John Edwards BEATS all Repubs, Hillary LOSES to all Repubs. We must UNITE & take our message OFFLINE

[StefanX]

Read the math below. Hillary loses against ALL Repubs, and Obama loses against McCain -- the most likely Repub nominee. If we continue to let the corporate media force us to choose between Hillary and Obama, we are very likely to LOSE in November.

Edwards is the ONLY one who beats the Repubs and the corporations -- so the corporate media is trying to destroy him.

DUers know what's going on, and we know the corporate media is the main problem here. But how can we reach people who don't read DU? What if we printed up the greatest articles from DU and distributed them, so more people will be informed?

A few of us could do the layout of our Greatest articles using PageMaker, QuarkXPress or Adobe Indesign, then PDF it and upload it for us to download, print and distribute locally, OFFLINE.

Why pay millions to the media, when they're our enemy, and our stuff is way better?

Here's some more math for you: Let's say just 1 in 10 DUers (that's 10,000 people) each print 100 copies of a "DU Greatest" newspaper and distribute it around where we live and work. That's a million copies of DU floating around in grocery stores, bus stops, offices, restaurants, waiting rooms, schools, laundromats, beauty salons, etc. Can you imagine if a million Americans had the chance to read NanceGreggs or MythSaje or kpete a few times a week? This would catch on like wildfire, GE/NBC would be furious, and for once the best candidates would start winning again.

The polls you won't hear much about



1) McCain is by far the GOP's strongest candidate in the general election. (Rudy would be stronger, but he's not going to make it past South Carolina, much less to the nomination.) {McCain} trounces Hillary 49% to 38%, and beats Obama 46% to 43%. In fact, the only Democrat who beats {McCain} is none other than John Edwards, who decisively beats McCain 46% to 39%

2) John Edwards is BY FAR the Democrats' strongest candidate in the general election. He is the only one who is not beaten outright by any Republican candidate: He ties with Giuliani at 44% each, but easily beats McCain, Thompson, Romney, and Huckabee, the latter two by double-digit margins.

3) Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate in the general election. She LOSES to every single Republican except Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and neither of those two gents is going to get the Republican nomination for president.

4) Barack Obama is in between Edwards and Hillary Clinton in strength in the general election. He does much better against Rudy Giuliani than either Edwards or Clinton, beating Giuliani 37% to 47%, yet against every other Republican, especially McCain and Romney, Edwards is the Democrat that does the best.

Of course, this is just one pollster, and though Rasmussen is probably the best of the lot... CNN has been doing nationwide head-to-head polling as well, and in their December polling, the same patterns manifest: Edwards is the strongest Dem, Hillary is the weakest, Obama is somewhere in between -- and John McCain is the GOP's strongest player.

The upshot of all this: If Hillary's the Democratic nominee, we could very easily lose to any likely GOP nominee. If Obama's the nominee, he does OK so long as he doesn't face McCain {who's the most likely Repub nominee!}.

But if Edwards is the nominee, we're sitting pretty.

Which, I suspect, is one reason why Big Media hates John Edwards so much and does everything it can to destroy him.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/

Edwards is the strongest candidate, and the media is our enemy. I think the only way we can take this country back is by uniting behind Edwards, and in order to do that, I think we need to take our message offline -- starting NOW, in time for Super Tuesday.

[cali]

1. LOL!! Based on a snapshot? Without taking other critical factors

into consideration? Bad, bad idea. Vote for JE if he's the candidate you feel is best, but cut the electability crap. I actually think he's got real electability problems based on his having accepted matching funds, and on certain vulnerabilites the pukes will have a blast with.

I don't think people should be voting for a candidate based largely on electability anyway. Look what that got us last time.

[Bonobo]

2. Huh? Kerry won because of the electability issue? What?

[cali]

4. would Dean have done better?

I actually think there's a good possibility of that. And though I think it's likely Kerry did win in Ohio, it was way too close. I'm pointing out the obvious: picking a candidate because you think he/she is most electable is not a great way of choosing one.

[Bonobo]

6. Agreed. I'm convinced Edwards is the only one who will do what I want done.

And I think he is electable.

For me, Cali, Obama doesn't show me the fire that I want to see. IMHO Edwards is going to do some of the hard work we need to start addressing the terrible unfairness in today's America.

[Occam Bandage]

12. That is a good reason to vote for someone.

[cali]

15. Then that's an excellent reason to vote for him.

I hope Obama is the fighter I suspect he is. I think he's fighting for the nomination. And I think he's fighting smart- particularly as I think he faces some pretty unique obstacles.

[redqueen]

7. Huh?

Does your definition of "electable" mean "does best in head-to-head matchups against the repub candidates"?

Or is it "having a better "image" and being more appealing to centrists / moderates"? This is the way I have seen the term used most frequently... and in that respect I agree - stupid reason to choose a candidate.

But as for comparing head-to-head matchups, I don't think that's stupid at all.

[cali]

13. It's a snapshot.

And those figures reflect the state of things a year before the election. I think Edwards can't do it having taken matching funds. And I've read about this and thought about it a lot. I hate that money is such an overwhelming factor, but I recognize the reality that it is. Edwards will be a sitting duck for tens of millions of dollars of damaging ads and he won't be able to reframe because of the limitations he's accepted. It's a shitty state of affairs, but there it is.

