Daily Kos

Huffington Post: Edwards Most Electable

by mrogers2007

Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:50:52 AM PDT

This guy makes the case pretty much the same way I have been, although ... I was called trollish while he gets top billing on Huffington Post.   Oh well, who cares about that.   As John Edwards says, it's not about me; it's about the future of our country.    

An excerpt from Dave (Mudcat) Saunders:

"It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.

And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Tags: John Edwards, Electability, 2008 elections, president, primaries (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 55 comments

  •  Mudcat knows a few things... (12+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    BrooklynJohnny, cosbo, mattman, sukeyna, nancelot, Munibond, Ranting Roland, kidneystones, Rex Manning, poligirl, bettync, leisure

    here's some more from today, same line of thought..

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Shipjack on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:53:25 AM PDT

    •  Edwards' electoral experience?? One election win! (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      acerimusdux, Kerry Fan, christine20

      One election win.  Edwards ran for one term as U.S. senator from North Carolina and won.  He did not run for re-election to the senate in 2004 when he was on the ballot running for vice president (though he could have, if he thought he would win -- Lieberman ran for re-election to his senate seat in 2000 when he was also running for veep, and LBJ ran for re-election to his senate seat when he was running for veep in 1960).

      It is a huge stretch to say that Edwards has significant "red state electoral experience" based on his combined electoral experience of winning one term in the senate in 1998 and running on the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004 that didn't carry North Carolina or any other southern state.

      I like Edwards, but that snippet drastically overstates the "he can win in red states" case.

      As for HRC and Obama roughing each other up -- you may be right, but the reason Edwards isn't down there in the mud pit himself is that he's not perceived as having a significant chance of winning at this point.  If that changed, if Edwards became a true front-runner, the mud would start dumping on him and he would have to return fire.  Which would put him in the same position as Obama and HRC.

      So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

      by MJB on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:24:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama Vs. Keyes. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mattman

        Obama has never fought a contested campaign Vs. real Republican opposition. Clinton spent more money Running for Senate than most people spend running for President. Both ran in Democratic states.

        Edwards beat an incumbent Republican who had the support of Senator Jesse Helms's political organization. Edwards won as the underdog in a Republican state. The '04 run, though he wasn't in charge, taught many valuable lessons. Clinton is the only other Democrat with similar experience.

        Sorry, Obama is untested and not ready for prime time.

        by GunLovinDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 03:36:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're changing the subject. (0+ / 0-)

          Edwards won one election.  Period.  And he didn't run for re-election, though he could have.

          Obama?  Yeah, he hasn't been in a dogfight, either.

          HRC?  She spent a ton of money, but didn't face a legit opponent in either of her senate campaigns.

          If we wanted someone who was battle-scarred by a long life of hard-fought elections, we would have gone in a different direction than these three.  

          So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.

          by MJB on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:53:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  One step further... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Theghostofkarlafayetucker

        Good point.  To take it one step further, Edwards already had his chance on the national scene, and gave us nothing.  I have been extremely impressed by him since I began listening to him in 2004, but was extremely disappointed that his presence on the ticket wound up having no positive impact in any of the "red" states.

        Why do the Edwards supporters think he's going to do any better this time around than he did on the national scene in 2004?  For all the things I've heard said about Edwards, I haven't heard a simple answer to that question that makes any sense to me.

        Obama '08.

        by Kerry Fan on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:21:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Great tribute! (0+ / 0-)

        You seem to agree that John progressive record got him in early trouble with N. Carolina. I've touted this fact, not run away from it. Everyone in the Senate knew that. They knew John's progressive positions could create viability problems. That's real risk. It's easy to be a Democrat from NY and ILL, just for the record.

        You can't blame Edwards for Kerry's inability, at the TOP of the ticket to appeal. People vote for PRESIDENT, not vice.

        Don't think much of that matters now, it's 2008, and even some of these red states have turned more populist as the economy turns. What John has been saying about corrupt industry for the last few years is EXACTLY explains why we're here. The country and the other two candidates have been moving to John's progressive platform. It's about now.

        It's also rare for Democrats have a red-state progressive Senator turned populist. You should embrace that fact.  

        by Shipjack on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:23:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  DUH!!!!!!!!!! (8+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman, sukeyna, nancelot, LiberalVirginian, kidneystones, Rex Manning, Carib and Ting, ZhenRen

        That was established long enough ago, and ANY dem should know that a vote for clinton or obama is a vote for McCain.

