Can anyone tell me why Edwards runs 3rd in so many states as compared to hil and obama?...

[annie1]

i know here a lot of obama supporters say the IWR, but i don't think that's the case for the masses. anyone have any insight for me? i'm thinking maybe because he's already seen as someone who has lost? (kerry/edwards). also maybe b/c he hasn't had as much media coverage, but it can't just be that. anyone know? thanks. i'm sure there is a lot of obama support that is a hil rejection, why not edwards over obama? (the masses, not you guys). thanks

[Lucinda]

1. I think lack of MSM coverage is part of it. Until recently if you didn't watch a debate

or were politically inclined, you might not know he was running. He's finally getting better coverage now.

[annie1]

3. so frustrating. but then i guess that's how we end up with...

people like Bush, people don't pay attention until it's too late. *sigh* ok. frustrating. i guess that's just how it goes then.

[Lucinda]

13. I wouldn't be too discouraged. If he does as well as I think he will in Iowa

it's going to be all over the news. :)

[asdjrocky]

5. Very good point-

I know a lot of un-engaged people, and they just recently started to take any notice of him.

[Lucinda]

16. Yep.

Plus we started this cycle a bazillion years before the election. :) A lot of people tune out until they NEED to pay attention.

[rocktivity]

12. Edward is anti-corporatism, so of course he's going to be ignored by the MSM

who are as corporate as it gets.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Lucinda]

15. He's been getting excellent press lately.

Which is weird if they really are against him.. good press right before Iowa seems counter productive.

[asdjrocky]

22. One of the reasons for the press-

and I think it's mostly good because he doesn't give them much bad stuff to chew on- might be because of this:

Dear Friends in the Press Corps,

We here at the Edwards Campaign urge you to not swallow the spin of our rivals. John Edwards is, in fact, running a national campaign. In addition to the well-reported strength of our operation in Iowa, we have less-well-reported, but just as strong operations in states all across the country. We have eight times the number of field staff in the state of New Hampshire than the Edwards campaign had in 2004; we recently added two dozen field staffers in Nevada; and we were the first candidate to run ads in South Carolina (the state John Edwards was born in and won by 15 points in 2004). Given our support throughout the labor community and advisors at work in all February 5th states, we will have the infrastructure in place to seize on momentum from strong early place finishes. But you don't have to take our word for it.

Introducing, Edwards By The Numbers....

