Guiliani vs. Edwards

[Conan]

Democrats got it handed to them in 1994 but won the 1996 Presidential race. There really is not much of a connection.

Guiliani would destroy Edwards, period. It's just reality. The thing is, Edwards has no chance at the Democratic nomination, so it's not "cockiness" because we're talking about a matchup that never will occur. But, purely on a counterfactual basis, if it did occur, Guiliani would probably exceed 400 EVs and, if Edwards ran a bad campaign, Guiliani could push 500.

Guiliani would own Edwards everywhere... Northeast, South, West... Edwards would take Mass. and RI probably for sure, along with DC, but after that not too much. Edwards is like a poor man's William Jennings Bryan, except he's actually very liberal on social issues, thus negating most of his potential base. Guiliani would pull the amazing feat of dominating both the pro-life and pro-choice vote.

Dole was an extremely poor candidate yet Clinton was a very good one. That's the difference between that election and now.

[agcatter]

Edwards is not popular in NC and it has nothing to do with labels like "pretty boy" or "trial lawyer".   Given that Kerry - Edwards lost NC by 13 points and got smoked everywhere else in the South must have been something else at work.  Edwards is a lib - pure and simple.

Would take a Rudi - Edwards mathup any day of the week.

[AuH2O]

Edwards is a very, very poor candidate.

[tarheel-leftist85]

First of all, *Edwards* didn't lose NC, *Kerry* did.
Clinton was unable to carry NC b/c he would get in bed w/ anyone trying to triangulate his way to victory...you're not going to have much enthusiasm among true Democrats with a Clinton or a DLCer.  The last two real Democrats--Carter and Johnson--carried NC.  Carter almost carried in 1980 even w/ a 10pt. national PV victory for Reagan.  The last senate race to have a margin of victory greater than 10pts. was Democrat Sam Ervin's in 1974--62 to 37.  Bowles was unable to win b/c he was a product of the Clinton administration and a liberal apologist (apparently ashamed of being called a liberal).  I'm still waiting to see specific numbers where Edwards would lose to a Republican if he had decided to run for re-election.  Despite all of the speculation, no one has produced such numbers to support such an assertion.
Demographically, I see Giuliani being the first Republican to win the 18-30 yr. old group since 1988 IIRC.  He would trounce Edwards with the Reaganite younger baby-boomers, but lose the election with older baby-boomers and senior citizens.  This would also be the first election in quite some time where you'd see a huge class divide.  I would also expect a similar breakdown for McCain (except Edwards would lose less among 18-30 year olds and do worse with older people than if it was Edwards v. Giuliani).  People knew plenty well that Edwards was a liberal when he ran in 1998.  The pejorative "liberal" works well when the "Dem." is a DLCer that will screw the people of NC w/ NAFTA and CAFTA, but it is almost immaterial when there are true differences among the candidates.  That's why the seemingly aloof (but really pro-DLC) media wrote off Larry Kissell and dismissed Heath Shuler as a "conservative."  Larry wasn't running in some ritzy suburban district, so the powers in the Democratic party (which are soon to be wrested from them by grassroots forces) wrote him and the citizens of the district off as bible-thumping whackos.  I think the exit poll from 2004 shows that 20% of those who had a favorable opinion of Edwards voted for Bush.  Though I try to use concrete numbers, that what I see when talking with my fellow Tar Heels:  About 1 out of 5 conservatives/Repubicans say they'd vote for Edwards knowing full and well that he is a "Lib".  The difference is that he, unlike Democrats in before the downfall of the DLC-era, emphasize economics rather than abortion, and committment to principles rather than triangulation.  Until someone can produce numbers with a hypothetical race where Edwards would've lost a bid for re-election, it'll be difficult to convince me otherwise.  Even if Edwards lost to Giuliani, I'd be heartened knowing that there were two distinct ideologies for once in a presidential election.  Moderates and independents are drastically overrated by the media for starters, and they can be further divided among libertarian types and populist types and, I'm sure, many others.  The younger independents and moderates would most assuredly break for Guiliani; I'm not so sure about older independents and moderates (ones like my Depression-era grandparents).

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Not cocky, but Pretty Boy Edwards would get hammered.  Edwards would sweep the trial lawyer vote however.

