Skip to main content

View Diary: John Edwards is the most electable Democrat (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What these "statistics" show now... (0+ / 0-)

    and what the reality will be after the primary, are totally different animals.

    Once the Democratic nominee is in the crosshairs of the Rethug machine, and has their complete attention, all bets are off.

    I think Obama will fare ok, he's been getting some "tough love" already and seems to be doing all right.

    Edwards is completely untested in that regard.
    Of the three, I am the least sure of his ability to handle it.
    But that's just my opinion. Lets look at the undeniable facts. We have only one candidate who has been through anything like that crucible, and that candidate has come through with flying colors.

    We have only one candidate that we know can stand up to the Republicans, because we have seen it happen.

    C'mon, say it with me... that candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
    Now that's electibility.

    "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

    by Niniane on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:25:08 PM PST

    •  Completely untested? He's been on the ballot... (0+ / 0-)

      ...in all 50 states.

      He's actually debated Dick Cheney.

      He won a tough race in North Carolina.

      Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever won a tough race at the federal level.

      Lazio? Get real. Spencer? A joke. Alan Keyes? C'mon.

      Edwards beat an incumbent Republican in North Carolina!

      There's not a single shred of analytical data that I've come across that suggests that Hillary is more electable than either Obama or Edwards.

      •  Analytical data is usless (0+ / 0-)

        unless you know how to interpret it correctly.
        **See Cheney, Dick and what he did with unfiltered data on Iraqi WMD...

        Part of interpreting it correctly is either going in with an open mind, or rejecting your inherent bias during the interpretation.

        I fail to see how you have exerted control on your findings to eliminate or to mitigate the obvious bias that you have admitted to.

        I would counter your assertion with the opinion that you haven't found a shred of data that suggests she isn't the most electable either... when interpreted correctly.

        Psuedo-Science is what the Rethugs do. When you have a conclusion before you have data, and weigh the validity of your data against your predetermined conclusion, you are not practicing science... you are selling snake oil.

        I am not suggesting that you are doing this, just pointing out that we have no evidence that you aren't, either.

        "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

        by Niniane on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 03:57:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not suggesting I'm a drug seller either... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Niniane

          ...right? ;)

          I explained my methodology. If you have a problem with it, point it out.

          If you think I'm lying, say so.

          I've gone over these numbers carefully. I believe they are rock solid. I have not included or excluded any polls selectively. There is no poll that I'm aware of that isn't included in this analysis.

          I focus on the period of time after July 1 because it's more relevant, not because it makes Hillary look worse (it actually makes her look better -- from 1/1-6/30, her average lead was actually -1 in these polls, so by excluding that time frame it makes her seem more electable).

          I live in Las Vegas; I don't easily fall more misdirection or magic tricks.

          •  My contention (0+ / 0-)

            is simply after the nomination is a done deal, todays data doesn't mean a thing.

            It's a whole new ballgame, in the General Election.

            "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

            by Niniane on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:09:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then what other objective electability metrics... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Niniane

              ...are there?

              •  Not a whole lot, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JedReport

                Not that will matter in a month or two, I'm afraid.
                It's not really an exact science, you know?

                What little there is is to easily seen subjectively, like my belief that Hillary has been through the fire already, and you think JRE's prior presidential campaign experience is much more important.

                I think they are all electable.

                I just can't see allowing an assertion contrary to my own stand unchallenged. I hope I have done so respectfully and at least a little bit rationally.
                I appreciate the work you have done here, but I can't help but see it as still very subjective.

                Thanks for the exchange, and good luck.

                "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

                by Niniane on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 04:27:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Good luck to you too (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Niniane

                  Also, if I said she's unelectable, or implied it, I didn't mean to. I just think her campaign is going to be tougher because she doesn't start out with as big a lead; and I think that will make electing a dominantly Democratic Congress more difficult.

                •  By the way (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Niniane

                  I dropped my first ever TR on someone today, a comment downthread that is a slur against BO and HRC. Since you've been around here awhile, can you confirm for me that my TR was appropriate?

                  •  Yep, most deserved (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JedReport

                    unless they were trying to paraphrase what they think you might have been trying to say.

                    I don't think that's the case here though...

                    My guideline is to try not to TR commenters to your own diary, unless they really cross the line, which I think this one did.
                    Also, it is usually considered good etiquette to leave a comment explaining why you left the TR.
                    Be polite when you do, so as to not give them an excuse to retaliate.
                    And always check back periodically to see if they respond... after all, you may have misunderstood their intent.
                    Give the benefit of the doubt when you are not sure, and never follow the mob... make up your own mind as to what merits your TR's... which if this is your first one, you probably already do.

                    I hit them too, and I'm surprised more people haven't. I thought it was pretty repugnant, and I'm a veteran of the candidate wars... I have  a pretty high tolerance... I even got one myself tonight, and I have no idea why.

                    "As God is my witness, I thought wingnuts could fly."

                    by Niniane on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:43:14 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site