Edwards for President!!

[English]

If Edwards wins the nomination I predict a clear win for the Democrats in November! Dean is now finished, the rather alarming performance the other night worried me, worried me a lot in fact!

:-)
I thought he was going to burst a blood vessel!

Vote Edwards!!

[Platypus]

Clear win is impossible, unless there is a major scandal in the Bush admin.

Bush has 200 EVs No matter what. Edwards just has to work on the 70-or-so more marginal ones, and hold the ones Gore won. And that is doable.

I agree, Edwards for president!

But also Clark, Kerry, Dean, Kucinich, Lieberman and Sharpton-ABB.

Heck, even Lyndon LaRouche Jr.!

(well, maybe not )

[English]

Edwards can win LA, AR, TN and perhaps even GA. It's not impossible. Dean had no chance in hell of winning any of these. It won't be a landslide obviously, but nominating a moderate southern Democrat will definately hurt Bush.

[opebo]

Edwards can win LA, AR, TN and perhaps even GA. It's not impossible. Dean had no chance in hell of winning any of these. It won't be a landslide obviously, but nominating a moderate southern Democrat will definately hurt Bush.

It is interesting you don't include North Carolina in Edward's pickup list.  And Georgia is really out of the question.  The other three are at least conceivable, but only if you assume Bush doesn't campaign well there.  His people will successfully connect Edwards with all the things Southerners despise about the Democratic party.  I've noticed Democrats seem to believe that Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisana are swing states.  I don't see much evidence for that.  

I think if Edwards is more electable it will have little to do with the South, and a lot to do with easily swayed suburban female voters in real swing states outside the South.

[English]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

[jravnsbo]

Edwards won't help int eh south.  That is why i want him ont he ticket!

His voting record is very liberal and he was getting blasted for it in NC and one of the reasons I think he had to run for Prez this time.

GA is SOLIDLY GOP, so is TN. AR and LA you need to be a conservative to moderate democrat and Edwards is neither.

[opebo]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

Those wins were due to Perot siphoning off the nuttier fringe of Republican voters.  No Perot this time - they're all solid Republican states.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

[jravnsbo]

Well we can start breaking down Edwards record if you like.

NC polls all have him well behind Bush also.

Plus I don't think he will be the nominee, maybe VP, but he doesn't have the money or organization to win.

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

[12th Doctor]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

What?  Look at the states that went to Dole in 1996.  Those are solid GOP states and there are plenty of them.  Likewise, the states that went to Clinton by more that 55% are solid Dem states.

[12th Doctor]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

What?  Look at the states that went to Dole in 1996.  Those are solid GOP states and there are plenty of them.  Likewise, the states that went to Clinton by more that 55% are solid Dem states.

Acctually, I should say those states that Dole lost by less than 40% are Democrat states.  I forgot to take Perot into account.

[12th Doctor]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

What?  Look at the states that went to Dole in 1996.  Those are solid GOP states and there are plenty of them.  Likewise, the states that went to Clinton by more that 55% are solid Dem states.

Acctually, I should say those states that Dole lost by less than 40% are Democrat states.  I forgot to take Perot into account.

And remember, if Bush gets more than about 53% of the PV than only a few states are safe for the Dems.  New York, Mass., Vermont, California, Washington, Maryland and New Jersey.  If Bush gets above 55% than that number will drop sharply.

[opebo]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

There are plenty of states that are strong Republican - Bob Dole's wins as was said above.  And a few stong Democrat.  As for 'quite left wing but is no liberal', what do you mean?  We're using the 'American' liberal, not classical liberal. In the US liberal = left wing.
And how do you know he is strong in rural areas and not in suburbs?  Is that info from his Senate campaign?

As far Perot voters being nutty - did you ever see that guy on TV?  He was the archetypal American crackpot.

[© tweed]

I voted for Perot in 1992 as a protest candidate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

There are plenty of states that are strong Republican - Bob Dole's wins as was said above.  And a few stong Democrat.  As for 'quite left wing but is no liberal', what do you mean?  We're using the 'American' liberal, not classical liberal. In the US liberal = left wing.
And how do you know he is strong in rural areas and not in suburbs?  Is that info from his Senate campaign?

As far Perot voters being nutty - did you ever see that guy on TV?  He was the archetypal American crackpot.

Elections are unpredictible things. That's one reason why I follow them.

I said that very few states are solid for either party and I will not retract that statement.
Vermont is not safe for the Democrat's and NC is not safe for the GOP.

Edwards' performed very well in rural areas of IA, and if I remember correctly when he won election to the Senate (I'll have to check it, but I've seen a map and it looked like a much bigger win that it actually was)

As far as Edward's voting record goes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said he's not what I would call a liberal.
Populist would be accuarate though.

BTW whatever you think about Perot's sanity, most majority of his voters were not "nutty"

[Gustaf]

They are *not* solid GOP states.
Very few states are solid for either party.
With the right combination of candidates and or issues most states can swing either way.
Most voters have/will vote spilt etc. etc.

Edwards' strength is rural voters, his weakness is suburban voters.
He can win NC although it'll be a close 'un.

Simply blasting Edwards as a "liberal" is petty and innacurate.
He's quite left wing but is no liberal.

Opebo's persisant remark about "nutty" Perot voters is both innacurate and defamatory.

There are plenty of states that are strong Republican - Bob Dole's wins as was said above.  And a few stong Democrat.  As for 'quite left wing but is no liberal', what do you mean?  We're using the 'American' liberal, not classical liberal. In the US liberal = left wing.
And how do you know he is strong in rural areas and not in suburbs?  Is that info from his Senate campaign?