1: Number of presidential candidates actually born in SOUTH CAROLINA - John Edwards. He won the state by 15 points in 2004.
4: Number of television ads John Edwards has been up on the air with in SOUTH CAROLINA - his home state - since being the first to go up on the air in the state in mid- November.
5: Percentage of IOWA caucus-goers polled in November 2003 who supported John Edwards before he went on to finish second with 32 percent of the vote in the actual caucus.
6: Number of percentage points gained by John Edwards in the latest McClatchy poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters, putting him at a very competitive 18%.
7: Number of percentage points separating John Edwards from frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the latest Clemson University Palmetto Poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters.
7: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in NEW HAMPSHIRE, since launching his first major television ad buy on November 3rd.
7: Number of states where the campaign has organized "Road Trip for Edwards" volunteers to come to NEW HAMPSHIRE for canvassing, including the FEBRUARY 5TH
STATES of NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND and MASSACHUSETTS.
8: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in IOWA since launching his first major television ad buy on November 1st.
10: Number of organizers John Edwards had on the ground in NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2003-2004. This cycle, we have eight times the number of organizers that we had in New Hampshire last cycle.
12: Number of state SEIU COUNCILS, representing more than 1.1 million working families, which have endorsed John Edwards for president, including those in the critical early states of IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE.
16: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE.
17: Number of visits John Edwards has made to the state of NEVADA in 2007 - more than any other major candidate.
22: Number of states that will hold primary contests on FEBRUARY 5th .
22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES where Edwards has state political advisers working on his behalf.
22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES in which the Edwards campaign has organized statewide grassroots organizing calls this month.
23: Number of days Edwards has spent in his home state of SOUTH CAROLINA - more than any other Democratic candidate.
25: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of IOWA.
27: Number of chapters of the Edwards campaign's local service arm organized in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA.
34: Number of days John Edwards has spent in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE during the 2008 primary campaign.
75: Percentage of NEVADA Democratic caucus-goers contacted by the campaign who identify themselves as "undecided," which the campaign believes works in our favor.
80: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.
99: Number of IOWA counties.
99: Number of IOWA counties where John Edwards visited - and took questions from Iowans - this year (and also in 2004). He was the first Democrat to do so.
99: Number IOWA counties where Edwards has announced steering committees, reaffirming the strength of his statewide organization. Again, he was the first Democrat to do so.
117: Number of public events John Edwards has held in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.
150: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of IOWA. (Note: Total number is greater than 150.)
1,000: Number of caucus trainings the Edwards campaign has conducted in the state of NEVADA.
1,690: Number of One Corps chapters, the local service arm of the Edwards campaign, across the nation, including 87 in WISCONSIN, 79 in OHIO and 74 in TEXAS.
6,000: Number of active and retired members of the United Steelworkers union in SOUTH CAROLINA, many of whom are actively campaigning and canvassing for John Edwards in the state.
8,000: Number of Communication Workers of America in ARIZONA who have endorsed John Edwards.
10,000: Number of Caucus for Priorities members in IOWA who have pledged to caucus for John Edwards.
11,000: Number of doors knocked on as part of Edwards' "Bold Solutions to Your Issues" statewide canvass in NEVADA on December 15th.
28,000: Number of working families in NEVADA represented by the unions in the state that have endorsed John Edwards, including the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers and local Communications Workers of America.
45,000: Number of UNITE HERE CHICAGO and MIDWEST REGION Joint Board members who have endorsed John Edwards.
96,031: Number of Transport Workers union members in FEBRUARY 5TH STATES who have endorsed John Edwards, including those in NEW YORK (53,729), OKLAHOMA (9,026), CALIFORNIA (8,860) and NEW JERSEY (7,574).
130,000: Number of phone calls Edwards campaign volunteers in NEW HAMPSHIRE made to voters in the state last week alone.
220,000: Number of NEW HAMPSHIRE voters in the 2004 primary.
235,000: Number of doors Edwards campaign volunteers have knocked on in NEW HAMPSHIRE.
330,044: Total number of dollars Edwards had raised in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA at the end of the 3rd quarter fundraising deadline - more than any other Democratic candidate.
656,000: Number of working families represented by SEIU CALIFORNIA, which has enthusiastically endorsed John Edwards and campaigned widely on his behalf.
3.2 million: Number of union members in states all across the country represented by the labor unions who have endorsed John Edwards for president.

Momentum from strong finished in early states: PRICELESS.

And even if this wasn't the reason for the uptick in coverage, I still think it was a clever release from a very smart campaign.

[Lucinda]

24. That's great!

It's very smart. :thumbsup: I also love how much thought he has given real issues. If he's not on the ticket, whoever is would do well to listen to, and incorporate, what he's been saying on the road.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Ignored?

Isn't he on the cover of Newsweek?

[peoli]

47. The MSM would cover Edwards...

if he wasnt so boring.

[BenDavid]

2. It could be most folks have seen edwards before in 03 and 04

and do not need a repeat of all the things said now as he was saying then. Now once folks get an understanding that obama is an empty suit with no foreign relations experience and has not even held meetings in which he is chair of the sub committee nor travel to europe and other places, whereas HRC goes abroad and meets with leaders of countries and thus has the experience, and one thing going for HRC that I see lacking in Obama and Edwards is HRC's aptitude on any given subject matter. It does mean something when the president is maybe the smartest person in the room.....

Ben David

[CoffeeCat]

14. I haven't decided which candidate I'm supporting...

...but I can tell you this.

I would rather have a candidate with little foreign policy experience---than
a candidate like Hillary who has spent most of her time swimming in a cess
pool of corporate corruption and catering to neocon warmongers. Her war votes
are pleasing George Bush, for God's sakes.

As I said, I'm still deciding which candidate to support, but years of kow towing
to neocons and catering to corporate greed--is not the kind of experience for
which I have any respect or admiration.

In fact, I think that kind of experience is amoral, repugnant and criminal.

[Jim Sagle]

19. So you prefer the empty pantsuit to the empty suit.

To each his own, that's my philosophy.

[saracat]

27. There is no evidence that Hillary is the smartest person in the room.

and this "travel experience" BS is getting old.Using your argument Nancy Reagan is fit to be President.Certainly you might consider Jackie Kennedy! She was well traveled and met with world leaders! First lady is NOT executive experience. Both Edwards and Obama are well traveled and have met with world leaders as well.And both have charisma, which she does not.Edwards is not only smart as a whip, and possibly the best lawyer in the nation but people like him.It is going to be important that other nations like and respect us.Hillary is not likable and we don't need to be reminded of the debacles of the Clinton years , which can't be forgotten as long as one of them is running for office.