[StefanX]

26. You say snapshot, I say poll with good track record. You say matching funds bad, I say good.

Rasmussen got NH right. But Rasmussen doesn't get mentioned -- part of the ongoing media blackout against Edwards.

And I like how you're attacking Edwards's strength (he doesn't take money for corporate lobbyists, so when he's elected he will do what WE want, not what they want) and you turn it into a weakness (your "matching funds" talking point, which is nonsense).

If we get away from your Rovian framing, we could say that "Edwards gets 6x the bang for the buck. Doesn't accept dirty corporate money and doesn't get coverage and still a front runner."

[cali]

44. Obama hasn't taken any lobbyist money either for his presidential

campaign. And Edwards originally said he wouldn't take matching funds. He only took federal funding when he couldn't raise enough from small donors. Obama has raised a shitload of money from small donors.

Matching funds: Not nonsense. Wish it was. Do you know how it works? He'll be limited to fucking 50 million bucks for the entire primary season. And that's through August. If he gets the nomination that means he'll have no money for framing himself via advertising while the pukes will be throwing the kitchen sink at him. And unfortunately, 527s can't run campaign ads for him and they can't coordinate with him. Our best hope would be that the pukes end up with a brokered convention.

And if you think hurling childish insults at me does anything but make me laugh at you, you're wrong.

[avaistheone1]

137. Obama's registered lobbyist bundlers -

by Artificial Intelligence, Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST

"While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital," Dan Morain wrote April 23, 2007, in the Los Angeles Times.
Stephen Weissman of the nonpartisan think tank Campaign Finance Institute said Obama "gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different ... But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists," Morain wrote.
Public Citizen (WhiteHouseForSale.or) lists nine of Sen. Obama's fundraising bundlers as registered lobbyists who have collected in the neighborhood of $1.5 million for his campaign--in addition to their own personal contributions.
Frank M. Clark is chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison (ComEd), a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corporation. As an Obama bundler, Clark raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on January 26, 2007, he personally contributed $2,100 to Obama for America.
Scott Blake Harris is the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+. FEC records show that on March 15, 2007, he personally contributed $2,000 to Obama for America.
Allan J. Katz is a shareholder and chairman of the Policy Practice Group at Akerman Senterfitt in Tallahassee, Florida. Katz is a Member of the Florida Democratic Committee and Democratic National Committee, and Tallahassee City Commissioner. As an Obama bundler, Katz raised $200,000+ with Marilyn Katz of MK Communications (who personally contributed $1,000 to Obama for America on January 21, 2007).

more---

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/11/203254/369

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. Rasmussen Didn't Get NH Right

He missed it by TEN POINTS:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

[StefanX]

20. Fortunately with Edwards we get POLICY/PROGRAMS *AND* ELECTABILITY

Funny how you ignore that little point, Cali. Being disingenuous as you usually are.

Obama's and Hillary's programs are CORPORATIST -- AND on top of it they're unelectable.

Edwards's programs and policies are POPULIST -- AND he's more electable.

I've posted several times about Edwards's PROGRAMS and POLICIES. Now I'm also posting about his ELECTABILITY. And he happens to be WAY ahead of YOUR candidate in BOTH areas. Would you care to address BOTH of these points Cali? Edwards's PROGRAMS and POLICIES are better -- AND he's more electable.

No, you mischaracterize my argument, as usual. Because you can't come up with a counterargument for the fact that your candidate is LESS ELECTABLE and his programs are LESS POPULIST.

So you are LYING when you say that "picking a candidate because you think he/she is most electable is not a great way of choosing one". I picked Edwards for BOTH reasons -- because he's the best candidate, AND the most electable.

With Edwards, we can have our cake and eat it too.

[cali]

34. listen, bucko

had you posted this OP and simply directed it to other Edwards supporters, I wouldn't have posted in your arrogant semi-hysterical piece of junk.

But no, you had to bludgeon everyone with your hyperbole. Not to mention your simplistic pablum. Sorry, I don't buy for a second that Obama is an evil corporatist. And there really isn't any evidence that he is. Hell, there's plenty of evidence against it.

Edwards programs and policies aren't that frickin' different from Obama's or Clintons for that matter. I think his healthcare program is better but all programs get hugely revised anyway. Outside of that? Nope, not a lot of difference. And I don't like Edwards' record. I will not vote for someone in the primarary who voted for the IWR, let alone for someone who did some major cheerleading for bushco and co-sponsored an IWR with Lieberman.

Amd I'm not lying, pumpkin. I'm giving my opinion. I like Edwards platform. I don't trust his judgment based on his 6 years in the Senate and his unfortunate relationship with the corportists he rails against- Fortress.

Too bad if you don't like it.

Oh, and yeah, he's got big electability problems.

[redqueen]

37. "bucko"?

Can we not get into that please?

[cali]

49. let's see:

that poster hurled insults at me and I called him bucko. Hardly the most horrible name I could think up. And he posted this arrogant OP directing everyone to toss their candidates overboard and immediately support his. That's always irritating.

