Gallup: Edwards Catches McCain in Favorable - Unfavorable

Gallup's latest poll is out for potential 2008 presidential contenders. The standings remain essentially the same for both the Democratic and Republican fields. But the favorability ratings show that John Edwards is now even with (or slightly ahead of) John McCain, and now trails only Rudy Giuliani and Condoleezza Rice -- neither of whom appears likely to win the Republican nomination.

Democrats

Favorable-Unfavorable-No Opinion:

John Edwards: 54-21-25
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 53-42-5
Al Gore: 48-45-8
John Kerry: 43-45-11
Barack Obama: 42-11-47

Republicans

Favorable-Unfavorable-No Opinion:

Rudy Giuliani: 77-12-11
Condoleezza Rice: 61-26-13
John McCain: 54-23-23
Newt Gingrich: 39-42-19
Mitt Romney: 19-12-69
Sam Brownback: 10-13-76

As for crossover appeal:

Hillary Clinton is clearly the most polarizing candidate -- 86% of Democrats view her favorably, compared with just 13% of Republicans. Democrats do not view Edwards and Obama as positively as they view Clinton, but Republicans view the two more positively than Clinton. A majority of Republicans, Democrats, and independents have favorable opinions of both McCain and Giuliani.

Favorable Ratings by Party

Democrats-Independents-Republicans

Giuliani: 70-72-92
Rice: 43-53-86
Edwards: 72-51-36
McCain: 51-51-63
Clinton: 86-48-13
Gore: 69-47-19
Kerry: 67-40-16
Obama: 58-39-28
Gingrich: 27-30-59
Romney: 14-19-23
Brownback: 8-11-10

•  Puzzled

  Who are the 27% of Democrats that have a favorable opinion of Newt Gingrich?

  by Boston on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:39:54 PM PDT

  •  That is perplexing.

    A few holdouts in Georgia?

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:41:57 PM PDT

    •  This shows Edwards gaining before formal

      announcement.

      That is very interesting for all those who will try and say he didn't gain any until after his formal announcement possibly.

      by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:05:42 PM PDT

      •  Edwards & Obama & Giuliani on PAPER

        would make the best candidates based strictly on like-ablility and recognition.

        Of course if Giuliani ever gets through a republican primary is another factor.

        this is consistent with every other poll,  everyone knows hillary and has an opinion....

        Al gore, kerry and Hillary all have something in common in this type of poll...

        What remains to be seen is whether Obama and Edwards' numbers on favoribility go down or not

        by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:05:12 PM PDT

        •  Edwards has the highest favorability

          rating of all the Democratic possible candidates among Republicans. That's high cross-over potential.

          by yellowdog on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:53:09 PM PDT

          •  His crossover is strong

            I believe because he appeals to rural moderates with his populist views. I've heard from many Republicans that they would have voted for Edwards if he had been at the top of the ticket rather then Kerry. Running on economic fairness without raising taxes on the middle class is a winning platform.

            by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:42:35 PM PDT

      •  Edwards was very impressive in 2004

        and teh voters remember him.

        by Carolina Voice on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:04:03 PM PDT

    •  For the record I'm not one of them! n/t

      by MadGeorgiaDem on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:41:32 PM PDT

    •  Zell Miller is from there n/t

      .

      by BlueEngineerInOhio on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:42:20 PM PDT

  •  I'm equally puzzled

    by the 43% of Democrats that have a favorable impression of Condoleeza Rice, who is exceeded in her failures in these past 6 years by only Bush & Rumsfeld.

    by GTPinNJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:45:53 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps...

      ...African Americans who see few black people in positions of power?

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:50:55 PM PDT

      •  Not just African Americans

        many of us gave the benefit of the doubt to C. Powell due to his race.  It was a foolish thing to do given his record.  With her record its even worse, but many people blind their eyes to the faults of perceived path-breakers.  Of course, there are also those who find fault with black public figures or women in powerful positions that do not give the same level of scrutiny to white, male candidates.  Someday this stuff won't be important and that will be a very good day.

        by NearlyNormal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:34:57 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I don't get the Rice deal

      We must tell people over and over that she heard about an attack on July 11, 2001 and did nothing.  Over and over.  It worked with my husband. He is my stealth Democrat who I send into the local cowboy bars with information like the July 11 deal.  

      by MontanaMaven on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:50:57 PM PDT

      •  I think more also need to know

        she was on the board at Chevron, I believe.

