Cross-posted to Sinister.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/...
Here's what struck me:
Among Democrats polled, former North Carolina U.S. Sen. John Edwards came in a distant second to Clinton but he had the highest favorable rating among all voters -- 44 percent. Edwards won head-to-head matchups with Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney, and he came within 3 percentage points of Huckabee.
Oklahoma hasn't voted for a Democrat in decades, folks. This is excellent news.
On the other hand...
Clinton lost head-to-head matchups against McCain (61-31), Huckabee (56-35), Romney (51-30) and Giuliani (50-38). And Clinton was viewed unfavorably by 61 percent of those surveyed.
Interesting switch up.
Something else interesting:
Soltow noted the importance of evangelicals in Oklahoma politics. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed for the Oklahoma Poll identified themselves as evangelical Christians. Their highest marks went to Huckabee (51 percent approval) and McCain (49 percent), while fully two-thirds disapproved of Clinton and 61 percent had an unfavorable opinion of Obama.
Hmmmmm. Does this mean Edwards can do well amongst Evangelicals in the fall? Considering that two-thirds of those polled are Evangelicals, and in the poll, Edwards manages to beat both Romney and Giuiliani, and comes within 3 points of Huckabee, it would seem that Edwards is viewed at least somewhat favorably amongst the Evangelical set in the Sooner State.
I'm still voting for Kucinich on February 3rd because he's the only one who doesn't equivocate on health care, marriage equality, or the war, but the more I read about Edwards, the more I'm rooting for him as the "realistic" choice.
Update: Wowzers - this is my first ever recommended diary. Thanks to all who made it possible, and remember to check out Sinister (shameless plug)!
Update #2: I want to respond to two interesting points that have been brought up in the comments.
- Edwards won't do well in Oklahoma because Kerry lost by double digits in '04 with Edwards on the ticket.
I reject this argument because the two elections are completely different. In '04 we were running against an incumbent Republican president. Oklahoma is a red state, and Kerry didn't have a chance in hell here. That's why it's even more significant that Edwards is doing so well in this poll.
- Oklahoma doesn't matter in the larger scheme of the election.
Probably true- but if you consider Oklahoma as an indicator of electoral behavior amongst red states, this poll is still good news, and might just meant that Edwards can make a dent in other red states. Oklahoma might not matter, but Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas combined certainly would.