Skip to main content

Much of the punditocracy has been embarassing themselves with ridiculous VP assessments/predictions this week, generally pontificating on what they think would be the most successfuul or likely tickets.

While each have expressed their distinct "considered opinions" on who would be the best choices, so far they have been expressing unanimity on who they think would be a losing ticket. And that is, Obama/Edwards.

They use arguments like well he wasn't that great in 2004, could not even deliver the Carolinas, brings nothing to the ticket yada yada yada.

What they seem to forget is that this is not 2004. The country has moved to the left, conditions have changed and of course, Edwards did beat Hillary Clinton in Iowa.

Well, now Survey USA, that darling of the blogosphere this year and by far one of the most accurate of all pollsters this cycle has been testing the VP waters and guess what. Their polling shows none other than John Edwards to be the strongest VP candidate in none other than the great state of Ohio!

By double digit margins, an Obama/Edwards ticket beats ANY McCain ticket they can come up with. Interestingly enough, they don't even consider an Obama/Clinton ticket to be serious enough to poll on.

+12 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Huckabee
+12 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Lieberman
+13 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Romney
and a whopping +18 Obama/Edwards vs McCain/Pawlenty

This is in that "must have" swing state of Ohio. As far as I can tell, they have not run this poll in Pennsylvania yet, but given the similarity of the demographics between those two states, I doubt that we are looking for much of a difference there.

Originally posted to Phil In Denver on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:15 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Serious questions have been raised (0+ / 0-)

    about that poll, particularly the Dem/Rep breakdown in the sample.  The poll had 52% Dem, and only 28% Rep, which looks like it's way off.

    I am a liberal and I'm damn proud of it

    by smash artist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM PDT

    •  I'm not convinced (0+ / 0-)
      that's not close to the actual state breakdown now. Regardless, factors on the ground make this likely close to right. I just had a brilliant idea of the perfect (losing) running mate for McCain: Ohio's former Senator Mikey DeWhiny, now chair of McCain's Ohio campaign. He ran such a "great" campaign in 2006 that he lost his Senate seat by a huge margin despite being considered safe until spring. I'll bet he could work the same magic for McCain.

      We're retiring Steve LaTourette (R-Family Values for You But Not for Me) and sending Judge Bill O'Neill to Congress from Ohio-14: http://www.oneill08.com/

      by anastasia p on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:51:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just keeps gettin' better, don't it?! ;) n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ghett

    OBAMA '08. Webb, Sebelius, or Hagel for VP. I don't care to play Hillary Calvinball EVER again! Back to the Senate with her while she's still welcome there.

    by VT ConQuest on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:18:31 AM PDT

  •  I'm sure Obama would make a wise decision (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ghett, evdebs, Johnnythebandit

    I was an Edwards supporter before becoming an Obama supporter, and so I would like nothing more than to see John Edwards on the ticket.  However, this is Barack Obama's decision to make, and he has earned the right to, as our nominee.  I am confident that his choice will be wise, not just politically but in terms of bringing together our country.

    "The Power to change this party, and the power to change this country is in your hands, not mine." - Gov. Howard Dean, MD

    by deaniac83 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM PDT

  •  they don't even consider an Obama/Clinton ticket (0+ / 0-)

    Thank goodness. I'm glad thats done. I don't think it matters whose on the ticket to a point. I just want cover like Cheney was for Bush. Edwards is perfect.

  •  Let's try to set a record (6+ / 0-)

    How many times can this be diaried in one day?

  •  If only those polls meant something (0+ / 0-)

    They will change many, many times between now and November.  The primary is still in limbo.  How deep Hillary will cut the Party is still unknown.  She could make Nader in 2000 look like a gnat.

    An idea is not responsible for who is carrying it. It stands or falls on its own merits.

    by don mikulecky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM PDT

  •  Diaried already (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bad dad

    Can't people bother to check these things first????

    •  Honestly I missed the ONE other diary (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John Poet, NotGeorgeWill, evdebs

      I could find in my list. But even so, the primary focus of that diary is the Presidential matchup with only an oblique reference to Edwards.

      The focus of this diary is the VP selection, specifically Edwards.

      •  In PA it's the same trend . . . (0+ / 0-)

        across the board Obama's net position usually gets a 4 to 10 point boost when Edwards is on the ticket.  The PA numbers from SurveyUSA are available here.