Where are some of you getting this Edwards takes NC stuff?  Surely not for what he did for Kerry in that state in 04.  The Dem ticket was wiped out in NC.  The beltway types think Edwards is wonderful.  No one else seems to think so.

Why would he take NC?

1) Kerry lost NC by 13 points, but the exit polls showed a 51-46 positive rating for Edwards despite being on an extremely unpopular ticket in the state.

2) Aaginst another social moderate, it gives voters a reason to vote on economics, something Edwards ran well on. 

3) NC is trending democratic.....slightly. 

4) he's not considered the washington insider Gore was when he lost Tennessee

[AuH2O]

Republicans can only hope Democratic primary voters are this dillusional.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Not cocky, but Pretty Boy Edwards would get hammered.  Edwards would sweep the trial lawyer vote however.

Where are some of you getting this Edwards takes NC stuff?  Surely not for what he did for Kerry in that state in 04.  The Dem ticket was wiped out in NC.  The beltway types think Edwards is wonderful.  No one else seems to think so.

Why would he take NC?

1) Kerry lost NC by 13 points, but the exit polls showed a 51-46 positive rating for Edwards despite being on an extremely unpopular ticket in the state.

2) Aaginst another social moderate, it gives voters a reason to vote on economics, something Edwards ran well on. 

3) NC is trending democratic.....slightly. 

4) he's not considered the washington insider Gore was when he lost Tennessee

Sorry, dude!  I don't think they're gonna listen to our facts/numerical evidence, calling people "delusional" and rhetorization is their m.o.

[agcatter]

Like I said, run him.  I'd love it.

[agcatter]

BTW, Gore also lost NC by 13.  I'm surprised a "powerhouse" home stater like Edwards would not have been good for at least 2 or 3 points in 04.  Guess he wasn't the popular figure you give him credit for.  Also, kind of explains why he didn't run for reelection to the Senate.  Burr would have eaten him alive.

[© tweed]

  I'm surprised a "powerhouse" home stater like Edwards would not have been good for at least 2 or 3 points in 04.

He probably was.  Kerry lost NC by less than Gore did despite doing about 3% worse nationally.

[agcatter]

Both lost NC by 13

[tarheel-leftist85]

  I'm surprised a "powerhouse" home stater like Edwards would not have been good for at least 2 or 3 points in 04.

He probably was.  Kerry lost NC by less than Gore did despite doing about 3% worse nationally.

Hey, I was about to say that

Also, the Democratically-trending counties were also faster-growing that most of the Republican-trending coounties (Union Co. and a couple of others are exceptions).

56.03-43.20=12.83 [Bush margin of victory, 2000]
56.02-43.58=12.44 [Bush margin of victory, 2004]
47.87-48.38=-0.51 [Bush margin of victory 2000, Gore +0.51]
50.73-48.27=2.46 [Bush margin of vicotry, 2004
2.46-(-0.51)=2.97 National Bush swing from 2000-2004
12.44-12.83=-0.39 NC Bush swing from 2000-2004
-0.39-2.97=-3.36 Bush Trend from 2000-2004

And that's w/ Edwards as VP to a "Massachusetts liberal" (etc., etc....sigh)--and the last time the Dem. was one of those, he barely broke 40%...VPs may've mattered in 1960, but not today.  Otherwise, Bush would've picked Santorum or Tommy Thompson or Spencer Abraham or an Ohio Rep.  Just b/c NC is trending  one way doesn't mean that Democratic electoral dominance will ensue:  Expect Geogria to break 60+% Republican regardless of either party's candidate.  I also think the west coast may become more competitive.

I'm still waiting for someone to produce a Burr v. Edwards poll!  Those NC senate elections are never close.  Burr would've wiped Edwards away; heck, he even wiped away a guy who was affiliated with Bill Clinton (who is absolutely loved in this state for NAFTA and CAFTA and his Giuliani-like respect for his wife).  Can't produce the any numbers, but trust me.

[Inmate Trump]

For a party that just got destroyed in the midterms, Republicans around here are pretty cocky.

Not cocky at all.  A lot of them are right in that Edwards would be a terrible candidate who would do no better and possibly worse than John Kerry in 2004.  At the end of the election, he'd still be a one term ex-Senator from North Carolina.  And McCain and Giuliani are both good candidates, both with very good chances of becoming president; as it stands right now, all the Democrats have is Hillary.  They'd be making a big mistake putting their hopes in someone like Edwards.