die in a Sadr City car bombing.

Baghdad - A car bomb blew up in the capital's Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City on Thursday, killing at least four people, as a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.

The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

--------------
New York Times

October 11, 2006 (Almost a year ago)

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says
Original Source - JHU School of Public Health

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 � A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

[Apollo11]

18. I agree with Al Gore's comments on the War in Iraq

AL GORE ON CNN LARRY KING LIVE - May 22, 2007

KING: Email question from Jose in Simi Valley, California. "If you were to become president, how would you tackle the inherited problem of Iraq, which somebody is going to inherit?"

And in that line, a follow-up question from Washington, D.C. What's your question?

CALLER: Hi. I wanted to ask Mr. Gore where he sees Iraq in five years from today.

KING: OK, let's loop them together. Somebody is going to inherit this problem. It ain't going away.

GORE: Well, it -- it's like taking the wheel of a car in the middle of the skid. You have really got to feel where the give is, how to steer out of the skid, how to avoid the crash. And we are headed for a really -- well, we are already in serious trouble -- headed for worse.

There are no easy options. They've created this situation where there really are no good choices. We have to choose the less -- the least worst choice and...

KING: So?

GORE: ... here are the two objectives that we have to pursue simultaneously. Number one, get our troops out of there and home as quickly as possible.

Secondly, do it in a way that honors our nation's moral obligation, which all of us have, regardless of whether we opposed or supported the invasion. We have a moral obligation not to make an already terrible situation even worse in the manner of our leaving.

But there is evidence that in some areas, indeed, the violence could get worse if we precipitously pulled out in the wrong way. But there's evidence in much of the country that the continued presence of the troops is a magnet for violence aimed at them. And the overall continued deterioration of Iraq and the -- what appears to be the real failures of the government in place there create a set of options that are really awful. So...

KING: So what's the less -- what's the -- all right. You're president. How do you get...

GORE: We need to get our troops home as quickly as possible.

KING: In other words, if you were president January 31st, 2009, your first act would be starting withdrawal? You'd start bringing home...

GORE: No, no. As I said before, I would grab hold of the situation and make an immediate assessment of what the best options were to manage this catastrophe.

KING: You don't know what they are. You don't know...

GORE: No, I mean, I know what -- I know generally the families -- we need to get them out of there, as I've said. But we need to make a very clear analysis of how we can get out of there without making it much worse than it is now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/22/lkl.01.html

Notice how Al Gore did NOT call for an immediate withdrawal of all US military from Iraq.

The suggestion that we should blame Barack Obama for the situation in Iraq is ... :crazy:

[autorank]

21. I don't agree with Gore entirely and I never said anybody other than BushCo was responsible.

(You said: The suggestion that we should blame Barack Obama for the situation in Iraq is ..)

If you can quote anything I said her or elsewhere about Obamma being responsible for Iraq fine but, absent that, and you will be absent that, your statement is deliberately misleading, as in on purpose.

Gore is right on everything except getting out just as soon as possible On that, I agree with Richardson who was persuasive and informed on the issue. He actually quoted times in the past for deployment etc.

The British are leaving Basra quickly. Violence is going down.

Our moral obligation is to the 1,000,000 dead civilians, who would otherwise be alive had Bush not invaded illegally. It's to the tens of thousands of U.S. Troops who have died or face permanent disability as punishment for their loyalty to this country.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. This is what I've been saying all year

Actually, I haven't said it often lately because it's obvious Edwards won't be our nominee. Difficult to be motivated.

Democrats are lousy handicappers. You start there. Then you add the loyalty to current polls without understanding how dramatically the dynamic would change if the nominee is different. Even supposedly astute progressive bloggers have made incredible gaffes recently, embracing recent polling and making comments like we are in trouble in specific states unless Hillary is the nominee. Remarkable ignorance.

The article is exactly correct, Hillary leads in the GE polling and has comparative advantage in certain states only because she is the presumed nominee. If you substitute Edwards he expands the playing field and his numbers would be superior to Hillary's. Or Obama's, IMO, although it's close.

For one thing, either Edwards or Obama would soar if they knock off heavyweight Hillary. The publicity and positive press would be overwhelming. Hillary can do nothing now but maintain.

I like Hillary. Let me make that clear. She has unquestionably run the best campaign and in many ways I would feel more comfortable with her as the nominee. She can think on her feet and the knowledge of her team from '92 and '96 would be invaluable. Both Edwards and Obama are exponentially more likely to blunder at the most inopportune moment.

Any woman would have a struggle being elected nationally. That's my trouble with Hillary. Vital states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia are conservative at base instinct, and none of them have elected a female to high statewide office, zero senators or governors. It's almost impossible for us to earn 270+ electoral votes minus at least one of those states. Ohio wants to vote for us in '08 but Hillary atop the ticket makes it iffy at best. Again, I don't give a damn about current polling. The states have sensible track records, and I default there.

I've got many right wing friends who have told me for years that Edwards is their favorite current Democrat and the only one they would consider voting for. That peels off a point here and a point there. I'm hosted debate watching parties for years and you can tell if they are bullshitting you. The margin for error would expand if Edwards is the nominee. With Hillary I think we can win, but it's a struggle, the type of triple bank shot that Mark Warner always talked about when he was considering a presidential run.

2008 is the only year Hillary can win nationally. I'll give her credit for that. Bozo Kerry ran in the wrong cycle but Hillary properly waited. I never said Hillary was a lousy handicapper. It's her gender that troubles me. I already went through this last year in Nevada, a polarizing female gov nominee who was light years superior to her opponent but lost, Dina Titus.

[Ninga]

20. Edwards is not a neophyte at long haul strategy. He will make his move. I expect no less from him.

The next debate will be a tough one....Obama will be feeling better and Hillary will be feeling like the winner.

Edwards needs to take charge if he is to make headway.

[huskerlaw]

22. Edwards isn't having fundraising difficulty

True he has raised significantly less than Hillary and Obama, but the campaign has planned for a smaller budget all along. They're on target for having the money they budgeted.

And yes, Edwards is the most electable candidate. Thanks for posting this.