[redqueen]

52. Hurled insults? He said you were being disingenuous.

That's nothing like calling a name, and you should know it.

[cali]

64. first of all bucko is not name calling

secondly he called me a liar.

"So you are LYING.."

Gee, no he wasn't hurling insults by saying that I'm always disingenuous and that I was LYING. No indeed. Those aren't insults.

Please.


edited to add the definition for bucko:

buck·o (bk)
n. pl. buck·oes or buck·os
1. A blustering or bossy person.
2. Irish A young man; a lad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[redqueen]

69. *sigh*

Nevermind.

[redqueen]

78. No, not nevermind. You just called Joe Fields a LIAR, and not obliquely.

So... yeah.

Go on with your bad self.


And thank you for proving that "bucko" is namecalling. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. I Feel Ya

I get offended when someone makes a claim that is belied by the evidence and then people knowingly embrace the false claim because it reinforces their bias...IMHO, it shows a lack of respect for the truth of which there is no more important commodity...

[redqueen]

96. I'm glad you and cali think that disagreement is best met with insults and nastiness.

It says something...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. I Respect Honest Disagreement

I don't respect people who make dishonest and loaded claims...

Shoot me...

[ElboRuum]

115. Besides...

I like 'bucko', it's got a nice Richie Cunningham feel to it.

[JuniperLea]

86. Oh, don't forget...

"arrogant semi-hysterical piece of junk."

!!!

Someone disagrees with her and argues their point formidably... naturally she MUST stoop to name calling and condescension! Jeez! What do you expect?

:sarcasm:


:hi:

[redqueen]

89. I thought I couldn't get more disgusted with this place.

Turns out I was VERY, VERY wrong!

:hi:

[StefanX]

95. "bucko"?

I have a few questions for you, cali:

(1) How do I post an OP and direct to other Edwards supporters?

(2) What is so arrogant and semi-histerical about quoting polls?

(3) Where did I use hyperbole, and when did I bludgeon everyone?

(4) Where did I use simplistic pablum.

(5) Follow the money. Obama and Hillary each get 6 times more money from corporations than Edwards does. Whose tune do you think they're going to dance to if (IF) they get elected?

(6) I'm glad you agree that Edwards healthcare program is better than Obama's. Well, for those of us who are sick and can't work, this is important. It's high time for America to join the rest of the civilized world and offer universal healthcare. Thank you for agreeing with me that Edwards is the one who will give it to us (because he's not owned lock stock and barrel by insurance companies like Hillary and Obama are).

(7) You say "Edwards has big electability problems". I think (and this poll indicates) quite the opposite of you.

After you tire of throwing around words like "arrogant" and "semi-hysterical" and "hyperbole" and "bludgeon" and "bucko" and "pumpkin" you might perhaps consider addressing the substance of the OP, cali. Because you still haven't.

[redqueen]

97. Did she sneeringly call you "pumpkin" too?

Aw... I thought I was special.

:eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. You Cherry Picked Polls And Old Polls At That To Bolster Your Claim

It would be like a prosecutor hiding exculpatory evidence from the defense which is grounds for disbarment...

[King Coal]

131. Cali, Cali, Cali... Give it up. "Snapshot"? That's the funniest one you've come up with yet.

[Laurab]

94. No, it's not but it sure does help if they're electable.

That being said, I think Obama could debate the almost-senile McCain quite well, and so could Hillary. I slso believe Obama is far more electable than Hillary.

[krkaufman]

141. I believe the point is... Kerry won the nomination because of ...

... the "electability" hype that he received after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Obviously, the polling showing Kerry winning the election was wrong, just as the OP's polling can be.

Basing our choice on the results of a single poll, 9 months before the election, sounds desperate -- and insane.

[StefanX]

11. Edwards is both more ELECTABLE and also has the better PROGRAMS

You know Edwards is not only more electable, but his programs are also better. He's a fighter not a hoper, remember.

I talk about Edwards's programs most of the time in my earlier posts, and his programs (NOT just his electability) are also addressed in the OP.

Once again your comeback is tangential and wrong, Cali. By your logic, the Rasumussen polls (which are among the best) are irrelevant, and you're fine with the possibility of McCain being inaugurated in 2009?

What is so great about the programs of your (unelectable) candidate, who's bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists? (Which also shows that your jab about matching funds is nonsense.)

[cali]

74. False. Obama hasn't taken any lobbyist money for his presidential

campaign. Now why would you keep repeating something you know is false? Interesting. Particularly as you run around shrieking that others are lying. Try a mirror.

And I don't think JE is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't think much of war mongers- and yeah good for him for repenting but he was as bad as Lieberman in the run up. I won't soon forget that.

[jgraz]

14. Are you trying to tell us that you wouldn't be posting this in ALL CAPS if it favored your guy?

:rofl:

[StefanX]

40. Thanks for your concern and your gratuitous attack over formatting

Netiquette does frown on posting entire paragraphs in ALL CAPS, but emphasizing a few words here and there is acceptable, particularly where no HTML formatting is available (eg, headlines on posts). You'll note that I did not post a whole section in all caps -- just the words I wanted to emphasize.

