Edwards is the Front Runner

Surprising headline, but true!   Here is why:  In November 2008, there will be an election, and it will not be for President of the Democratic Party.   The race in November 2008 will be for "President of the United States."  

So it is of some interest to consider who is most likely to win a race in which everyone in America votes, not just Democrats.  

It turns out that the clear front runner in that race is John Edwards.  

Head-to-head polls show John Edwards beating more Republicans than either Clinton or Obama.  In the Rasmussen poll, Edwards is the ONLY democrat who beats John McCain.    Clinton loses 38-49, and Obama loses 43-46.   Edwards wins 46-39.    Here it is for your perusal.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

Here's another head-to-head polling site.   Here Clinton loses the popular vote to McCain 45-46 but wins in the electoral college, Obama wins 44-43 but loses in the electoral college, and Edwards wins in BOTH the popular vote and the electoral college.  

http://www.presidentelectionpolls.co...

Some people have said "this year is different so let's cast off historical wisdom about red and blue states, sons of the south versus northern liberals".  I'm not so sure that Americans' voting habits have changed all THAT much.  But one thing clearly is different:  We have LOTS of data to look at.   Polls are being conducted constantly.  

Although polls can be inaccurate, the head-to-head polls are as good as any other.   And they are telling us something we ignore at our peril.    To encourage further study, here is a cautionary note from the Washington Post, January 20, 2008:  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

•  He certainly came out better on the debate

  by classykaren27 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:38:45 AM PDT

  •  I agree,

    but it would have nearly impossible for him to not come out looking better than the other two candidates in that debate... Sheesh, I thought they were going to toss the podiums aside and literally go at each other's throats.

    I was just waiting for the moderator to scream "DEATHMATCH!"

    It was just ugly to watch. It really was.

    by MichiganGirl on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 01:47:12 AM PDT

    •  Yup, the fighting ...

      fueled the general impression that Democrats don't know how to lead.
      If I could've counseled Hillary, I would've said "Don't take the bait, don't take the bait".   I think Obama wanted to look strong and decisive and so kept attacking her, but her best bet  would've been to laugh it off rather than taking it seriously.    The whole thing looked way too much like a marital spat.   Well, maybe next time.

      I'm not savouring what the Independents and Republicans must be thinking about our party now.   Two bi-atches and a hair model.   :(

      by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM PDT

      •  Wait! What I said was unfair to Edwards

        Actually I don't think voters think of him as a hair model any more.   Michael Moore got "past the hair", and that's good enough for me:

        http://www.michaelmoore.com/...

        by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM PDT

•  The Republicans

  look at the race and support the candidate that can best win against Democrats.  That is why McCain has made a resurgence.  They don't like him, but they see he can either win, or win by diebolding his opponent.  Either way they get their Supreme Court radicals and Justice Department flunkies.

  We look at our candidates and pick apart any flaw we can find, in some kind of misguided scorched earth policy of "vetting".  I fear this election more than any I've ever seen.  We are on the precipice, and it's a long way down.

  by Grannus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:11:24 AM PDT

  •  Amen

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM PDT

•  He was awesome

  But I admit I enjoyed this debate more because it mirrored what we do in the progressive blogsophere.

  by benny05 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:17:08 AM PDT

  •  That's cool to know (being new to the PB)

    Still, I'd rather this squabbling go on behind closed doors instead of out in the open for all to see.

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM PDT

•  Oh Gawd

  I really hate to see you guys doing this to yourselves , because when you get all rabid like this , I just feel bad for you. C'mon. Two little polls? We're still citing friggen polls ? ....and old ones at that?

  Stop doing this to yourselves . It's really embarrassing.

  by WeBetterWinThisTime on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:38:42 AM PDT

  •  WeBetterWinThisTime - Your post has no content

    If you really feel what your screen name suggests, then why don't you have something useful to say about HOW we can win this time?

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:36:40 AM PDT

•  Edwards Folks, Blog Louder, and Harder, Now!!!!!!

