Skip to main content

View Diary: September dKos Straw Poll results (417 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  edwards couldn't even carry his own state (4.00)
    and thus edwards has relatively little to add to a democratic ticket

    Weaker at home, Hated abroad www.dumpw.org

    by jsepeta on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:06:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry couldn't carry North Carolina (none)
      Lloyd Bentsen couldn't "deliver" Texas for Dukakis. Earl Warren was one of California's most popular governors, but Dewey still lost California in 1948 to Truman. People don't vote for Vice President. I don't know how many times this has to be said. Besides, Kerry didn't even try to win North Carolina, plus his "windsurfer" image didn't help any.
      •  Kite Surfer (none)
        Huge difference, highly athletic extreme sport (he snowboards too). It did help. The Sports Illustrated editors were into him... And very nonplussed when their readers said Bush was the more athletic of the two. Someone who knows how to live well gets my respect. Republicans chopping foliage as they are wont to do doesn't so much.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:48:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  North Carolina (none)
      is to Edwards what New York would be to Giuliani.

      That's okay. He doesn't need to. No Dem will carry NC. But maybe Virginia which is its E.V. equal.

      Who can win more states that Edwards?

      •  Joementum (R-CT)!!!! (4.00)
        He's the ELECTABLE candidate.
      •  Who can win more states than Edwards? (none)
        In 2008, no one.

        If the Republicans stay in power much longer, An Army of One isn't going to be just a slogan.

        by MeanBoneII on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 11:56:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Vote against Patriot Act + Terrorist attack = (none)
            Big problems for Russ. The mushy middle believes the "Patriot Act" is helping to prevent a repeat of 9/11. Kudos to Feingold for voting his conscience, but it could be a HEAVY political anchor.

            His multiple divorces won't help him with the morals and values voters, either.

            If the Republicans stay in power much longer, An Army of One isn't going to be just a slogan.

            by MeanBoneII on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:10:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Disagree (none)
              All a politician has to do is stand up to the terrorweenies and say: "Remember when we said, if they change our way of life, we've lost? Well I for one never through in the towel, I never conceded defeat to fear, I will not call that battle lost."

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sounds great, but... (none)
                ...not sure how that speech will stack up with a vote against the Patriot Act if -- or, more likely, when -- terrorists hit the U.S. again. People vote security before ideals.

                If the Republicans stay in power much longer, An Army of One isn't going to be just a slogan.

                by MeanBoneII on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:22:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Your reasoning is typical but really stinks (none)
              Do you think the Patriot Act is protecting Americans or not?  Do you think Republicans' solutions on terror and Iraq are keeping us safer than Russ's would?  That's what matters.

              Reagan was divorced.  It's just not an issue unless you can be cowed into believing it is.

              You can vote your beliefs, or you can double the voting power of some right winger running around in your head.

              •  I don't think (none)
                the commenter was saying he wasn't planning to vote for Russ.  He was simply putting on his political analyst hat and trying to predict who would have the most advantages.
              •  I'm already voting for the Dem nominee (none)
                The question is, what do Joe and Jane Swing Voter think of the Patriot Act, and, therefore, of the only senator who voted against it? They're the ones whose votes we need. We already have mine.

                If the Republicans stay in power much longer, An Army of One isn't going to be just a slogan.

                by MeanBoneII on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:19:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Joe and Jane want a coherent policy. (none)
                  You underestimate them.  They see the country heading toward a fork in the road at 100 MPH.  One fork is "Lock up more Arabs and keep them forever or until you can find someone to charge them with.  Killing them in Iraq makes us safer here.  Suspend Constitutional rights using the Patriot Act."  And so on.

                  A real opponent says, "Locking up innocent Arabs here makes us less safe.  Killing them in Iraq makes us less safe.  Forfeiting our rights makes us less safe.  Take the other road."  He presents a real alternative viewpoint, not a slight shift hoping to appease Bush supporters.

                  Contrary to popular wisdom, Joe and Jane will not vote to aim straight for the tree in the middle of the fork.  Karl Rove knows this, and it's past time we learned it.

            •  Patriot Act (none)
              First of all, after voting down the PATRIOT ACT, he helped create the SAFE act, which has not been passed, but is definitely a way for him to show he's no slouch on terror. And if all else fails, just read this speech, it always gets me.

              "There can be little doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search our homes at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open our mail, eavesdrop on our phone conversations, or intercept our e-mail communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold us in jail indefinitely based on what we write or think, or based on mere suspicion that we are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.


              But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America."

              Freedom can't be forced.

              by Perdition on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:12:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  No chance (none)
            I like Russ but he doesn't have "it."

            "Make the truth your litmus test."

            by independentchristian on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:15:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Please (none)
      Get your facts straight...John Edwards didn't lose NC...John Kerry lost NC...and it was far after it made a damn bit of difference. So I wish people would stop with the 'he can't carry his own state' BS because that's all it is.
      •  Yep. (none)
        The media types love pointing out how VP candidates don't help and then they say, "Oh, Edwards lost his state!"
      •  He Didn't Run For Senate Again (1.00)
        Because he knew he'd lose. End of story.

