John Edwards for President.

[Reaganfan]

The fact that the democrats have such lightweights really shows that,
maybe Hillary IS the most qualified candidate for the democrats.
Obama is a two year liberal Senator who just three years ago was
an unknown state senator. Edwards even being considered a frontrunner
two years after leaving office as a one-term North Carolina Senator,
and two years after being defeated on the democratic ticket, bringing
nothing to the table at all, he is expected to pull the heavily
Republican south out in 2008? The breck girl? Come on.

Okay, let's say Edwards wins Iowa, South Carolina, and get the big mo'
against Hillary and wins the nomination. He faces off against Arizona
Senator John McCain. How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

I'm being honest here. McCain takes all Bush 2004 states, grabs New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, and Oregon while Edwards takes the rest. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota
and Michigan would be close. I think Florida would go atleast 5-6 pts for McCain.

[Smash255]

This of course is assuming McCain wins the Primary... 

What could very well be the downfall for McCain in the General if he indeed does get past the Primaries is Iraq, and his very unpopular plan to increase the troop levels there.  It doesn't look like things are going to change for the better in Iraq anytime soon, even with the increase in troop levels.  Bush takes his advice (which seems likely) and it happens and the result in the same (very likely) it really puts McCain in a tough position.  He is overall a strong candidate, but his position on Iraq could cause him some severe problems in the General.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I hate to use anecdotal evidence (but everyone else, incl. "professional" journalists want to as they somehow assert that Edwards would've lost his seat had he run for re-election), but there is a lot of hostility towards McCain in the Carolinas and throughout most of the "Heartland"--at least from people with whom I've spoken, including fraternity and sorority types and Southern Baptists.  Many of these people unhesitatingly say they'd vote for Edwards.  It's the yuppies in Southeast Charlotte that hold utter disdain for him.  Luckily there are other places in North Carolina.  Not so sure about South Carolina and Georgia (at least places where people are allowed to vote).

Not every election in 2004.

[Conan]

The fact that the democrats have such lightweights really shows that,
maybe Hillary IS the most qualified candidate for the democrats.
Obama is a two year liberal Senator who just three years ago was
an unknown state senator. Edwards even being considered a frontrunner
two years after leaving office as a one-term North Carolina Senator,
and two years after being defeated on the democratic ticket, bringing
nothing to the table at all, he is expected to pull the heavily
Republican south out in 2008? The breck girl? Come on.

Okay, let's say Edwards wins Iowa, South Carolina, and get the big mo'
against Hillary and wins the nomination. He faces off against Arizona
Senator John McCain. How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

I'm being honest here. McCain takes all Bush 2004 states, grabs New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, and Oregon while Edwards takes the rest. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota
and Michigan would be close. I think Florida would go atleast 5-6 pts for McCain.

Step into reality. Oh and senate terms are 6 years not four.

[Padfoot]

McCain's "foreign policy hawk" status will kill him if he continues to support increasing troops levels.  The war is over.  We lost.  Let's get out and stop senselessly putting our troops in danger.  Maybe then we can try to clean up the mess in Afghanistan that this distraction has caused.

[Inmate Trump]

If McCain is the Republican nominee and Edwards is the Democratic, I'll be voting for Edwards.  I don't like either of them, but I dislike McCain just a little bit more.

[TomC]

McCain is a former maverick who hasn't kept his lips off Bush's tush for years now. He's a hothead and a geezer.

He is primarily considered a maverick because of his efforts on campaign finance reform. What caused McCain to get involved in that issue? Two words: Charles Keating. In the late 1980s McCain got caught doing favors for a constituent who gave him and others well over a million dollars in campaign contributions. When Keating caused the failure of a savings and loan- did McCain stick up for the Mom and Pops whose savings were in jeopardy? Did he stick up for the taxpayers who bailed them out? No, he stuck up for the rich guy who caused it. Maverick? Think again.

It was a major scandal and the investigative committee officially chastised the Senators for questionable conduct. Yes, he got burned in a scandal and started talking ethics reform then.

He has most definitely been around a long, long time and pulls out that "maverick" persona, especially when he's caught being the consummate insider he is. If it weren't for the questionable ethical behavior of people like McCain, there wouldn't be as great a need for ethics reform. It's kind of like the mobster that comes around telling you you need protection from all the crime in the neighborhood.

From The Arizona Republic:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Edwards will mop the floor with McCain. Listen for McCain to start dealing with his age issue by saying he'll only serve one term- the whispers have already started. That's not real reassuring that he's up to the job.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

[Gabu]

How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

McCain is quickly throwing away his "maverick" status to better position himself to get the GOP nomination.

And how did Al Gore's stature as a moderate Southern Democrat with 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President, with extensive foreign policy experience, compare to George W. Bush's 6 years as a do-nothing Governor of Texas?