But thanks for your "concern" about this very relevant aspect of my post. Sheesh, I thought my grammar and formatting were actually pretty good, if that's what you specialize on focusing on.

And at some point, you might want to address my CONTENT as well.

Damn, there I go, using all caps for emphasis again.

[jgraz]

55. Um, I actually wasn't talking to you. But feel free to get pissed off anyway.

[StefanX]

99. True, now I see your reply was to post #1 (from cali), not the OP (from me)

But there's no all caps in cali's post - whereas I did use some.

And I did use all caps to support my candidate.

Which is why I got confused and thought you were talking to me.

[cali]

76. I rarely post in all caps

Maybe if cheney had a serious accident or bushco choked on another pretzel....

[jgraz]

109. Avoiding the real issue

You'd be pushing this relentlessly if Obama had these poll results.

[cali]

114. what are you babbling about now

grazzie? These are old polls. And I've never once referred to polls showing Obama beating x or y repukes. I recognize that polls a year out just don't mean much.

[jgraz]

116. I thought my meaning was pretty self-explanatory

But please continue to pretend you don't understand it. :crazy:

[Th1onein]

19. What exactly is wrong with accepting matching funds?

I've never understood that.

And, by the way, I like Edwards, but I'll vote for ANY Dem candidate that wins the primary.

However, I do think that Edwards will take the South and that we have a better chance of winning with him.

[jgraz]

21. Nothing, really. It's just the only issue she has left.

Keep flogging that horse, cali. A few people might actually believe you.

[redqueen]

27. Not just cali... other anti-Edwards members have echoed that point.

I don't get the concern... they dismiss him as a contender... so... whatever.

[Occam Bandage]

32. You don't see anything problematic with Edwards

being limited to $50,000,000 of spending from the beginning of the primary season until the convention? I suppose if you have no interest in seeing your candidate defend himself against Republican attack ads...

[redqueen]

36. What about after the convention?

Isn't that kind of what would matter more?

What difference does it make in the GE for him to be limited now till the convention?

What am I missing here?

[Occam Bandage]

42. Because the convention is in late August.

That means, during the entire summer, the Republicans will be free to pound him without Edwards defending himself. (The Swift Boaters started attacking Kerry on August 5, for comparison.) Any Edwards response would, by necessity, have to be even more delayed than Kerry's was.

[redqueen]

46. And the only way he can defend himself is with ads?

I don't think the whole matching funds issue is as big an issue as you and... well at least one other person do.

[Occam Bandage]

57. Um, unless he plans on hijacking CNN with a pirate satellite, pretty much.

I don't like it, but advertisements are a huge part of how you shape the public debate. Giving speeches at rallies won't help; unlike in the primaries (where you're trying to convince people who like all the Dems that they should like you the most) that would only let him preach to the choir.

[redqueen]

65. See post 53...

we can continue arguing about what a huge handicap it is(n't) afterwards, if you still care to. :)

[OneGrassRoot]

67. He could have all the money in the world and he'd still have to hijack MSM ...

to get decent coverage.

Nope this is a different race, a different time. If JRE is the nominee, this one is definitely going to be a grassroots victory.

And we should all want the power of the grassroots - the proverbial power of the people - to be propelling our candidates, NOT MSM's distortions.

That's why I don't think the whole "ads are everything" argument applies here. Especially since most people are so disgusted after the swiftboating last time around.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Yes, you can pay to hijack the MSM for coverage. They're called 'advertisements.'

And since Edwards couldn't have pro-Edwards advertisements, he'd have to resort to 527 swiftboating. Which might work, but polarizing the electorate turns off the center, helping the Republicans, not the Democrats.

[OneGrassRoot]

77. Like I said, it's called a grassroots revolution. Relying on MSM for anything...

GETTING truthful news "out" there or RECEIVING reliable, unbiased news FROM them has become nearly impossible.

So, it's time to remove their influence from the equation. Yes, easier said than done, but it's at least taking a proactive stance rather than giving up and giving them all the power.

[Occam Bandage]

118. "Grassroots revolutions" are declared daily. Not impressed.

[OneGrassRoot]

122. Dude, I'm sure as hell not trying to impress you or anyone else...lol

just trying to come up with an alternative to the MSM dependency nightmare.

Are you FOR Obama as much as you are AGAINST Edwards?

Just wondering...

[cali]

84. 2004: bushco, $255 million. Kerry, $220 million.

JE, 2008: limited to $50 million. It's that simple.

[cali]

83. Here's what's wrong with it:

Edwards is limiting to spending $50 million through August. If he's the nominee, he'll be outspent by over 10 to 1. And he's already spent about half what he can spend. In 2004 Bush spent $255 million in the primary season- much of it slugging it out with Kerry. Kerry spent about $25 million less.

[girl gone mad]

127. Kerry didn't win because he was the most electable.

We had at least two candidates who surely could have done better in the GE, but party insiders helped take them down. Kerry had the most money, connections and lobbyists. Who does that remind you of in this race? Certainly not Edwards.

[kenfrequed]

130. Well...

In all fairness it is the argument that the hill-bots have drug out, well that and the crazy idea that she is somehow "already the candidate."