        9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

        by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:06:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's complete unsubstantiated bullshit (none)
          He didn't run for Senate because he went for broke with the Presidential run.  And he almost pulled it off.

          I get so sick and tired of that fucking lie.

          •  Well, That's What The Pundits Said At The Time (2.50)
            It's not my invention, if invention it is, but conventional wisdom. The Carolinas changed in six years. Edwards as trial lawyer chose his cases with ruthless efficiency. He conducted mock trials with mock juries to see if he could win the case and if he couldn't, he didn't take it. I would think that would apply to politics too, so I believe the analysis myself. And there is nothing wrong with that, I wasn't knocking Edwards per se, although I was knocking the Carolinas as far as them going blue anytime soon.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:34:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh Great... Edwards Troll Rating Abusers (none)
              Heh. That's cute.

              9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

              by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 02:04:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unproductive Dude (none)
                Mostly because your comments have been proven wrong all over this thread.  You're getting schooled dude, best to just quit and try another later.

                PS: 1 is Unproductive (your making claims that have already been proven completely wrong, even by your own admission).

                "End of story" WrongDirection.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:36:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Oh. I'm Getting Schooled. Oh Ok. (none)
                  I have no interest in being mistaken about Edwards. But that doesn't make you the arbiter of anything. If you want to "school" me with actual information go ahead.

                  However what I stated above was reported in the news and, while I agree everything in the news is subject to suspicion, it is entirely within my rights to be mistaken about something based on having believed reporting and commentary from what I deem trustworthy sources, such as Times OpEp and CNN.

                  But, ah, you know, why you should be so oversensitive about the suggestion that the Carolinas are really tough states to crack, and that Edwards knows how to choose winning battles, is beyond me. I didn't consider the point terribly negative. However I don't think he's some kind of magical southern silver bullet, that's for sure.

                  9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                  by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:36:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Full O Contradictions (none)
              So, above, you say to ignore the "Rovian media," but now you claim something is true because "all the pundits" say so.

              You're not very good at this blog thing.  End of story.

              Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

              by philgoblue on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:37:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  K, Thanks. (none)
                Thanks for clearing that up for me.
                You know, we have to have differences in opinion on who is the best candidate.

                Hmm... Checking your past post, you are entirely an Edwards man... I mean, you are way into him. Way, deep, into him. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just don't get all Fatal Attraction on me for having SLIGHT issues with whether he is the BEST, VERY BESTEST candidate for 2008.

                9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:41:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  This is not a 1 level comment . . . (none)
              . . . knock it off kids.

              My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

              by dbratl on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 05:08:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  End of a BS story (none)
          Thanks for the recycled Rove talking point, though.  There was no evidence of this, ever.  Every Senate poll conducted with Edwards as a candidate gave him a healthy lead (although not above 50%).  See a compilation: http://nationaljournal.com/members/polltrack/2004/races/sen/nc/nc_s_gen.htm.
          •  Password? (none)
            Your zinger would have more punch if I could read it. And I am curious because that scenario is all-too believable.

            9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

            by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:36:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry (4.00)
              I'll cut & paste the polls including JRE:

              A Mason-Dixon poll, conducted 10/11-14/02 for the Winston-Salem Journal, surveyed 625 likely North Carolina voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 10/17/02). Tested: Sen. John Edwards (D), and Reps. Richard Burr (R), Walter Jones (R) and Sue Myrick (R).

              General election matchups:

                                      All Men Wom Dem GOP Ind
              Edwards                 43% 40% 46% 66% 11% 39%
              Myrick                  33  36  30  18  56  32
              Undec.                  24  24  24  16  33  29

              Edwards                 45% 41% 49% 69% 12% 37%
              Jones                   32  36  28  19  51  29
              Undec.                  23  23  23  12  37  34

              Edwards                 45% 41% 49% 67% 14% 40%
              Burr                    30  34  26  13  54  27
              Undec.                  25  25  25  20  32  32

              A Research 2000 poll; conducted 7/13-16/03 for the Raleigh News and Observer; surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 7/21). Tested: Sen. John Edwards (D) and Rep. Richard Burr (R).

              General election matchup:

                                 All Men Wom Wht Blk Dem GOP Ind
              Edwards            47% 43% 51% 42% 76% 87%  6% 48%
              Burr               39  44  34  45   1   9  72  36
              Undecided          14  13  15  13  23   4  22  16

              A Research 2000 poll, conducted 5/18-21/03 for the Raleigh News and Observer, surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 5/25). Tested: Sen. John Edwards (D) and Rep. Richard Burr (R).

              General election matchup:

                                 All Men Wom Wht Blk Dem GOP Ind
              Edwards            47% 44% 50% 42% 75% 85%  8% 49%
              Burr               36  41  31  42   2   8  68  32
              Undecided          17  15  19  16  23   7  24  19

              A Research 2000 poll, conducted 4/21-24/03 for the Raleigh News & Observer, surveyed 600 likely voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 4/28/03). Tested: Sen. John Edwards (D) and Rep. Richard Burr (R).