        More Bush connection to the oil industry.

        by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:07:43 PM PDT

        •  That I didn't know

          Thanks for the info, America08.

          by benny05 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:11:00 PM PDT

        •  Yes.

          She actually had an oil tanker named after her (it was the practice of Chevron to name all their tankers after board members).

          by GTPinNJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM PDT

  •  They're hoping

    That he gets the GOP nomination.  We Democrats ought to starting "Draft Newt Now" campaigns.  

    by willb48 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:22:22 PM PDT

•  Yet, CNN shows HRC ahead

  Today, but no matchups between Edwards and the other opponents.

  Cross-over appeal is important.

  by benny05 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:44:56 PM PDT

  •  Hillary's people actually are trying to argue...

    ...that she's not "polarizing," believe it or not.

    Her high unfavorables indicate that she's near her maximum level of support in those head-to-head matchups.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:49:11 PM PDT

    •  Maybe they're smoking the same thing

      as the idiots at the White House. Whatever it is, I'd like a box for Christmas. The hallucinogenic seems to be incredible.

      by MadGeorgiaDem on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:45:51 PM PDT

      •  Carvillian...

        accuse howard Dean of not spending enough money to help democrats in 06, while Hillary - Carville's pal - spends 30 million on her own campaign...

        It is the utmost carvillian dogma to say Hillary is not polarizing.  It may not be HER FAULT, it may not be anything she says but 14 years of right wing messaging has engrained it.

        by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:08:04 PM PDT

        •  I agree. Hillary is well defined in the minds of

          90-95% of the voters. When I look at the polling data the most glaring fact to me is that she has no margin for error.  Her numbers just aren't great and this before the right-wing attack machine kicks into overdrive. I think even if she ran a perfect campaign, she'd have a hard time getting to 51%.

          by MadGeorgiaDem on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:16:52 PM PDT

      •  I meant to type "hallucinogenic effect".

        Really, I'm not an illiterate, I just play one on this blog.

        by MadGeorgiaDem on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:40:46 PM PDT

  •  it is?

    It's about motivating the base; "swing voters" are largely a myth.

    by Adam B on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:41:49 PM PDT

    •  And who will motivate the Republican base...

      ...more than she will?

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:44:03 PM PDT

    •  half true

      it is about mobilizing YOUR VOTERS while NOT MOBILIZING their VOTERS..

      Hillary might to both, or just mobilize their voters, but their is now way Hillar only motivates her voters.

      by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:09:26 PM PDT

      •  dude

        You're no longer a credible commenter, after that idiotic "Obama=Lieberman" diary that you posted today and refused to delete for hours.

        by Adam B on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:18:54 PM PDT

        •  right.....

          I can see the obvious problems in my statement

          it is about mobilizing YOUR VOTERS while NOT MOBILIZING their VOTERS..

          and by the way - I still think Obama sounds like he SOME TIMES messages SOME of the lieberman messages about the "politics of unity",,  so you can disagree but Obama chose to say it in his New Hampshire postcards not me.

          by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:22:45 PM PDT

        •  I deleted it

          when it became apparent that it deeply upset some folks.

          the first few commentors weren't upset..  

          by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:27:47 PM PDT

•  Eye of Newt? Yes, Puzzling

  Must be suburbanites.  Giuliani's numbers are astonishing.  I lived in NYC during his regime.  Yikes, he's scary.

  by MontanaMaven on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:48:57 PM PDT

  •  From Politicalwire.com:

    Edwards Running Hard While McCain Slips

    Citing the Evan-Novak Political Report:

    "McCain's principal rival for the nomination would seem to be former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who now is running ahead of McCain among both Republicans and independents and doing better against Clinton. But doubt remains that anybody as socially liberal as Giuliani (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control) can win the Republican nomination. His personal baggage -- mostly unknown now to voters outside New York City -- is also a formidable obstacle. He is far behind organizationally -- even in New Hampshire, which would be central to his hopes for the nomination."