[avaistheone1]

135. What we got was the winning candidate. Kerry won in 2004.

Kerry won. There has been considerable research about it. Good overview can be found in Robert Kennedy Jr's article for Rolling Stone.

[avaistheone1]

138. Edwards the only Dem who has polled consistently beating all Republican candidates for 6 months!!

That is a major critical factor.

[robbedvoter]

3. What a load of BS! See my signature!

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Putting statements in your signature doesn't actually make them true.

[robbedvoter]

23. A snapshot poll from god knows when is not any more reliable than my own

judgment. What it's - supposedly true today in the nationals, will not be tomorrow.

[jgraz]

18. So your scientific critique of the polling methods used would be...?

I thought so. :eyes:


BTW: I'm changing my sig line to read "I just won a MILLION DOLLARS". I'll let you know how it works out.

[robbedvoter]

29. They represent - at the very best a moment in time - that will not be relevant

in GE. I don't know the date of your poll, but it may become untrue by tomorrow 9supposing it's relevant today)
National polls during primaries merely reflect the mood after the last primary, before the next one.

[Occam Bandage]

5. And tell me.

Due to his pathetic polling, Edwards hasn't been the subject of attacks from left or right yet, while both Obama and Clinton have. What do you think Edwards' numbers will be after months of Republican attacks--and months in which he can't afford to run advertisements defending himself?

[Bonobo]

8. So we shouldn't vote for him because he doesn't have enough money?

Talk about a recipe for giving us a shitty president beholding to big business.

[Occam Bandage]

10. He took matching funds. He'll be walking into the General Election Gunfight armed with

a slingshot and two rocks. I'm not saying his "electability" is a reason to avoid voting for him; I'm saying it's a not a good reason to vote for him.

[Dawgs]

24. Exactly.

Edwards "popularity" in these polls comes from the fact that he's a not getting much support from his party. He's not being attacked because he's not seen as a threat; from either party. All of that will change if he can actually win the nomination; which he won't.

[AlbertCat]

136. Edwards hasn't been the subject of attacks from left or right yet

Oh really?

Wait....I need a hair cut.

And remember...who's the "phony"? "the Impostor"?

Never trust a lawyer....maybe if they're a Constitutional Lawyer.... but never a trial lawyer!

What was it Tom Donohue of the National Chamber of Commerce said?

[Onlooker]

16. Gen'l election polls don't mean anything right now

Obama and Clinton are busy bashing each other, so Edwards looks better. You have the same thing going on in the Republican race, and that's why McCain (who laid low) is starting to do well. Soon, Huckabee and Thompson will start hitting McCain hard.

The most electable Democrat will be the one who puts together the best campaign.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Absolutely. It's like Dean and Gephardt's 2004 Iowa murder-suicide.

Both Edwards and McCain are doing so well against the opposing party primarily because nobody's attacked them yet. McCain has had fundraising woes all campaign, though, so it'll be interesting to see if he'll be able to keep his numbers up. Edwards will remain under the radar, but if he beats the overwhelming odds and wins the nomination, I don't see how he stays alive given his self-imposed spending limitations.

[DontTreadOnMe]

17. I agree!

Hillary is BY FAR the most vulnerable DEM candidate.

I see a pending implosion of the Democratic Party.
If Hillary wins the Primary, and loses the General Election -- wave goodbye to the Democratic Party.

Hillary supporters seems to ignore this disaster scenario. Does it really matter which Dem candidates wins, as long as it is a DEM! There is so much at stake this election. It is really pissing me off to see the Dem Party moving towards a VERY vulnerable candidate.

Ask yourself how you will feel if McCain is elected President over Hillary.
Now ask yourself... how can you even think about risking your vote on Hillary!

[Hieronymus]

25. Will Hillary voters feel like the Nader voters did after the 2000 election?

[harun]

133. Yes, and running Hillary will bring out a bigger Repug turnout

thus hurting our standing in the Senate and House.

[baldguy]

28. Cherry-picking polls & telling lies doesn't help your cause.

[redqueen]

30. Telling lies? What lies?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. It Does With The Willfully Ignorant

~

[redqueen]

41. Why the nastiness?

I really don't get it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Because The OP Is Slandering Hillary Clinton With False Accusations

She stated that Hillary Clinton is incapable of winning a national election when the evidence suggests otherwise, ergo:


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


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[redqueen]

56. Oh all right that makes it A-OK then... if they think differently from you,

then by all means, bare your fangs.

:crazy:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. Ha

You are entitled to your own opinions... You are not entitled to your own facts...


Again, here are links to dozens and dozens of polls... Senators Obama and Clinton beat all Republicans but McCain but even in some match ups they beat him too,ergo:


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


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

And I'm really sorry you call the defense of truth "showing your fangs"...If a person won't stand up for something he will kneal for anything...

[redqueen]

72. You insinuated that anyone who didn't agree with you is "willully ignorant"

That's not defense, that's being shitty and insulting.

This place stinks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. She Could Have Said Edwards Performs Best Against Republicans

But that wasn't enough for him or her... He or she had to say Hillary was a LOSER...


I submit that stinks...

Oh, and the whole anlaysis is based on a poll taken two months ago...