              General election matchup:

                                All Men Wom Dem GOP Ind Wht Blk
              Edwards           49% 45% 53% 86% 10% 51% 44% 76%
              Burr              35  40  30   7  67  31  41   2
              DK/Other          16  15  17   7  23  18  15  22

              A Research 2000 poll, conducted 3/16-19/03 for the Raleigh News & Observer, surveyed 605 likely voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 3/21/03). Tested: Sen. John Edwards(D) and Rep. Richard Burr (R).

              General election matchup:

                                 All Men Wom Dem GOP Ind Wht Blk
              Edwards            48% 44% 52% 84% 10% 50% 43% 73%
              Burr               33  38  28   6  63  30  39   3
              DK/Other           19  18  20  10  27  20  18  24

              A Research 2000 poll, conducted 2/16-19/03 for the Raleigh News & Observer, surveyed 607 likely voters; margin of error +- 4% (release, 2/24/03). Tested: Sen. John Edwards (D) and Rep. Richard Burr (R).

              General election matchup:

                                All Men Wom Dem GOP Ind Wht Blk
              Edwards           49% 45% 53% 84% 11% 52% 44% 72%
              Burr              31  37  25   5  61  27  38   2
              DK/Other          20  18  22  11  28  21  18  26

              •  OK... (none)
                ...Sounds like it could in fact be Rovian BS that Edward knew he'd lose. Nevertheless that's no certainty as, we all know (hah) undecideds break for the challenger and nowhere is Edwards at 50% in the "all" column. Anyhow... One term in the Senate, and four years past looking to 2008, is not as good as it should be for the best possible run at the presidency. I doubt Edwards would say different. But he is fairly young yet. I think he should do us a favor and take a seat... Senate, house, statehouse.

                9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

                by NewDirection on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 03:06:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The wealthy investment banker and former Clinton (none)
          chief of staff we nominated lost 52-47. I have no doubt that a populist incumbent senator could have won that race.
    •  Funny he was in the Senate then (4.00)
      Without Kerry dragging him down he won "his state" for the Senate and he won "his state" for the primary.

      What was different during the Presidential election?

      Oh yeah, Kerry was connected to him.  People vote for the President, and Kerry lost NC.

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:00:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Plus Kerry didn't even try to win NC (none)
        so it's ridiculous that anyone would try to blame Edwards for his defeat. Oh well. Those are the same "pundits" who said Edwards was too young. Oh yeah, 50...way too young. And of course, Bush's identical experience as governor of Texas made him extremely qualified to be president.
        •  Kerry Needed A Change-of-Address Card (none)
          Kerry put all his eggs in one big Ohio basket. A state where the election process was controlled by Republicans.

          If he had only taken 10% of the time he spent in Ohio & went to some Bush 5% states, the election could have been different.

          I know "woulda shoulda coulda" but this is such basic stuff & his campaign seems to have been run by chimps on crack.

          In matters of conscience, the Law of Majority has no place. -- Mahatma Gandhi

          by Ranting Roland on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:37:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards is the only Dem who can win (none)
      states like NC, TN, VA, SC (they absolutely love him there), OK and perhaps Arkansas.  All of those are possibilites if Edwards is the nominee.

      Now, if 2008 is Edwards versus Mitt Romney from MA, Edwards might win a whole lot of southern states because Romney looks like a slick businessman.

      One more thing.  The GOP hasn't invested as much money into hacking states that they feel like they will automatically win.  Who other than Edwards gives the dems as good a chance in GOP strongholds?  No one.

      "Make the truth your litmus test."

      by independentchristian on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 12:04:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Missouri (4.00)
        I think he could take Missouri. Southern Missouri has a high percentage of rural voters who live in poverty.  The Republican Regime of Matt Blunt has kicked those people off medicaid.  The state has swung 20 points away from Blunt.  In Missouri, City folk in StL and KC vote Dem, UberSuburbs, Bible-belt Springfield and outstate (rural) vote Republican.  

        Now that Southern Missouri has a high percentage of discontented folks - the state is in play. Edwards is the only guy who sounds like the people who live in Southern Missouri.  They would like him best.

        I think, after Katrina, Dems could pick up Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida.  Ohio might swing left too because of scandals.

        Edwards, Clark or Gore could all win.  

        Gore looks good now because he was part of the golden Clinton years, he wrote about Katrina 13 years before it happened!

        And, on a personal level, I would like to see American's put him in office as a gesture of reputiation of the Bush years.

        I want Bush to live with the humiliation of being reckognized as the worst President in the history of the nation and the discrediting of neoconservativism.  I wont him to go down as a laughing stock in world opinion.  Then when he does go down, I hope he burns in the hell he tried to create for us on earth.

    •  Edwards won North Carolina (4.00)
      He won it twice.

      1998 Senate Election (State-Wide)
      2004 Democratic Primary

      the difference with November 2004?  He wasn't at the topic of the ticket!  Got it?

      Plus, a quick quiz:

      Number of days Kerry campaign had JRE in NC from July to November?

      Number of days Kerry campaign had Kerry in NC from July to November

      Number of days Kerry campaign had ads up in NC?

      Answers:

      3
      1/2
      5

      You've got to try to win NC, and Kerry didn't try.

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 01:41:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site