2 pts to Ponder -- Edwards appeals to Indies/Unaffiliated Voters & He beats all Repub candidates...

[Blackhatjack]

That is a powerful combination given the anger of many Repubs and Independents with Bush.

Edwards is running the kind of campaign that will surge when people get the opportunity to hear what he has to say.

[jojo54]

1. I think he did extremely well in the debate last night..........

What really struck me was when the subject of discussion was elections/lobbyists & money. Edwards confronted Hillary about taking money from oil lobbyists. She didn't address that point in her response to the subject and I thought she lost points there - it shows that she doesn't feel strongly about election reform and lobbyists.

[cali]

2. huh?

It's pretty clear that Obama is way ahead of Edwards when it comes to attracting indies and even disaffected repubs. And all the polls showing him beating repubs are over 2 months old.

I certainly hope to see Edwards do well in NV and there is a new poll out of SC that offers hope to Edwards supporters- he's at 21%, higher than he's been in over 6 months- but whether he'll surge or not, is still very much up in the air.

[Blackhatjack]

3. I disagree that "Obama is way ahead of Edwards" re: 'attracting indies'/'disaffected repubs...n/t

[cali]

6. Obama demonstrated that in both Iowa and NH and it's

evidenced in polls. It's not a vague "feeling" that Obama attracts independents. It's been shown that he does.

[robcon]

4. But he doesn't beat all Democratic candidates - he's third.

That's the real problem for Edwards.

[ladjf]

8. According to most polls, Edwards is third among the Democratic

candidates to be nominated but first in head to head with the Republican candidates. That's a strange paradox.

[OzarkDem]

13. Third only among Dem voters

he will be the one to pick up the crossover and independent voters.

[Selatius]

5. I think Edwards' strong suit is appealing to working class folks with his populist message.

I believe that's the reason why he hasn't collapsed yet in competition with both Obama and Clinton. His disadvantage is money, and he has pissed off the Chamber of Commerce with his anti-greed rhetoric, so he is already racking up some hefty enemies. His hail mary pass will come when he can somehow get the news media to spotlight him some more in order to expose his message to a wider and possibly receptive audience worried about the economy and their jobs.

[ladjf]

9. Good observation.

[ladjf]

7. Correct. I don't understand why the Dems are still bickering over

the three candidates when they already have one who, in every poll, has shown that he could defeat any of the Republicans by a larger margin than the other two.

Having said that, any of the three Dems would be vastly superior to any of the Republicans.

Our prime objective is the GET THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE. America has been profoundly damaged by their greedy ineptness. Even under the best of future circumstances, it will require decades to repair their devastation.

[tblue37]

12. No--they are still bickering over TWO candidates, because

many Dems are not really aware of the third candidate or the polls that show him destroying the Republicans in the general election. They aren't aware because the corporate media want to make sure they stay that way and are doing everything in their power to prevent them from hearing from or about Edwards. (They are also doing that to Kucinich, of course, but the fact that Edwards has been showing strong in the debates in the caucuses and primaries (even beating Hillary in Iowa), and in the national polls makes it even more bizarre that they can exclude him from coverage.)

[tblue37]

10. I posted this in another thread:

If they nominate McCain, I believe he can even beat Obama, but I am quite sure he can beat Hillary. I think that Edwards is the only one that can certainly smash any of the Republican candidates by wide enough margins to protect us against election theft.

The national polls support that theory, since it has Edwards beating all of them by much wider margins than either Obama or Hillary. The polls show Hillary losing to McCain and Romney and quite possibly Huckabee. Obama loses to McCain or wins by such a slim margin that it can be easily stolen. Edwards beats them all.

That is almost certainly why the corporate media is trying to make this a 2-person race on our side--because they know that if Edwards gets the nomination, we will destroy the Republican candidate, and if becomes president, he will go after the huge media conglomerates, which Obama and Hillary probably won't do. (If Murdoch thought for an instant that Hillary would, he would not be cozying up to Hillary the way he has been doing.)

I also think Edwards is the only one who could win even if Bloomberg runs an independent campaign for president.

I doubt Edwards will get nominated, but I desperately hope that he will. I will be donating tomorrow to the $7 million campaign--if only to help him get a smidgen of the media exposure he obviously deserves!

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. I'll be donating to Edwards later this week. I want him to get the nomination.

[AlertLurker]

14. I don't believe you.

I don't believe Edwards, either.

[Blackhatjack]

15. I don't believe Blue State Native cares whether YOU believe him or not.

Not much in the way of an argument to just state you don't believe someone.

[AlertLurker]

16. Since the OP did not provide...

...polls, proof, links or anything at all to support the assertions, why the should I have to provide any argument other than "I don't believe you?"

It's not like I think BSN is a liar or anything - In the absence of any evidence, I remain skeptical of BSN's assertions (perhaps "hopes" is a better word?), that's all.

I suppose we'll just have to wait for the forecasted Edwards Independent/Unaffiliated "surge" to sweep him to victory on Tsunami Tuesday to find out for sure.