[redqueen]

80. No one called Hillary a LOSER. Defensive much?

I love how a few people here seem to have such thin skins when things are directed towards them (or their pet candidates), but also seem to have no problem at all hurling DIRECT insults at others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. "Hillary LOSES to all Repubs" -From The Seminal Post

For the fifth time it's not true:

Hillary consistently beats all Pugs cept McCain but she eben beats McCain in some match ups:


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

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

[redqueen]

88. Yes.. Hillary LOSES to all Repubs"... not quite the same thing as calling Hillary a LOSER is it?

[cali]

90. your indignation would be far more convincing if you ever chided

posters like this one, from your side of the aisle. He wrote an obnoxious OP, filled with slams against other candidates and lots of dubious, old polling and preceded downhill from there. But you seem to have no problem with that. I can't take your moralizing seriously when it's so one sided.

[redqueen]

92. You just don't pay enough attention, cali.

I rag on people who act like jerks no matter who they support.

I don't consider posting information I don't agree with or opinions I don't agree with as "slamming".

You and the other person who got nasty here are taking shit said about candidates personally, and I don't see why.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. He Or She Made A Tendentious And Fallacious Argument And I Called Bullshit On It

Truth crushed to Earth will rise again...

[redqueen]

102. You called them "Willfully Ignorant". Not quite the same. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. What's Wrong With That

Ignorant means "don't know" or "ignore"...

Many people here are pretending they "don't know" that Hillary beats all Republicans except McCain as the seminal poster suggested, ergo:

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

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

[StefanX]

106. I quoted my poll and I suggested a grassroots DU strategy to combat the media blackout on Edwards

You really need to find some better adjectives to describe things you disagree with, cali.

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you should call their post "obnoxious".

I am seriously concerned about 3 issues, which are reflected in that post:

(1) Obama and Hillary get too much corporate money. Therefore, I am worried that when they get elected, they'll help the corporations and not the people. This is not some minor issue - it could be argued that corporate greed and corruption is the common thread uniting most of the problems the country currently faces. On top of that, America will be going into a recession in 2008, so people are going to be hurting financially. I think Obama's approach of "offering a seat at the table" to the MURDERERS in the insurance company will simply end up getting more Americans killed by corporate greed.

(2) There is a media blackout against Edwards, which I also tried to address in my post. I thought we might use some of the Greatest threads at DU and put them in a newspaper to reach the people offline.

(3) According to this Rasmussen poll (which is a very respected and reliable poll) Hillary and Obama actually end up LOSING in ALL realistic scenarios against the Republican this fall. I and many other people seriously think that if someone like McCain takes office in 2009, then this country is DOOMED.

Although you have posted several times in response to that OP, none of your posts addressed the substance of these points, except your misleading remarks about Edwards accepting "matching funding" -- which I personally am starting to view as a Rovian talking point, trying to attack a STRENGTH of Edwards (his refusal of corporate funding) as a weakness. I will discuss this further in later OPs now that I have seen how widespread this poisonous Rovian talking point has recently become among certain people on DU.

Most of your posts include very horrible language or simple rudeness, using words like "bucko" and "pumpkin" or calling the OP "obnoxious" and a whole host of other insults -- while YOU act the victim accusing OTHER people of using horrible language against you.

I called "disingenuous" and I said you were "lying" when you characterized the OP as being only about electability, when the OP also makes reference to Edwards just being a better candidate, for the simple fact that he's not taking corporate money and he's planning on fighting against them.

I understand that during primaries everyone gets a little hot under the collar. Unfortunately you are consistently so, cali, and once again your posts are shedding little light and much heat on important issues.

I like Edwards for his healthcare and other programs, and I like his attitude of fighting rather than just hoping. I like the fact that he takes matching funds instead of corporate handouts, and I think this is pretty clear indication that he will work for US if elected, not for the corporateions. These are not "obnoxious" views and they were not expressed in an "obnoxious" fashion. And on top of it all, the poll in the OP showed that not only does Edwards have a better overall program -- he IS more electable.

You have addressed NONE of these issues in your vitriolic, fact-free posts, cali.

[wyldwolf]

31. I hear about RASMUSSEN polls every day.

[JDPriestly]

33. And these numbers ring true because all the other "critical factors"

support them.

John Edwards sticks to the issues. He stays positive and on message at all times.

John Edwards has led on healthcare. He was the first to publish his proposal on healthcare. And the others copied it in principle, if not in detail (except Kucinich).

John Edwards has led on the environment. He won the endorsement of Friends of the Earth -- and for good reason. He proposes investing in energy independence for the U.S. His plan is flexible. JOHN EDWARDS WILL NOT POISON THE ENVIRONMENT WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY.

John Edwards has a plan to lighten the burden of student loan repayment on young families.

John Edwards will give incentives to businesses that are good citizens -- businesses that hire Americans and produce products in America. He will end the incentives to businesses that exploit American markets but refuse to play by American labor and environmenal rules. He will discourage outsourcing American jobs.

John Edwards has a plan to rebuild rural America -- to improve education for rural children in America and to encourage stewardship of the land. John Edwards will end the squeeze on the family farmer. He will stop corporate agriculture from devastating the land and the environment.