        SHEESH!!

        DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

    by last patriot left on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:53:41 AM PDT

    •  With all due respect.. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mattman, Miss Blue, lpeacock

      I would not go that far.

      However, I will state that I feel that John Edwards represents a great lost opportunity. I truly hope that his "movement" stays as a vital and inspiring part of the Democratic Party..movement it forward for all of the right reasons.

      I can state that one of my regrets is that I was committed to another candidate early in this race. I would have loved to travel, donate and networked for John Edwards.

      He is an amazing individual, not just a politician, but an impressive individual.

      Its the delegates that count

      by Morgan Sandlin on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:44:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  While we're praying for Edwards to win.... (15+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman, sukeyna, Miss Blue, nancelot, ignorant bystander, Ranting Roland, kidneystones, cjallen, eastmt, Rex Manning, Carib and Ting, poligirl, tsunami, Ellinorianne, Philly Quaker

    lets also pray that Clinton and Obama don't rip apart the Democratic Party in their blind ambition.

    by IanC on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Many here have probably questioned whether Mudcat (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Morgan Sandlin, Ellinorianne

    has "over a 50 IQ".

    He's a partisan for Edwards and has been for a long time.  Regardless of the validity of his points, the messenger isn't unbiased nor without controversy here.

    I agree that Edwards is the most electable.  Mudcat just isn't the best person to make the case.

    -6.00, -5.74

    by cjallen on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:03:27 AM PDT

  •  That's a personal endorsement from (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman, GregNYC, dkmich

    Mudcat Saunders. Certainly not a definitive endorsement from the Obamington Post, as the title of this diary suggests!

    by AZnomad on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:16:55 AM PDT

  •  Those quotes about IQ's (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman, Morgan Sandlin

    are childish and call the writer's IQ into question.
      And I'm on the side of Edwards and Obama. Reminds me of that quote from Marx: "I am not a Marxist." In other words, sometimes a candidate's supporters don't help the candidate's cause.

    You've got to vote for someone. It's a shame, but it's got to be done.--Whoopi Goldberg

    by Libertaria on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:26:13 AM PDT

  •  "Institutional memory" (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman, Miss Blue, Ranting Roland, eastmt, lpeacock, Hypatica

     Mudcat Saunders is a "silver back" in the language of the gorilla pack.

     He remembers history -- When Carter and Ted Kennedy had a real mud fight -- which gave us 8 years of Ray-Gun and 4 year of bush the elder. Ray-Gun was the enemy of education. That's when the major dumbing down started -- with the Ray-Gun era.  

     There are real mature, rational reasons to choose Edwards and the main one is that he can win over McCain or Romney. And Mudcat projects that the GOP will choose McCain -- and it does seem that McCain is sort of acting like the crowned beauty contestant. He just has to stick it out -- and we just have to paste that photo of McCain hugging Bush on every single lamp post in the USA!

     McCain is a dufus -- he knows nothing about the economy -- has admitted as much many times.

     I've heard supposed democrats say . . . "well I really like McCain".

     These are the ones who read the tabloids and listen to junk news. I'm already getting the hate chain letters against Obama and Clinton -- really nasty stuff -- from people who should know better -- but they live on a steady diet of junk news.

      Zero hate chain letters about McCain -- which tells us which side is spreading the lies.

     

     

    BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

    by Carib and Ting on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:39:16 AM PDT

  •  So let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

    You're telling me that even Edwards supporters on other site think that he's the most electable candidate?

    Proud Sponsor of Hope '08
    My Political (and moral) Compass: -9.00, -8.72

    by bmozaffari on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:41:13 AM PDT

  •  Not sure he's better than Obama.... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, Theghostofkarlafayetucker

    Obama has been polling better than Edwards lately.  I wish they'd include Edwards in the head to head polls, but he's still in the favorability rating polls, and it's clear Obama is doing better:
    Obama polls
    Edwards polls

    USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-13, 2008. N=2,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.    

    Fav Unfav
    59% 32% Obama
    48% 37% Edwards

    ABC News/Washington Post  Poll. Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=1,130 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    Fav Unfav
    63% 30% Obama
    57% 34% Edwards

    NBC  News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 14-17, 2007. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1. RV = registered voters

    VP_ SP_ NT_ SN_ VN_ DK_
    17% 29% 22% 14% 12% 06% Obama
    11% 27% 23% 14% 17% 08% Edwards

    Both clearly poll better than Hillary, but Obama has higher favorables and lower unfavorables than Edwards.  The NBC poll with he breakdown suggests the biggest differences are between very positives (6 points) and very negatives (5 points).