[Armstead]

28. I'd say Obama and Edwards both display aptitude on subject matter

They both have impressive intellects.

As for Hillary, her keen intellect apparently did not allow her to see through the sham that GW Bush perpetrated when he pushed us into a totally moronic and destructive war in Iraq. (Neither did Edwards, but at least he has seen and admitted to his mistake.)

Her keen intellect didn't see through the con job that is Corporate "free trade" and the neo-liberal Ayn Rand CONservatism represented by Alan Greenspan.

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. Money.

And the media, which follows the money. Name recognition among people who have not really made up their minds is high among Obama and Clinton, because of the media's constant free publicity. Everyone wants to feel like they're backing a winner, so many people will say Obama or Clinton because those are the names they are hearing about.

The people who are actually more in tune with politics and have been studying the candidates are answering Edwards. The people who are casual observers are casually answering Clinton or Obama. Their support is soft. When it comes time to actually vote they may change their minds as they start reading more and listening more to what their real choices are and what the candidates stand for.

Also when Edwards wins Iowa he'll be getting more donations and so, with more money in his coffers he'll be getting more media attention and his poll numbers will naturally go up. Seen it time and time again. I wouldn't be too concerned at this point.

[Radical Activist]

6. Not a lot of experience. His good rhetoric doesn't match his Senate record.

He has a good message but doesn't seem to have much depth beyond being able to give a good stump speech.

[countmyvote4real]

29. Since you appear to have examined just the Senate records…

Could you please back up your opinion with some facts?

I’d like to know because Edwards’ “good rhetoric” sounds good to me. I don’t hear it from any candidate other than Kucinich. (I like Kucinich’s policies, but I don’t think he will play with the majority of Amerikan voters. The MSM will have a field day ignoring if not destroying Kucinich. Can you say UFO?)

For the record, I don’t want to repeat the mistake of another “dynasty” administration. The Clintons do have a record of making promises that turn into compromises or outright sellouts. (NAFTA, DADT, IWF)

Obama is too religionist and homophobic for me. He’s not as extreme as Huckabee, but he doesn’t seem to have a problem using that same religionist snake oil in his campaign events. I’m not talking about Oprah.

And you’re right about some of the Edwards Senate record that I’ve heard him regret and renounce. I think we’re all still waiting for HRC to pick a decision based on polls rather than true commitment and passion because she only has a commitment to herself. In her eyes she can do no wrong.

Edwards does have a record beyond his Senatorial term fighting against corporate abuses as a trial lawyer.

Now I’m going to pull a Frederick of Hollywood and tell you I’m too tired to post any links. But I think there are enough verifiable events or facts to backup many of my opinions regarding the Democratic candidates.

[Radical Activist]

31. Edwards has a 59% lifetime rating with League of Conservation Voters.

That's a pretty strong contrast from his current energy policy. His environmental proposals today are mostly good except for the $1 billion per year he wants to spend on coal industry subsidies to research "clean" coal technologies.
And of course there's his support for the war in Iraq.

Obama belongs to a very liberal church that has embraced homosexuals for years. I don't think Obama's understanding that a majority of American voters are religious makes him homophobic. He has an excellent record on gay rights issues including sponsoring the law in Illinois that added sexual orientation to the Illinois human rights code and marching in the Chicago pride parade.

[countmyvote4real]

35. Do you have a link? I do.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/donnie-mcclurkin-and-perf_b_69772.html

[Radical Activist]

38. I have being there

and knowing about it at the time. Guilt by association games don't mean much to me when it comes to someone with a long record of supporting gay rights. You can google Obama's record just as easily as I can. Google "Obama" and "sexual orientation" and "illinois human rights code." You'll find it.

[countmyvote4real]

42. Sorry. Any of those links proclaiming his GLBT support were nullified by the McClurkin endorsement.

That kind of compromise is too desperate for me. Not what I'm looking for.

I think we're done. You are sold and I'm not buying it. I've closed, too.
May the best leader win regardless of their gender, race or foreign policy experience.

PEACE

[Radical Activist]

43. Yeah, record matters to me more than symbolic acts and stump speeches.

Obama has the record. Edwards doesn't. It is nice that Edwards finally came around on the civil unions issue this time.