John Edwards will restore the confidence of the world in America's commitment to civil rights, to the sovereignty of each nation, to the ideals that formed the United Nations. John Edwards will re-establish America as the beacon of hope for democratic government all over the world.

John Edwards will withdraw our troops from the combat in Iraq within a year from the date he takes office.

John Edwards will renegotiate and then enforce trade agreements so as to protect the rights of workers and the environment.

John Edwards will respect the right of each American to have his or her own religious beliefs or no religious belief at all.

John Edwards will pursue war profiteers.

John Edwards will restore habeas corpus.

John Edwards will respect, enforce and follow the Fourth Amendment and FISA.

John Edwards will restore the separation of powers.

John Edwards will respect the Constitution and enforce its provisions as the highest law of the land.

John Edwards will obey the laws of the United States and see that they are enforced.

John Edwards will owe nothing to corporate lobbyists. John Edwards will not employ corporate lobbyists in the White House.

John Edwards will conduct government in the view of the people except when truly necessary to ensure the security of the American people.

John Edwards will approach government as a problem-solver, not an ideologue. He will remain flexible. John Edwards will communicate with the American people. He will listen to us. He will talk to us in clear language that we can understand.

John Edwards will be the best president we have ever known.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. SO MANY LIES ...SO LITTLE TIME

Here's links to dozens and dozens and dozens of polls... I'll let folks draw their own conclusions:


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


http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm


You cited a Rasmussen Poll...He had Hillary losing New Hampshire by seven points:


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary


She won by three points!!! That means I get to (add) ten points to any percentage Rasmussen assigns to her...

[redqueen]

39. How sad.

In NH there were tons of undecideds who didn't decide whom to vote for till the day of.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. I Don't See Any Undecideds In The Rasmussen Poll The Seminal Poster Based Her Entire Argument On

Either his polls are credible or they aren't...It's like being pregnant or dead...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Excuse Me Three Percent Undecided

That doesn't explain how he was off by ten points...

[redqueen]

50. You can go on conversing with yourself if you like...

maybe you'll convince someone else.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. The Appropriate Thing To Do When You Are Wrong Is Just Admit It

~

[redqueen]

58. What am I "wrong" about?

You made two one-line posts in response to me, and neither is very clear.

Sorry, but trying to discuss this with you is really not worth the effort IMO. Have fun.

[progressoid]

47. A month ago I got a robo-call from McCain saying he was the best Repub to beat Hillary

Of course, he wouldn't even mention Edwards or Obama :)

[Occam Bandage]

63. The specter of a Hillary presidency is indeed what conservatives fear/hate the most.

[wyldwolf]

48. Uh Oh! Someone at Firedog Lake just pissed on your parade

Apples to oranges.

You’re comparing polls taken for Edwards during mid-December, prior to Iowa and New Hampshire, to polls taken in mid-January for Clinton and Obama. McCain was way down in the polls in Nov and Dec. His resurgence has only come in the past two weeks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I Hope You Hang Around

People can do an auto-search... I don't start negative threats about candidates but the "Hillary Can't Win" meme is contradicted by the facts and I hate liars...

[ProudDad]

142. hillary SHOULDN'T WIN...

But then none of the corporate candidates should win.

But one will...

And we're still fucked...

[Tennessee Gal]

53. PolitiFact addresses the matching funds attack on Edwards.

I suggest some people here read it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other Democratic candidates have made the same point, noting that Edwards would have to cap spending at $50.9-million during the primary period. That period begins Jan. 1, 2008, and formally ends at the party convention next August.

Critics argue that if Edwards were the nominee, presumably in the spring, he wouldn’t have enough money left to defend against Republican attacks over the summer.

That’s not entirely true.

First, it’s incorrect to categorically say Edwards wouldn’t be able to raise money between the primaries and the nomination. If Edwards’ spending was short of the $50.9-million cap after the primaries, there’s nothing in federal regulations that would prevent him from raising more primary money.

But let’s assume the predictions are true that the current campaign cycle will break spending records.

Let’s say Edwards spends all the way up to the $50.9-million cap on his way to becoming the presumptive nominee. Yes, the rules would prevent his campaign from spending any more at that point. But is he automatically disadvantaged, as Richardson suggests?

Not necessarily.

Richardson’s statement does not consider that the Democratic Party could spend millions on a summer campaign if a clear nominee emerged by then. Independent groups and individuals also could chip in.

Consider the last presidential election. Total spending by the parties, independent groups and individuals on behalf of candidates totaled $192.4-million in 2004 — up from $14.7-million in 2000.

What’s more, Edwards could help raise money for the party, which could “spend unlimited funds on his behalf,” said Steve Weissman, associate director for policy at The Campaign Finance Institute.

“So it’s not exactly true that Edwards would have no resources,” he said.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/146/

[jgraz]

60. Also: John McCain is taking matching funds

He's the current frontrunner after Huckleberry's meltdown, so this may not be an issue at all.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Assuming our 527s can be as vicious as theirs can, it would even the playing field.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. I'm Not Sure McCain Will Be The Nominee

I was surer when it looked like he might win MI...If he does win MI then he has a leg up...