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:56:49 PM PDT

•  What pisses me off

  is the McCain 51% Democratic favorability. WTF?

  by niteskolar on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:50:26 PM PDT

  •  Pisses me off too

    He's an old crazy war monger who hasn't changed a bit about anything in his whole life.  We need to get past Vietnam and have someone run who didn't go to Vietnam nor dodge it.  Let's not have yet another contest between who did what when.  And Hilary?  Sorry, but if you didn't have Clinton as a last name, it would help.   I'm done with Dynasty.  I'll maybe consider Chelsea.

    by MontanaMaven on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

    •  The original Flip flopper

      McCain has chamged his tune so many times that we are not sure what he stands for except whatever the Repugs want him to.

      by libbie on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:02:37 PM PDT

      •  That's why I think

        that most conservatives have decided that the "hold your nose" candidate is Guiliani. They might not like his stand on social issues, but he doesn't shy away from them. I think they have convinced themselves that those positions are more a reflection of being a New Yorker, than  a liberal.

        by jhecht on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:09:24 PM PDT

  •  Yeah

    It's such a joke. McCain is one of my least favorite politicians of all time. The media presents him as the moderate "maverick" even though he's one of the most conservative Republicans out there. He wants more troops in Iraq which shows how little he knows about the situation over there.

    by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:19:19 PM PDT

  •  See, The Daily Show

    he is popular on there, probably the most welcomed politicans by Stewart, not to mention Russert, Matthews, et cet.  Young people who are vaguely politcally aware see this "maverick" (and no one ever hestitates to repeat that and "straight talk express" it seems) and he's well liked by everyone and sort of grandfatherly = popular.

    John McCain is very popular with young people for an old Republican's standards.

    by Nulwee on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:33:31 PM PDT

    •  It seems like Daily Show...

      watchers may give him applause and go along with his jokes but I think they are much more politically savvy then you give them credit for. For instance I am a Daily Show watcher, in my twenties and I think McCain is a chief douche bag. His popularity has been created by the MSM.

      by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:48:44 PM PDT

      •  Yeah so am I...

        but I'm also a Kossack. Most Daily Show watchers are not.

        Auto-didacts are a very small part of the population, and TDS is a big show.

        by Nulwee on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 05:12:16 PM PDT

•  For laughs...

  Gingrich's & Brownback's favorable/unfavorable numbers are -3 among Republicans! LMAO!  And these guys want to run for president?

  But to be fair, there are 76% who have no opinion of Brownback yet.  He has plenty of room to drop those numbers even more once people get to know him for the nutjob he is.

  by GTPinNJ on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:55:35 PM PDT

•  "More Troops" McCain is feeling the hate

  for that position. Everyone (well, except Reid, McCain, and Bush) including most Republicans have a very hard time with MORE troops.

  by fairleft on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:57:15 PM PDT

•  Gooliani

  will drop like a rock once his ethical lapses come to light.

  by ThunderHawk13 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:00:30 PM PDT

  •  well

    Didn't really happen with Bill, who remains popular.  You sure people really are going to look at adultery as their main criterion in choosing a president?

    by Delirium on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:03:23 PM PDT

    •  Giuliani's second wife (and kids, apparently)...

      ...learned that he was leaving her for his mistress when he announced it at a televised news conference.

      That makes Bill look like a minor leaguer.

      by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:07:32 PM PDT

    •  Is it really adultery

      when you're impotent?

      by jhecht on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

      •  lol

        by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:34 PM PDT

    •  I think the adultery will kill

      his chances in the Republican primary, well actually so will his abortion stance and his pro-gay marriage stance. I can't see him getting past all those things and getting the right wing base to vote for him.

      by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:21 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, hell he is

        supportive of partial-birth abortion, as well.  Even Reid and Leahy (!!) on top of most of the usual moderate Democrats voted against partial-birth abortion!  No way will he fly with the base.

        by BlueEngineerInOhio on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:58:44 PM PDT

        •  Do NOT call it

          partial birth abortion! You are falling into the Republican labeling trap. Call it third trimester abortion.

          by yellowdog on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:07:11 PM PDT

    •  What it means is he can't really run

      on God, Gays and Guns.