As far Perot voters being nutty - did you ever see that guy on TV?  He was the archetypal American crackpot.

Elections are unpredictible things. That's one reason why I follow them.

I said that very few states are solid for either party and I will not retract that statement.
Vermont is not safe for the Democrat's and NC is not safe for the GOP.

Edwards' performed very well in rural areas of IA, and if I remember correctly when he won election to the Senate (I'll have to check it, but I've seen a map and it looked like a much bigger win that it actually was)

As far as Edward's voting record goes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said he's not what I would call a liberal.
Populist would be accuarate though.

BTW whatever you think about Perot's sanity, most majority of his voters were not "nutty"

It would be kind of scary if they were, considering how many there were...

[Beet]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

Those wins were due to Perot siphoning off the nuttier fringe of Republican voters.  No Perot this time - they're all solid Republican states.

Actually looking at the 1996 results compared to 1992, a number of Perot voters comprising about 10 percent of the electorate ditched him, but they split evenly between Clinton and Dole. So the Perot voters wouldn't have necessarily gone Republican had he not been on the ticket. Remember in 1992 Perot ran on a hard left-wing trade policy, which was one of the hallmarks of his candidacy. What Perot did manage to do was deny Clinton 50%+ of the popular vote.

[Gustaf]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

Those wins were due to Perot siphoning off the nuttier fringe of Republican voters.  No Perot this time - they're all solid Republican states.

Actually looking at the 1996 results compared to 1992, a number of Perot voters comprising about 10 percent of the electorate ditched him, but they split evenly between Clinton and Dole. So the Perot voters wouldn't have necessarily gone Republican had he not been on the ticket. Remember in 1992 Perot ran on a hard left-wing trade policy, which was one of the hallmarks of his candidacy. What Perot did manage to do was deny Clinton 50%+ of the popular vote.

Someone posted exit polls showing that 50% of Perot voters would have gone for Bush in 1992, 30% for Clinton and the rest would not have voted. I made a calcualtion based on this, and it turned out that Clinton lost a large number of states, but still won comfortably in the EC, though only about 51-49 in the popular vote.

[Huckleberry Finn]

I have always liked Edwards. I wrote in my newspaper article in last summer that Edwards has best chance to beat Bush. (Yes I was journalist, but currently poor student again) Then Dean and Clark came forward and I thought that they have more credibility than Edwards has, but now it is obvious that I was wrong.

Edwards to White House!!

[Huckleberry Finn]

And Miamiu....You voted for Perot!

[Beet]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

Those wins were due to Perot siphoning off the nuttier fringe of Republican voters.  No Perot this time - they're all solid Republican states.

Actually looking at the 1996 results compared to 1992, a number of Perot voters comprising about 10 percent of the electorate ditched him, but they split evenly between Clinton and Dole. So the Perot voters wouldn't have necessarily gone Republican had he not been on the ticket. Remember in 1992 Perot ran on a hard left-wing trade policy, which was one of the hallmarks of his candidacy. What Perot did manage to do was deny Clinton 50%+ of the popular vote.

Someone posted exit polls showing that 50% of Perot voters would have gone for Bush in 1992, 30% for Clinton and the rest would not have voted. I made a calcualtion based on this, and it turned out that Clinton lost a large number of states, but still won comfortably in the EC, though only about 51-49 in the popular vote.

Thanks, Gustaf. That makes me feel better than 1992 wasn't ENTIRELY like 1912.

Btw, there are a lot of Edwards supporters here, me included, but the poll numbers in NH aren't looking good for him right now, at only 7 percent. He got zero bounce from Iowa, whereas Kerry has surged to 30. I know this is b/c it's NH and Edwards and Clark are supposed to make their stand in S.C., but with 7 primaries on 2/3 and if Kerry comes out of NH with a decisive win, he may have momentum to become the prohibitive frontrunner and the race could be all but over a few days after New Hampshire. That would not be good but the latest Zogby polls have Kerry leading Dean by double-digits in the past couple days.

[Gustaf]

The Democrats haven't won NC since 1976, the same as Texas! It's not even close to being a swing state. The Dems DID win LA, AR and TN in both 1992 and 1996, and GA in 1992. I agree they're not exactly easy wins, but they're the most likely southern states to fall.

Those wins were due to Perot siphoning off the nuttier fringe of Republican voters.  No Perot this time - they're all solid Republican states.

Actually looking at the 1996 results compared to 1992, a number of Perot voters comprising about 10 percent of the electorate ditched him, but they split evenly between Clinton and Dole. So the Perot voters wouldn't have necessarily gone Republican had he not been on the ticket. Remember in 1992 Perot ran on a hard left-wing trade policy, which was one of the hallmarks of his candidacy. What Perot did manage to do was deny Clinton 50%+ of the popular vote.

Someone posted exit polls showing that 50% of Perot voters would have gone for Bush in 1992, 30% for Clinton and the rest would not have voted. I made a calcualtion based on this, and it turned out that Clinton lost a large number of states, but still won comfortably in the EC, though only about 51-49 in the popular vote.

Thanks, Gustaf. That makes me feel better than 1992 wasn't ENTIRELY like 1912.

You're welcome! Yeah, 1912 would have been a certain GOP win, if the vote hadn't been split. Taft, the incumbent president, ended up with nothing but Utah and Vermont...

[© tweed]

And Miamiu....You voted for Perot!

Yes I did.  And I don't regret it, either.

[Gustaf]

And Miamiu....You voted for Perot!

Yes I did.  And I don't regret it, either.

I might have done that as a protest vote as well, it would have been kind of fun to support a third party candidate.

[Huckleberry Finn]

It's okey Miamiu!