            A saying made by Abraham Lincoln, but attributed to him only maybe 95% correctly was, you can fool the people once, you can fool the people twice, but you can't fool the people all the time.  What he probably said was you can fool the people once, you can fool the people twice, but you can only fool the people so many times.  We are seeing too many young people with too many computers in their homes, with too fast typing hands, trying to fool the media, the pollsters and the nation.  The media is reading the e-mails and blogs they monitor, so Edwards folks, get your act together.    
       It hit me as I watched the reactions between the 50’s and up generation, many that do not use the internet, and the reactions coming in for Obama on the internet way too fast. American Idol syndrome.   Only when one has looked at many different types of elections, different peoples, etc, as I have, having lived in more than 30 nation, spending most of 16 years in India and Brazil, and the rest here, studying American history non-stop for more than 3 years, 10-15 hours
      I remembered when my 22 year-old daughter visited me recently, as she lives in Brazil, and how fast she types, and sends text messages on her cell phone, and how much time she spends on the internet.  She will vote for Hillary Clinton.  I won’t even try to tell her who to vote for, but I e-mailed her Edward’s, Hillary’s and Obama’s web-sites and told her to read what was written.  
      We are seeing new technology going crazy and blind; and abused; and Clinton and Edwards may be beat by fate and destiny.  Unless, we play the game as the young folks do, and prepare our opinions before events happen, ready to make a wave for John Edwards, we will have no voice or say.  He deserves our best efforts. These next two weeks will make a difference.  Blog, Blog, Blog.

  by ebb lenkin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 02:55:20 AM PDT

  •  You're right, and I'm doing my best

    :)

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

•  Fixed your tags

  All tags should be capitalized (first letter capitalized in each word) and separated by a comma. Otherwise it all just comes out as one word.

  Also make sure that your tags are something that somebody actually might search for (that is the point of tags). Thus, I removed the head-to-head tag because nobody would likely ever search for that string.

  As for your diary, I'm not really sure these polls mean much at this point, although I do tend to think Edwards is the most electable candidate. The point is probably moot since it seems highly unlikely he will be the nominee.

  by redhaze on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 03:28:20 AM PDT

  •  Head-to-head works on google, so ...

    I'm putting it back.

    Folks, I appreciate assistance with tags, but I'd rather receive a note and then let ME do the changing.

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:29:41 AM PDT

    •  Uh, okay...

      The point of tags is to use phrases that others will search for using the dkos search function. What that has to do with google somewhat escapes me.

      If you don't want the unwanted help in the future, you might want to insert comments between your tags. Your tags were worthless without them, and that is the real reason why I changed. The head-to-head thing was less important, since it is just basically a worthless tag. Things look ok now.

      by redhaze on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

•  In related story, world is flat after all

  by Travis Stark on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:07:36 AM PDT

  •  Zero content

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:41:08 AM PDT

•  hahahahaha

  No frontrunner gets under 4% in any caucus.  Yet Edwards did.

  by Delaware Dem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 04:52:49 AM PDT

  •  Delaware Dem - where do you get your data?

    Hard to believe that people post stuff with no evidence or factual support.  Can you please cite a source showing that no one has ever been nominated after getting just 4% in the primary of a tiny electoral state like NV?  

    by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM PDT

    •  Do you have an example that disproves my

      statement?  

      No, you do not.  You are just making this comment because perhaps you are an Edwards supporters and do not want to deal with the electoral realities.  

      by Delaware Dem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:40:42 AM PDT

      •  My diary supported my claim with data

        Now it's YOUR turn to support YOUR claim with data.

        by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:41:54 AM PDT

        •  I didn't think you had an example.

          And poll numbers are not data.  

          Barring the death of Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama, John Edwards will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party in 2008.  

          by Delaware Dem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:02:57 AM PDT

          •  Poll numbers are not data?

            Wow, that's the oxymoron of the century.  

            But ok, clearly your way of supporting a claim is simply to make ever stronger assertions.  

            by mrogers2007 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:13:15 AM PDT