Last night priceman posted a diary in which he criticized those Democrats who had opposed Ralph Nader's presidential run, yet now support the "hopeless" candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And while hopeless is a little strong, I think the assertion that Hillary and Obama have inherent weaknesses is, at its core, a valid one. That's why I like John Edwards.
Let me put all my cards on the table here. My support for Edwards is a purely tactical decision. The way I see it, the most important quality we should be looking for in a Democratic candidate is the ability to win. Because, let's face it, if we can't win, then everything else is irrelevant. So, while all the arguing and jockeying for political position between Hillary and Obama – she's not liberal enough; he's a lightweight; she voted to authorize the war; he's dangerously naive on foreign policy – makes for good infotainment, it ultimately distracts from the most important issue: namely, who has the best chance of recapturing the White House in 2008?
Who can win?
Out of the current crop, I believe the person with the best chance of doing so is John Edwards. Here's why...
Looking at that map, I asked myself, "What states are Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama likely to win in 2008 that John Kerry did not in 2004?" New York and Illinois, after all, are both already in the blue column. The answer, then, is probably "none."
Democrats went into the 2000 and 2004 elections with a "core" of solidly blue states locked up, and needing to essentially sweep all or most of the so-called "battleground states" in order to win. Long story short: we didn't. With either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as the nominee, we'd be going into the 2008 election in exactly the same position.
That's not to say that it's an automatic loss. Hillary and Obama are each, in some ways, better candidates than John Kerry or the 2000-model Al Gore. But they would face the same old fights in the same old places as in the last two cycles. And just as in those contests, events have to conspire very favorably in order to pull out a win. Mathematically, there's little room for error. And neither Hillary nor Obama have demonstrated any particular traits that would make victory in the battleground states more likely.
Not so John Edwards. His appeal to rural, conservative-leaning voters – people who aren't red but are definitely reddish – gives him an edge. In the oh-so-pivotal states of Florida and Ohio that "reddish edge" would likely put Edwards over the top. He doesn't have to win the rural red-county vote, he only has to shift the results by a few percentage points. That, plus the traditionally strong Democratic showings in the urban areas, equals a win. Look at that 2004 map again. You change either Florida or Ohio to blue, and you've got yourself a Democratic president.
But there's more. Consider this electoral-strength projection of 2004. Look at Iowa and Nevada, both leaning "barely GOP." Call it serendipity, but those are both Edwards states in waiting. As has been well reported, he's practically lived in Iowa for the past two years, and his strong union support is a bonus in Nevada. That's on top of the reddish edge.
Then there's Missouri, Virginia, and Arkansas, all either "barely GOP" or "weak GOP." Seems like a southern boy with a reddish edge would be expected to do pretty well there. And Colorado ("weak GOP") and New Mexico ("barely GOP") are chock full of those same not-quite-conservative but definitely "conservativey" voters, too. Reddish edge.
There's another benefit. The same strengths that can tip the battleground states to Edwards can also help put the more solidly Republican states in jeopardy. He might not win any of them – in fact he probably wouldn't – but he could at least force the GOP to expend time and energy in places that were previously considered safe. Every dollar and every minute spent in Louisiana or North Carolina is a dollar or a minute not spent in Ohio or Florida. Reddish edge.
In 2008 I will vote for whichever candidate has a "D" next to their name. But if winning in November is Job #1 – and I believe it is – then it seems to me that we should go into this thing not having to play Electoral Twister right from the outset. I'd rather exploit every advantage. I believe John Edwards is the best positioned of the current candidates to do that.