      Basically it is cutting the Republican platform to "National Security", which doesn't seem enough for me, especially for someone who's foriegn policy experience has been being Mayor of a city while it was attacked.

      by bawbie on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:32:33 PM PDT

•  is anybody organizing any volunteer stuff for

  edwards yet, I have started talking to people in NJ about his campaign but can't find anything to pplug into. any info would be appreciated.

  by Tanya on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:00:39 PM PDT

  •  Go to

    www.johnedwards.com or www.oneamericacommittee.com and you should find loads of info.  Post your concerns there, you'll get a reply.

    by ThunderHawk13 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:02:55 PM PDT

  •  Have you visited oneamericacommittee.com?

    I would recommend checking out this blog entry over there and also looking at One Corps.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:05:09 PM PDT

  •  Join a NJ OneCorps

    http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/...

    by philgoblue on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

  •  thanks to all for the info, i'll check it out

    by Tanya on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:30:59 PM PDT

•  I still think John Edwards

  is greatly underestimated do to lack of MSM coverage.
  I hope that will all change when his announcement comes.

  by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:03:12 PM PDT

  •  I think it is good that he is

    flying under the radar. I've heard that the response at his appearances is great. He is building on that kind of word-of-mouth communication that can build a really solid base before the media even begin to notice.

    by yellowdog on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:10:11 PM PDT

•  Giuliani's positive rating is a mirage

  Giuliani's positive rating is so high only because people perceive him as "The Mayor of 9/11", the guy who showed leadership on 9/11 while Chicken George was spastically hopscotching around the country instead of acting like, well, a president.

  Once Giuliani starts campaigning as a caustic, partisan Republican -- as he must if he is to have any hope of winning the GOP nomination -- he will lose the Dems and indies who are rating him favorably today.

  by MJB on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:15:43 PM PDT

  •  he apparently has a lot of skeletons

    I'm sure McCain will air the Youtube video of Giuliani in full drag, talk about his divorces, and living with sinners..

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:11:32 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, that video will play well

      in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. :)

      by MJB on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:51:43 PM PDT

•  Ah, the "liberal media" at work

  funny how they've been building up figures like Guiliani, Rice and McCain. Even Gingrich gets on the old tubes (tv tubes, not the internet ones).

  by collegekid318 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:15:58 PM PDT

  •  lol

    by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:22:26 PM PDT

•  Obviously this is just a snapshot,

  but I am suprised at the high unfavorable rating for Gore (and I like Gore and am not putting him down and may vote for him, etc.).  

  It doesn't influence any possible decision I would make -- he's not even running yet -- but if it has any meaning (and I'm not sure it does), it may reflect that liberals see documentaries on global warming more and have a better opinion of Gore than the general public does at this point.  (Anti-war in 2002, endorsde Dean) (as much as I may wish it were to be true, not everyone belongs to moveon, either and not everyone sees the good Gore has done).

  Any possible explanations/speculations for this? (and not just attacks on a possible opponent of Edwards -- He can win without putting Gore down).  

  by TomP on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:18:12 PM PDT

  •  I like Gore...

    I think you're right about Gore. I think all liberals and even ol' time Deomcrats like him but his connection to moveon and his movie have made him that "big liberal" in the MSM. It's quite ridiculous actually because everything Gore has said for years has become true. Whether it be about Iraq, global warming or even his "lockbox" statements, he was right all along. I also think some of his speeches which were quite fierce could get pulled out the woodwork and could be used against him.

    by sarahlane on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:26:39 PM PDT

  •  Unfaves would explain the discrepancy between...

    ...the generic Democrat (52%) vs. Republican (32%) in the CNN poll, and the statistical ties between Gore and McCain, and between Gore and Giuliani (as well as between Hillary and McCain/Giuliani).

    Why are Gore's and Hillary's unfavorables above 40%? I would argue that they were attacked by the right-wing machine and lacked the natural personal charisma of someone like Bill Clinton (who was attacked more than either of them) to deflect those attacks.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:26:51 PM PDT

    •  Clinton's personal unfavorables

      Washington Post Polls

       29. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Bill Clinton as a person?