[countmyvote4real]

46. Bless your heart. n/t

[LakeSamish706]

7. So your question becks another question... Who are you voting for in the Primaries?

I'm guessing it is not going to be Edwards, so do you wish to disclose who you support at this time?

[annie1]

8. actually i think it might be edwards, why do you say you think it's not.

:)

i live in nys btw. if the race would be close btwn obama and hil i would vote hil, but i'm safe to vote heart, so i'll vote edwards. it changes daily, sometimes hourly. i like them all. :D

[MindMatter]

9. The people running the polls and the people controlling the media coverage ...

... are one in the same, and they have very good reasons for backing Hillary as their number two option and Obama as their number three option. Their number one option, obviously, is whoever emerges as the Republican nominee. But Hillary and Obama are the next best thing in the event they can't drive the GOP candidate home with the public.

Edwards is their worst nightmare.

It really isn't any more complicated than this.

(Well, OK. a Ticket of Dennis Kucinich and Michael Moore is their worst nightmare, but that ain't happening.)

[annie1]

11. all your guys' answers make a lot of sense. thanks.

[Radical Activist]

32. People know who Edwards is.

He was on the national ticket. People have had the chance to look at him before. Kucinich supporters can make a good case for lack of media coverage hurting their candidate but I have a hard time taking that seriously when it comes from Edwards backers.

[Quixote1818]

34. Especially those in Iowa where most pundits now think he will win. nt

[comradebillyboy]

10. Hill and obama are more popular

nt

[Captain Hilts]

17. I don't 'get' it. Especially in NC - his home state - and SC. nt

[Yukari Yakumo]

18. Maybe the people figured out he's a complete and total phony.

He does one thing, says another. Not just what he's saying now is totally different from how he voted when he was in the Senate, there's also the issue of fighting poverty while making a small fortune from a hedge fund that foreclosed on NOLA homes.

There is nothing anyone can conclude as to what he really stands for. Every argument for him can be countered with something he's either said or done.

He's almost your stereotypical sleazy politician, minus the blatant corruption.

[FlyingSquirrel]

21. Oh, the "PHONY" narrative.

See this thread for who is trying to create the "Phony" myth and why it is completely bogus.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3873802

[jenmito]

30. It's not a narrative. It's a fact. He IS phony...unless you can explain

his explanation for accepting matching funds as a "moral choice" when he first chose to forego matching funds in order to remain competitive. It wasn't until he saw his time was running out and he was unable to raise nearly as much as Obama and Hillary that he "chose" to take matching funds and challenged the others to do the same.

And he was involved in a hedge fund to LEARN about them, so he claimed. Yeah, right.

And he was a co-sponsor of the IWR and turned against it when it was popular to do so.

There are other things, too.

[asdjrocky]

33. Is this your fucking job or something?

I never see an OP out of you. You never offer any facts or any sort, and you attack Edwards with nothing but RW crap.

I'm calling you out. But I don't expect you to respond, because you never do.

You ask questions, but you never answer them. All you do is sit on the sideline and take pot shots. The fact that someone like you supports Obama, takes Obama down a notch in my opinion.

By the way, how do you justify Obama giving Bushco everything he wants on this war, while you attack John Edwards?

[jenmito]

39. No, it's not.

But it's funny to see Edwards supporters unable to address my points and just attack me with the same ol' BS lines. Everything I said is true. You can't deny it. I respond to every post I get.

It's you who have no answers. I've started positive threads about Obama that none of you people comment on. The other Obama supporters do and then the thread dies.

Obama has to deal with the mess Edwards and Clinton got us into. Duh.

p.s. It's almost 1:30am so I'm going to bed. If I don't reply (if you're able to respond, it's not because I can't. It's because I'm sleeping and I'll answer tomorrow. But I doubt you'll be able to address my original points about your guy.)

[asdjrocky]

44. Right.

Can you tell me how much money Obama has taken from Hedge Funds?

Can you explain the lack of a vote on Iran?

Can you explain his close and personal relationship with Goldman Sachs?

And his continued voting for the support of the war is simply to clean up a mess?

Better yet, can you tell me anything about any kind of plan Obama has for America? What is his vision? What's his position on New Orleans?

What about Iran, oh yeah, no vote. But wait, we do know how much he like lie-er-man, the pugs Dem dream, so maybe we do know his stand on Iran.

I don't expect a single answer to one of my questions, why should you spoil a perfect record?

You don't have any answers, all you do is snark. It amazes me the other Obama supporters here don't try to shut your yapping trap up.