      •  I don't trust this poll for two reasons (0+ / 0-)
        1. Their sample is off - way off, ridiculously off.
        1. I'm convinced that reading people a list of potential veeps plays a sort of mental trick on the respondent in that they start responding to the VP names only and forget about POTUS.  That's the only way to explain the silly 20-point swings when different veeps are named - in real life we know that VP selection doesn't have NEARLY that effect.  All it's really measuring is name recognition of potential veeps.
  •  3rd or 4th diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bad dad

    i've lost track

    "If any question why we died. Tell them, because our fathers lied".... Kipling

    by TNforkerry on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:01 AM PDT

  •  These VP matchups are completely worthless (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marc in Oakland, Oothoon

    Just look at how the matchups work based purely on name recognition. The better known the team, the better they do against the other one.

    I'm very glad they arn't polling Obama/Clinton, because I'm sure that ticket would kick McCain's ass every time in these matchups. In reality, I think it would be a terrible ticket, but these polls are purely based on name recognition it seems.

    I think the big news is that Obama/ McCain matchup shows Obama up in both Ohio and Virginia.

  •  I'm not buying it... yet. (0+ / 0-)

    It may be an outlier and it doesn't mean crap this far from November. If these numbers hold for the next few months, it spells disaster for the GOP, though. Fingers crossed.

    "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." -George Carlin

    by NMDad on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:26:30 AM PDT

  •  The Best thing about this (0+ / 0-)

    Is that Barack is starting at the low end of where he eventually will be polling.

  •  Who pays for these polls? (0+ / 0-)

    Does a poll report such as this suggest that, e.g., Obama has commissioned a poll with these questions.  Does the fact that Obama/Clinton was not reported indicate anything?

    •  SUSA . . . (0+ / 0-)

      usually does polling for local TV stations (seriously).  In Virginia I believe it does polling for the state's ABC affiliates.

      These polls also drive traffic to its website (ad revenue) and attracts other clients.  

      Same question could be asked: Who pays for Rasmussen's polls?  

      In the current market place, it's relatively inexpensive to do a robo-poll; the delivery method is relatively cheap (no print) -- the key factor is just finding ways to generate web traffic for ad revenue.

  •  SUSA has come out with (0+ / 0-)

    some polls recently that I have no faith in.  Hillary winning by 7 in NC, Obama by that margin in VA.  I'll wait until someone else confirms this one.

    I still hold that one way or another Obama breaks 300 EVs.  (So would Hillary if she were somehow nominated, for that matter).

    "Oaths bind not an ill man. Were I minded to do you ill, then lightestly would I swear any oath you desire, and lightestly in the next moment be forsworn."

    by jbelac on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

  •  Edwards is the best VP choice because... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Poet, jandress, Phil In Denver

    he helps Obama with democrats, and doesn't hurt him with independents or unite the republican party like Clinton would.

    2004 was much different, because John Kerry was on the top of the ticket. In those four years NC, VA, and the country as a whole has shifted left. Kerry also couldn't get huge black turnout like Obama will.

    He helps Obama without even campaigning, just getting him on the ticket will be worth 5-10% points, and they work well as a team.

    I also think having a southern white person on the ticket really sends a good message to the country.

    •  Edwards is a good choice but so is Richardson.... (0+ / 0-)

      if you want someone who seems to compliment Obama personality-wise--they look really good together for the cameras.  Obama seems to have an easy affability with both men that will play well in the media but I think Richardson is slightly better on that account--has a really great self-deprecatory sense of humor that plays well with Obama mostly more dignified presence (even though Obama has a great sense of humor, we don't get to see it very often).  Richardson has a lot of popularity in the SW and Edwards has a lot in the SE.  Richardson balances the ticket slightly better than Edwards for the sake of the Indies and Obamacans.  But the country is, for the most part, swinging to the left in reaction to the Bush disaster.  Richardson is not as well known as Edwards but it would be great if there could be an informal look at Obama with the veep choice as part of the GE campaign.  That would make voters feel like they had more familiarity with both men.  

      Decisions, decisions--glad I'm not making them.  But the Obama campaign has so far had great political instincts so I trust that they will make the proper choice in this as well.

  •  JRE good choice but JRE said NO! (0+ / 0-)

    So I don't see the arguments as having any relevancy.  Had Edwards left open the possibility of running as VP I'd agree with you, but since Edwards is the one squashing the rumors I just don't see the point.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:40:20 PM PDT

    •  Don't they ALL say that? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  I think under some circumstances Edwards (0+ / 0-)

      could change his mind. If he was asked, for starters, I think he'd give it due consideration.

      They guy DID get 7% of the vote in West Virginia four months after he quit.  He would play well to the 'white working class voters' in Ohio, PA, and is still popular with the party.

      I also wrote him out of VP consideration, but that may be a mistake.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site