3 times number of Democrats rule out vote for Edwards

[creeksneakers2]

Clinton, who tops national polls of Democrats, is strongest within her party. Only 10% of Democrats said they'd rule her out; nearly three times as many said they wouldn't vote for Edwards.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-07-clinton-poll_N.htm


Edwards's stategy of smearing Hillary is backfiring. The number of Democrats who rule out Edwards is double the amount that choose him for their vote.

[BootinUp]

1. How's that netroots rhetoric working John? n/t

[jmp]

2. DLCers

...

[Joe the Revelator]

3. That has nothing to do with him "smearing" The Hillary

and has everything to do with his other unfavorables (trial lawyer, past loser) and the fact that he decided to take matching funds, making him worthless in a GE.

[creeksneakers2]

31. Exploiting his wife's cancer and son's death

looked bad for Edwards too.

[liskddksil]

33. wow

thats a cheap shot

[Clark2008]

41. Yep... it certainly is... for Edwards to do, which he did. eom

[OneGrassRoot]

45. I have a different take on this....

assuming anyone TRULY feels Edwards exploits these tragedies as opposed to it simply being a stereotypical political smear.

While many of us have experienced loss in our lives (given the average age of DUers, according to the poll at GD), death of parents, illness, etc., fortunately not that many of us have experienced the loss of a child.

I have.

In my humble opinion, the loss of a child is the most difficult tragedy to accept and to move on from, regardless of how the child passed. It affects every single thing you do for the rest of your life...how you react, the choices you make and why you make them.

I admire John and Elizabeth tremendously. They have taken something devastating - and anyone who tries to say it is anything but that is part of Ann Coulter's fan club and need not reply here - and, yes, they are using it. They acknowledge this loss rather than act as though it never happened, and they acknowledge that the decisions they make are largely BECAUSE of this loss.

They want to honor their son and be parents and citizens who would make their son proud. They're not perfect, but I believe that is the underlying motivating factor for everything they do. To make their son, and all of their children, proud. Fighting the good fight since that is and has always been part of their character makeup. Again, I'm not saying they are perfect...no one is...but I believe they have a tremendous amount of integrity as the foundation of what they do.

Slam them all you want for other reasons, but to say they're exploiting personal tragedy...well, I think it speaks more to the people who say such things than any reflection on the Edwards.

[venable]

50. thank you nt

[creeksneakers2]

52. Sorry to hear about your loss

My opinion of Edwards is based on a list of actions he's taken and continues to take.

Edwards used the cancer in his latest ad.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mNocjJwsEsI

[Tektonik]

44. Exploiting his wife's cancer and son's death, whaaaa?

That's pretty venomous and wholly incorrect. You must be a very sad person to stoop that low.

[venable]

48. this is the worst post I've ever seen, ever. you're a stupid, cruel person

and you don't have a clue, I'd guess about anything. you're an idiot, and I don't give a shit if I get kicked off for attacking a poster.

know what you are talking about before you say something as grotesque as what you posted. you don't have any idea, but does that stop you from saying something so profoundly stupid and cruel. not for a second.

welcome to permanent 'ignore'.

[joeybee12]

4. I think Edwards would be in a stronger position now if he had

run for re-election rather than opting out for the 2004 Presidential Campaign. It would have given him more experience, and, in my opinion, more substance. He's #2 on my list, but I don't think he's going to catch on.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. Which Is Why This Race Has Been Decided Already

Queen Hillary is in our future.

Just the way they want it.

[mtnsnake]

6. Sorry but there's no need to blame Hillary for Edwards demise. Edwards made his own bed. nt

[joeybee12]

7. True...I don't think the secret gay dem mafia had anything to do

with his lack of fire. He should have stayed in the senate and got his face on the evening news a lot...he hurt himself by not running for re-election.

[Clark2008]

42. Problem is that he probably would not have won re-election to the Senate.

[surfermaw]

24. What demise has come to Edwards, Seems to me it is Hillary's

demise, her poll have sure been drooping


COME IOWA...Edward with the help of Dennis as before will beat hillary by 3%

[fooj]

9. What a crock of shit.

There's over 10% of Dems on THIS SITE alone that wouldn't consider voting for Hillary. Another bullshit poll brought to you by another bullshit organization. Geez.....