      	       Favorable   Unfavorable	   No opinion
      6/20/04 	   50		49	       2
      1/15/01 	   44		51	       5
      
      Election Day: 11/7/00
      
      10/22/00  LV       33	   60		  7
      
      10/21/00  LV	   33		62	       6
      10/20/00  LV	   32		63	       5
      10/1/00   RV	   37		58	       5
      9/6/00	  RV	   35		62	       3
      8/20/00   RV	   35		61	       3
      8/10/00   RV	   34		62	       4
      1/26/00 	   34		61	       5
      12/15/99  RV	   32		65	       3
      12/15/99	   36		62	       2
      9/2/99		   38		59	       3
      3/14/99	   30		67	       4
      
      3/4/99		   40		54	       6
      
      Impeachment: 12/19/98
      
      12/15/98	   41		56	       3
      11/1/98   LV	   37		60	       3
      11/1/98 	   42		54	       4
      

      It's like Clinton hit the rock bottom just in time for Gore's presidential bid. It's interesting to note that hi first sexual encounter with Monica took place on 11/15/96, after he secured his own reelection.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:56:58 PM PDT

  •  My guess

    Anyone who runs a presidential campaign is going to see their negatives go up. Gore and Kerry have done that, and thus their negatives are relatively high. Same will happen to Edwards and Obama if either one is the nominee. Not saying that means they would lose, but it is only natural, as you go through a campaign, for your negatives to go up. Same will happen with McCain and Giuliani.

    by jj32 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:29:11 PM PDT

    •  These explanations all make sense.

      I expect whomever we nominate will have at least 40 to 45% negative by the time the election happens in 2008.

      Gore and Kerry have been through it (although neither were seen to have a lot of charisma in 200 or 2004).  HRC went through it as Bill Clinton's wife and afterward as a right wing dart board.  

      Neither Edwards nor Obama have gone though the negative ads like Kerry and Gore, the misbranding, although Edwards faced some of it as VP candidate in 2004.  

      Meanbone has a point -- charisma helps to combat teh negatives -- but any candidate is likely to see negatives go up in a general election.

      I wonder if it is data like this that gives Gore pause.  He also may no longer feel the drive to be President that he once did.  Or he may announce after the Oscars?  who knows?

      I'll just have to wait and see how the field plays out.

      by TomP on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:39:48 PM PDT

•  McCain only goes down from here.

  He is an irascible fellow with major temperament issues.  He's also wrong on Iraq and no one is going to vote for another old geezer to get it wrong just like the geezers in this Administration did.

  by khyber900 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:21:46 PM PDT

  •  I agree, and as you suggest...

    ...his age is another negative.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:29:26 PM PDT

•  Intriguing

  Obama has the most potential, so to speak. 42% rate him favorable but he also has a 47%(!) undecided. As people get to see more of him, those could go either way, I think. McCain and Giuliani are at their peak.

  by jj32 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 02:25:33 PM PDT

  •  Obama and Edwards are basically the same

    Edwards has been attacked before  as VP and by dems within a primary..
    Both of these affect both the favorable/unfavorable and opinion as well.  the numbers are a little different but while edwards has higher favorabillity he also has lower no opinion and vice versa for obama.

    Obama for all practical purposes has not gone under much of a microscope none by the main stream media, none-to litlle by the democrats and very little by the GOP

    Obama and Edwards are basically within the margin of error...

    for dems to win they must make sure they don't approach the unfavorables of kerry/clinton/gore essentially.

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:18:05 PM PDT

•  Edwards Was Too Easy on Cheney in the Debate

  The guy's an attorney. He couldn't go after Dead-Eye Dick harder than that? He was so sheepish. Rather than exposing him for the criminal that he is, he let him off.

  I still like Mike Gravel. He wants to pull the troops now.

  by Alex 2012 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:14:07 PM PDT

  •  he'll be much more aggressive this time I'd guess

    he never went after Kerry FYI either ... unlike Gephardt  did with Dean and Kerry actually "stepped on" one of Edwards speaches.. so in the last election Edwards wasn't trying or not very good at "hardball" politics.. I suspect this time he has learned a lot from the process and will be a little more assertive.

    by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:25:25 PM PDT

  •  That is so totally not true.