    While I've been an Edwards fan, Obama has been very close on the issues, seems to have a better chance of beating Hillary, and a better chance of winning the election.  I've been rooting for Edwards to stay over 15%, hoping he might at least help Obama, but I really can't be sure what he would do with his delegates--he may intend to help Hillary instead.  Add the fact that other progressive leaders like Feingold mostly haven't endorsed Edwards (including none of his colleagues in the Senate), and seem more comfortable with Obama, and I'm thinking that's how I'm likely going to vote.

    That said, I do think Edwards does the best job of almost anyone I've seen of communicating a progressive message.  I find it impossible to believe that a  guy who has thought things through so carefully isn't sincere, and wouldn't be a great president.  He's so good on the communications end that, if the campaign doesn't go somewhere, I almost hope he goes into television.  I think he'd be tremendous as progressive talk show host.

    (-4.62, -3.28: Left/Libertarian)

    by acerimusdux on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 01:52:40 AM PDT

    •  i have to wonder if the polls (0+ / 0-)

      will/would have changed after the repub debate on head to head. unfortunately, i don't think we'll get one before the effects of the SC vote. seems to me the cross over could expand as the repub field is pretty um, weak!

      ~meowWOOF!~

      by nycstray on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:09:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why JohnEdwards for AG is so appealing (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      acerimusdux

      That Novak picked up on the meme yesterday is unfortunate, but many have been calling for "the all-star lineup" of cabinet officials months ago.

      To defeat the status quo/DLC is first priority, and to do that really requires a team effort.

      If voters were assured that a group of bulldogs were going to tackle ALL the Shrubshit from the get-go, with trusted statesmen/women in key slots with targeted goals, it would sway them away from the tainted DLC methods.

      Edwards promising to prosecute the GOP AND DEM thieves would a be very strong message in this year of insurgent campaigning.

      My trusty Rocinante and I have moved to a friendlier MB forum

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:30:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ.. (0+ / 0-)

    that my boy Mudcat Saunders is just making shit up.  If he had polling to back that up, surely he would cite it rather than making an fallacious argument from abuse.

    by ortcutt on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:30:39 AM PDT

  •  Mudcat is on the campaign's payroll (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, Theghostofkarlafayetucker

    So of course he's making that argument.  He's getting $5000/month to say it.

    When McCain talks he sounds like an evil Mr. Rogers.

    by clonecone on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:31:55 AM PDT

  •  Surprised that Arianna let this be published... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mattman

    ...since the front page seems to always show a crush on Obama.

    Draft College Republicans.

    by demwords on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 02:51:01 AM PDT

  •  John Edwards electablility (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    acerimusdux, mattman

    I've thought this for a while (an am an Edwards supporter). Clinton campaign techniques have diminished my respect totally. If Hillary wins the nomination I expect many Democrats to cross over to McCain.

    by soulangier on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:00:09 AM PDT

  •  A ludicrous post. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kenboy

    The problem with the idea of Edwards as "most electable" is that he's won two elections and lost 31 in his career. He's sort of the generic candidate that does so well against the generic Republican. I know people like him, but to me, he's a used car salesman. He got elected to the Senate as a "Jesse Helms Democrat", saw his favorability plummet as he established a (slightly) left-of-center voting record, then ran for president because he wasn't going to be reelected to the senate.

    Now, after voting for the Iraq invasion and the bankruptcy bill, he knows the only way for him to make any headway is to run to the left of Hill and 'Bama, so he presents himself as an anti-war populist. Ya gotta wonder...

    Also, after 6 years in the Senate, he is utterly unconvincing as a potential commander-in-chief. I think in a real campaign, the Republicans eat his lunch.

    by LongTom on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 04:37:53 AM PDT

  •  it won`t happen (0+ / 0-)

    Edwards will never win a primary so iy really doesn`t matter if he is the most electable. Rasmussen shows that either Clinton or Obama can win, ajthough Obama would be stronger nationally.
    Best thing would be to have Obama on the ticket assuming Hillary is the nominee and put  all the ill will behind the party.
    Edwards would be a good AG.

    by JOEL1954 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 06:41:02 AM PDT

Permalink | 55 comments