[asdjrocky]

32. Here Here!

That poll really set my crap detector off.

[medeak]

35. who the hell would participate in USA Today poll? n/t

[rinsd]

8. Very much agreed.

But I think he was too vulnerable to run two simultaneous campaigns.

He could have won of course but he was not a sure bet.

[joeybee12]

10. You're right, it is the South after all...I think he realized he

couldn't have done both. In hindsight, maybe he's kicking himself.

[rinsd]

12. Bad timing & not a safe seat.

Lieberman was able to run two simultaneous campaigns because his seat was in zero danger from the GOP.

If Edwards had run his opponent would have slaughtered him for running for Prez too.

[joeybee12]

16. Yeah, and we didn't know what a piece of work Holy Joe

was at the time...then again, maybe it was 9-11 that brought out his neo-fascist qualities.

[rinsd]

17. He was a hawkish socially conservative before.

Perhaps it took circumstances for him to just jump off the cliff.

[joeybee12]

22. Very true...people didn't know that much about him prior...

...when he'd always been to the right of most people in CT. They veered right when they dropped Lowell Weicker for him.

[maddiejoan]

11. I'll vote for Edwards

IF he wins the nomination --but he has done himself an awful lot of damage.

Trial Lawyer on the attack = unsympathetic image.

[AwareOne]

13. How sad for Democrats, considering Edwards is the only viable

candidate against the Repubs in a general election. Get ready for eight more years of pain if you vote for Hillary. Do really think that a nation that elected G.W.Bush twice is going to vote for Hillary? Do you think there has been some big fundamental change since 2004? Some enlightenment amongst the electorate? Keep dreaming. We almost could not lose this election unless we nominate Hillary which is exactly what we appear to be doing. Democrats are posed to once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. MARK MY WORDS.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

15. It Will Certainly Be Close

Personally, I think that Any Democrat will win the election next year.

But I Guarantee, that with Clinton in the race, it will be Much, Much, MUCH CLOSER, than anyone....except the Whore media....realizes.

Who knows, maybe it will be close enough for the repubs to steal, but I think they'll be content with having a Clinton to bash for 4 years.

[saracat]

23. You know, they just might be uninformed enough to do so. Sad.Very sad.

If this is so, Americas best days are indeed behind her, with no meaningful change in sight.

[creeksneakers2]

30. Poll shows 44% won't vote for Hillary.

42% won't vote for Edwards.

Edwards' numbers are getting worse for him.

Except for a slight bump Hillary's numbers are getting better for her.

Edwards will soon pass Hillary in unpopularity.

[Toasterlad]

34. I REALLY Agree With You.

And not just because of your avatar.

[mtnsnake]

47. Edwards is "the only viable candidate against the Repubs"? lmao, he's the only unelectable candidate

we have of the top 5 in contention, but I'd love to know what you think makes him the only viable one against the repubs. Is it his pathetic performance against Cheney in 2004 that makes him so viable? Is it how he turned out to be a complete non-factor as the vice presidential candidate when he ran with John Kerry. When it comes to picking running mates, I'll bet Kerry wishes he had that one over again.

[cascadiance]

14. Boy, I guess we here at DU are totally out of touch with the rest of the Dems!

:sarcasm:

Cuz we CERTAINLY DON'T reflect these allegations here locally! Quite the opposite I'd say.

My guess is that if he's losing any ground now, it's likely to Kucinich, who's getting a lot more support from his efforts the last few days, and those that might jump over to Kucinich would likely most likely come from the Edwards camp.

[creeksneakers2]

19. Edwards isn't losing supporters

He's gaining opponents.

[D23MIURG23]

18. In other news polls routinely used by to manipulate electoral results by American media...

:think:

[robinlynne]

20. The only significantly statisical poll I have seen was DFAs, with 150 people.

Kucinich, then Gore, then Edwards.
I believe that poll represents the left half of the dem party.

I dont believe these polls with 1500 people really tell us much, some of whom aren't even registered voters...