    It's getting to be an old sneak in a slimy little attack post, the only way anyone could say Cheney won anything is to agree with his position and the content of his statements.

    I wouldn't agee with Cheney about anything, if he said the sky was blue, I would look for it to be purple!  I sure as heck would never say anything good about Cheney vs any Democrat, and there are plenty of Democrats that I don't really like much, but they are all better than Cheney in a debate or whatever.

    The Cheney debate thing is like draggin in road kill, it just ain't happening!  Sorry ! It just ain't.

    by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:31:05 PM PDT

•  I've got a 20 year old daughter

  that is just chomping at the bit to get started working for Edwards here in Tennessee. What does she need to do to get started? She worked 50 & 60 weeks on the Ford campaign non-stop for over two months. I'm sure the Tennessee Democrats will be contacting her but I'm sure  how much they get involved in the primaries. Edwards was the first political rally she ever attended back during the last presidental election. He is the one that motivated her to major in political sceince in college. She would be a great asset to his campaign.

  by ladylib on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:31:23 PM PDT

  •  Several groups, One America and TN for Edwards

    One America Committee:

    http://oneamericacommittee.com/

    One America One corp:
    http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/...

    PeopleforEdwards:
    http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/...

    TennesseeforEdwards:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/...

    DNC party builder group Edwards for  2008:
    http://www.democrats.org/...

    by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:42:36 PM PDT

•  Relative favorables among Independents

  is the only thing that matters. That's my latest thesis.

  I define "Relative favorables" like this: given X and Y, do you like X better than Y? If so, by how much?

  From the gallup poll you quote, we have absolute (not relative) favorables among Independents are:

  Favorables among Independents

  Giuliani 72
  Rice 53
  Edwards 51
  McCain 51
  HRC 48
  Gore 47
  Kerry 40
  Obama 39 (still formative)
  Gingrich 30
  Romney 19 (still formative)
  Brownback 11

  which basically bunches Rice through Gore in a rough equivalence group.

  It is VERY interesting to note that despite his enormous favorables (25=72-47 edge over Gore), Giuliani is roughly tied with Gore in most recent matchup polls

  One possible explanation: people are slowly beginning to think beyond basic "likability" and looking at the overall package for the job (which I think is bad news in the long run for Edwards and Obama, compared to Gore).

  ps: Gore's favorables among Democrats have been relatively stable at about 75% for sometime. I have seen a recent poll giving this figure. I'll try to find the link and post.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

  •  Reagan Democrats.

    Independents aren't the only thing that matters. Every vote you can take from the other side, that's a +2 net gain.

    by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 03:49:19 PM PDT

    •  Gore got 86% Dems, Clinton'96 got only 84% Dems

      did you know?

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:00:28 PM PDT

      •  I mean ability to get votes...

        ...from the other party (I might have been somewhat unclear).

        by MeanBoneII on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:24:55 PM PDT

        •  Gore won all TN counties in TN in 1990

          before getting entangled with the Clinton mess.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:27:14 PM PDT

          •  Tn got more wrapped up with Bush then they did

            Al Gore.

            by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:34:44 PM PDT

            •  warped up with the rightwing is more like it

              by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:52:14 PM PDT

  •  Guliani has to get through the primaries first

    Let's see where he is once his sharp elbows have been in action for a while.

    by Batfish on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:38:44 PM PDT

•  That Edwards "Webisode"

  can't be good for him. It was pretty lame. It's nice that people get to know him, but he comes across as too puppy-like, a bit too Andy Griffiths, if you know what I mean. We already know the guy is infectiously cheerful. What he needs people to see more of is his gravitas.

  by Batfish on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:33:56 PM PDT

  •  Each one will grow and you will see more

    strength when necessary.

    by America08 on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 06:01:31 PM PDT

    •  Geez

      I hope so. It can only go up!

      by Batfish on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 08:33:50 PM PDT

•  Edwards has always had a lot a

  crossover appeal and could have been the difference in '04 had he been on top?  I'd like to think that :D

  by catchawave on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 04:39:45 PM PDT