[jenmito]

50. That's what I figured.

Once you explain the reasons for the things Edwards did (in my post #30 as well as the post #18) I'll start answering yours. Unless you can explain the actions of your opportunistic candidate, this conversation goes no further. I don't have a yapping trap that needs to be shut up. I have a candidate that I'm proud of who doesn't change positions like the weather.

[asdjrocky]

54. You mean he was against the war-

Before he voted for every single penny to fund the war?

Way to not change his positions. And, by the way, I'm still, after all this time, trying to figure out exactly what those positions are. I keep hoping that he, or someone else can tell me.

[jenmito]

55. How sad that you can't defend your candidate's flip-flops.

As you know, Obama WAS against the war from the beginning. It's not HIS fault your guy and others gave Bush permission to invade Iraq! You still have yet to explain johnny-come-lately's positions. Typical Edwards supporter. :hi:

[ozone_man]

20. I think his populist message is only now beginning to catch on.

Dean played a similar role in 2004, riding a antiwar wave of sentiment, but the DLC crushed him.

After a second Bush term, five years of war, a worsening economy due to such policies as NAFTA and job outsourcing, conditions are set for a populist to win. The timing is right now to run on anticorporate platform. End the war on terror, end or at least reduce corporate welfare, repeal the Patriot Act, restore Constitutional rights. Time to bring it home and address core issues.

[Quixote1818]

25. Hillary is McDonald's Obama is Burger King and Edwards is Good-time Burger

Don't pay attention to the national polls. People outside of Iowa and NH are not tuned in. If you live in California you get polled and you simply say "Hillary" or "Obama" because they get as much advertising from the media as McDonald's and Burger King get from advertising even though Good-time Burger has the best food. People polled will say McClinton or Obama King until they actually sink their teeth into an Edwards Good-time burger! THEN they will truly know who has the best burgers.

Thats my take anyway.

[countmyvote4real]

37. So, how do we get Amerika to taste a good time Edwards burger?

I talk him up among friends and family. I've offered a few posts here at DU, but that's like herding cats.

[Quixote1818]

40. I honestly think Edwards is a closer

He knows how to close the deal one on one with the crowds in Iowa and NH. By far he has the best stump speech and the most energy with the crowds. As they say in sales "He knows how to close the deal" and I think he will during the last week. Four years ago he went from 5% to 32% in less than a week as everyone made up there mind. That last week a lot of people will drop into the Good-time burger and discover just who really has the best burger. And if they don't then they have no taste and the country is fucked. We will then be forced to eat McClinton burgers for four years. Or McHuckabee burgers.

:scared:

[countmyvote4real]

45. I hope you're right. But just look at some of the responses within this thread.

And that's from people that are paying attention although rather selectively.

I include myself. I have not welcomed the seemingly divine endorsement of HRC to POTUS. Obama sings a great song, but he doesn't say how he will do anything. Hell, neither he, HRC or Biden could bother to support Dodd's filibuster. That kind of put their respective priorities in stake for me.

I support the policies of John Edwards and believe that they can be adjusted as necessary to fulfill them for a progressive vision for our country and the world.

These are historic times indeed.

[Quixote1818]

49. Edwards wins all the polls on DU though

There will always be a few Edwards attackers but for the most part DU is very supportive of Edwards. As are most of the Air America hosts, and Air America listeners. He and Kucinich are the favorites of most progressives.

[Forkboy]

51. Kucinich is the Big Kahuna Burger!

[Quixote1818]

52. He is one tasty burger!

:D

[Forkboy]

53. hehe

:D

[balantz]

26. Corporate M$M actively flips the ignore switch on him for obvious reasons.

That will all change when he wins Iowa. After that he will have to put his strong and progressive message into the media spotlight in N.H.

[bemildred]

36. Polls are horseshit, all of them. nt

[CK_John]

41. To me it's his rapid eye blinking, why it bothers me so much, I don't know. n/t

[gulliver]

48. Edwards should be Vice President now.

That has to be one of the main things dogging him. He should have completely nailed Cheney in debate. He did hit Cheney a hell of a lot harder than Liebermann did in 2000. But Edwards did not nail that bastard.

For my own part, I think that Edwards can't seem to go for the jugular. His wife Elizabeth seems to have the most authentic perception of the current political reality we find ourselves in. Edwards seems kind of dense. His wife is kind of trenchant. Edwards has to get real and create himself an image. He seems to be closer to that than ever before.