[saracat]

21. If that is so many old time Dems will no longer be Dems. Sad. Some would rather a corporate candidat

than a champion of the working man. I guess being a dem is different today.

[surfermaw]

26. I am an old time democrat, and get stsronger every election

An Edwards Democrat and the winner of the Iowa C. beating the second place person by 3%

[Clark2008]

43. The only candidate who is truly a champion of the working "man" is Kucinich.

Edwards just plays at being one.

Haven't you figured that out, yet?

[The River]

25. Edwards To Be Endorsed By Key Iowa Group

Edwards To Be Endorsed By Key Iowa Group
By Greg Sargent - November 8, 2007, 5:58PM

I've just learned from several sources that John Edwards will be endorsed by the fiscal group Iowans for Sensible Priorities, a very good get for Edwards in the key early-primary state.

A source on a rival campaign confirmed that the group decided to endorse Edwards; the decision will officially be announced tomorrow morning. The endorsement is a key one because it could potentially deliver a large block of thousands of caucus goers to Edwards.

Peggy Huptert, the head of the group, refused to confirm or deny whether the group had decided to back Edwards. But she did agree to discuss the general importance of the endorsement with Election Central.

"We have 10,000 Iowans who have taken a pledge saying they will vote in the caucuses and only support a candidate who supports shifting 15% of wasteful Pentagon spending into other priorities," Ms. Huptert said, describing her group's litmus test issue. I was unable to immediately confirm whether Edwards had in fact made this pledge.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/exclusive_edwards_to_be_endorsed_by_key_iowa_group.php

[calteacherguy]

28. delete. nt

[calteacherguy]

27. I think people saw Edwards for the phony he is a long time ago. nt

[EVDebs]

29. "This message was brought to you by DLC HRC"...you forgot to add nt

[struggle4progress]

36. "More than eight in 10 Republicans and more than half the married men in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll

say they definitely wouldn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton for president ... In a general election, the poll suggests that Clinton has the least potential for winning votes from Republicans — 84% say they definitely would not vote for her, compared with six in 10 for either Obama or Edwards."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-11-07-clinton-poll_N.htm

[Reno.Muse]

37. USAToday? Now there's a credible paper!

I say "bullsh*t!"

[last_texas_dem]

38. That would be very unlikely to happen come the time of the general election

A Democratic candidate failing to get 30-percent of the party's voters, that is. Think about it. Neither Gore nor Kerry were extremely popular with Democratic voters, and both managed something like 88, 89-percent of Democrats, IIRC. Considering Edwards's approval ratings among Democrats are in the same range as both Gore's and Kerry's, and perhaps slightly better, it is highly unlikely he would do any worse than they did among Democrats were he the candidate.

Additionally, it should be considered that the majority of voters in Presidential elections are not Democrats, and just because a candidate is highly popular within their party does not mean that they will do better in the general election than one who is not as popular if their appeal to moderates and independents is significantly worse. Think about the 2000 election. GWB beat McCain to be the Repug candidate because he was more popular among his party but had to have the USSC hand him the election that he lacked the across-the-board popularity to win. McCain was not as popular among Republicans (or at least Repug primary voters) but would have likely had an easier time in the general election and possibly could have legitimately defeated Gore. Clinton's popularity among Democratic voters is not in dispute, but being the most popular candidate within your own party does not necessarily translate to being the strongest candidate in the general election.

[JTFrog]

39. self-delete.

[Clark2008]

40. And me to that list, making it three times plus one.

But, it has nothing to do with his "smearing" of HRC - it's because I don't think he has the resume for the job.

[1932]

46. From same article: 84% of all voters won't vote for Clinton (Obama and Edwards only 60%)

In a general election, the poll suggests that Clinton has the least potential for winning votes from Republicans — 84% say they definitely would not vote for her, compared with six in 10 for either Obama or Edwards. Independents show the least resistance to Obama and the most to Edwards.

[BootinUp]

49. Not what it says

43% overall.

I guess you meant to say 84% of Republicans. So what?

[underpants]

51. Is this the same poll that informs us that Republican males don't like Hillary?

is it in pie chart form?