[cali]

98. McCain has not taken matching funds

he's eligible for them but it looks like he won't take them.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0110mccain-money0110.html

[jgraz]

105. Neither has Edwards.

He's borrowed against expected funds, but the FEC hasn't given him jack. He can back out just as easily as McCain can.

[cali]

112. that is very good news. I hope he backs out.

I'd feel a lot better about his chances if he did.

[jgraz]

117. I think he'll end up without a choice in the matter.

The FEC is a fucking trainwreck right now. If they wait too much longer, no one will be able to take matching funds this year.

[redqueen]

62. Thank you!

I doubt it will shake the resolve of the anti-Edwards posters here. Amazing that they're so vehement and stalwart, considering how they consider him not to be a threat to the two-horse-race the media's worked so hard to create.

:hi:

[cali]

100. you know, you're projecting.

it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being anti-Edwards. He's my second choice. It has to do with reality.

[Occam Bandage]

71. This relies heavily on "independent groups," which are forbidden from either

working with Edwards campaign', or from advertising in defense of Edwards' campaign. He'd have resources to attack--which I've never doubted--but I see nothing in there on resources to defend.

[cali]

93. The DNC is behind the RNC in fundraising and they have to

spread it around on a couple of hundred House races and at least a dozen Senate races. Even if dems started giving millions to the DNC specifically for Edwards, the DNC can't cooridinate with campaign and can't run candidate ads. Neither can 527s. And they can't pay for staff or ground operations for Edwards either. It may not be fatal but it is a big obstacle.

[Yael]

120. There you go, injecting facts into a perfectly good

pissing match.

Good on you. :toast:

[onehandle]

129. Yep. nt

[BenDavid]

61. Gee, all other polling shows hrc and obama beating any rethug

but i reckon you can just like zogby pay em enough $$$$$$$ and you can be on top...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

73. It Was Rasmuseen

Zomby was the clown who had Hillary losing by THIRTEEN POINTS in New Hampshire, ergo:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0433304720080108

[AngryAmish]

81. All caps and bold - now that is persuasion!

[StefanX]

108. I use all caps and bold judiciously to for emphasis, particularly in headlines where there's no BOLD

Sorry if you don't like my formatting.

And of course you're also welcome to address my arguments at any time, if you feel so inclined.

[AngryAmish]

113. nope

[Perry Logan]

87. Kind of a chickenshit argument. And we call the Democrats in Congress cowards!

[jgraz]

110. Chickenshit? You make no sense.

Electability is a completely valid component of choosing a primary candidate.

[GreenTea]

111. John Edwards has to be supported!!!

http://www.johnedwards.com/ :bounce:

The mainstream corporate media is simply ignoring Edwards, trashing him if they mention him at all....They want it to be a two-way race with the two moderate easier to beat democrats, and even if either Hillary or Obama won the general election, neither would pose much or no threat to the corporations greed, privatization plans and monopolies what-so ever!

Progressive candidate John Edwards has publicly opposed these same insatiable corporations and is a real & true threat to the five MSM corporations (Disney, Murdoch, Time-Warner, Viacom & General Electric) the corporations believe Edwards would try and break up the lock they have on the republican owned media.

Again, Hillary and Obama pose no such threat to the corporations that run our country....they are moderates and will go along with status quo as ALL moderates do. Of course the corporations want to get a republican elected....But, if a republican doesn't somehow get elected the next best thing is a moderate Democrat for the republicans - just as Hillary and Obama profess to be, and indeed are.... moderates!

From the wise Paul Krugman; January 14, 2008: "John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures."

http://www.johnedwards.com/ :bounce:



http://www.johnedwards.com/ :bounce:

[burythehatchet]

119. These are POLLS! GEEZ, when are you guys going to realize that this

is useless crap on so many levels.

[onehandle]

121. kick! nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

123. How often are we so fortunate that the candidate with the most BACKBONE is also the MOST ELECTABLE?

[peacetalksforall]

134. Bingo. And I feel that creative minds can raise more money between

August and November or before August or whatever the rules say.

[ginchinchili]

124. That's why Edwards won't get the nomination...

Democrats are determined to lose this election. They've simply forgotten how to win.

[stravu9]

125. YES, AND WE ALL KNOW IT'S TRUE!

I'm ready to go door to door and man phones work at the headquarters before my Feb. 5th primary . What can I do in the mean time? EVERYONE at work know where I stand. Tell me what else.

[bonito]

126. I agree!

:thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

128. It is EDWARDS job to get this message out.

I say this as an Edwards supporter.

[IsItJustMe]

132. For some reason the Dems seem to shoot themselves in the GE. Hope it will be different in 08.

[krkaufman]

139. Not true. The poll shows Hillary beating Ron Paul. n/t

[AlbertCat]

140. Chaos Theory

The scientific discipline of "Chaos Theory" proves unquestionably that

"The outcome of complex events cannot be predicted"


So you guys can argue and flame all you want about polls and what happened in the last two elections....because frankly it's all we have to go on and are worth noting. (And the theory talks about the importance of "strange attractors" and "fractal clusters") HOWEVER....

"The outcome of complex events cannot be predicted"