Not very well, apparently.

[JSojourner]

McCain's "foreign policy hawk" status will kill him if he continues to support increasing troops levels.  The war is over.  We lost.  Let's get out and stop senselessly putting our troops in danger.  Maybe then we can try to clean up the mess in Afghanistan that this distraction has caused.

::: applauding :::

Oh -- I do think we might win in Iraq.  But McCain's plan won't do it.  Charlie Rangel's plan (political ploy though it may be) MIGHT work.

So how about it?  Who's for reinstating the draft, keeping all the troops there at least five more years, putting in another 250-thousand to half million more and using low-yield tactictal nukes on insurgent strong holds?

Yep -- we might win.  Just as we might still have won in Korea and Vietnam...if we had listened to the Joe McCarthy's of the world.

Only one problem with those cats.  They're insane.

[Frodo]

How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

McCain is quickly throwing away his "maverick" status to better position himself to get the GOP nomination.

And how did Al Gore's stature as a moderate Southern Democrat with 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President, with extensive foreign policy experience, compare to George W. Bush's 6 years as a do-nothing Governor of Texas?

Not very well, apparently.

As governor of Texas, Bush would never have won against Gore had that election been held four or eight years later at a time of war like we are in now.  In fact, it would never have been even close. 

[Deano963]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Are you on acid? You can't envision Edwards, Obama or Hillary defeating at least Romney? What is your basis for saying this? How is being a single-term Governor of Massachusetts who who would've lost a reelection bid BADLY if he had chosen to run again going to defeat a heavyweight juggernaut like Hillary? You are kidding yourself.

It makes me laugh that you consider these three lightweights yet you apparently consider Giuliani a heavyweight, when the man has done absolutely nothing for the past six years but stump for conservative republican slime like Ralph Reed and every other republican whose rear end he gets a chance to put his lips on.

[bgwah]

I don't particularly care for any of the Democratic candidates. McCain is somewhat overrated though, and I have a hard time believing Giuliani could ever get the nomination. I'm not sure Romney has much chance of getting it either, and he definitely wouldn't win the general. I doubt Giuliani would, either... I see a high probablity of a right-wing third party candidate severely damaging his chances of winning the general... Again, assuming that this fag-loving fetus-pulling drag queen Jew Yorker could actually get the GOP nomination.

We're placing too much emphasis on the "experience" that a candidate has. Like others have mentioned, George W. Bush had little as have many other Presidents in our history.

Hillary might be able to win should she get the Democratic nomination, but I think that she has developed a negative image among too many Americans (Republican and Democratic) too have better than average chances...

I don't like Edwards. Partly because I don't see what is so great about him. The South? I've given up on the South. Democrats need to focus all over their attention on states like Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada... Just look at the 2006 mid-terms. I have a hard time believing the South will be voting Democrat any time soon.

[Rob]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Romney is unbeatable? What are you smoking?

And how did Al Gore's stature as a moderate Southern Democrat with 8 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President, with extensive foreign policy experience, compare to George W. Bush's 6 years as a do-nothing Governor of Texas?

Not very well, apparently.

True, but you're asking a bit too much of the Republican hacks. There's no way in hell that they'll concede this point (remember Dazzleman's hilarious efforts to call one-term Governor Romney qualified while laughing off the idea of an Obama campaign because he's "inexperienced").

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As governor of Texas, Bush would never have won against Gore had that election been held four or eight years later at a time of war like we are in now.  In fact, it would never have been even close. 

Total BS. The media would have killed Gore for failing to prevent 9/11.

[Padfoot]

I don't like Edwards. Partly because I don't see what is so great about him. The South? I've given up on the South. Democrats need to focus all over their attention on states like Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada... Just look at the 2006 mid-terms. I have a hard time believing the South will be voting Democrat any time soon.

You'de better hope the South starts voting Democrat after 2012 since they're going to suck all of the EVs out of the Northeast and Midwest.  Giving more attention to the Interior West is a good plan though.

[TheresNoMoney]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Are you on acid? You can't envision Edwards, Obama or Hillary defeating at least Romney? What is your basis for saying this?

MikeyCNY is more than likely a Republican troll. I would ignore him.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Are you on acid? You can't envision Edwards, Obama or Hillary defeating at least Romney? What is your basis for saying this? How is being a single-term Governor of Massachusetts who who would've lost a reelection bid BADLY if he had chosen to run again going to defeat a heavyweight juggernaut like Hillary? You are kidding yourself.

It makes me laugh that you consider these three lightweights yet you apparently consider Giuliani a heavyweight, when the man has done absolutely nothing for the past six years but stump for conservative republican slime like Ralph Reed and every other republican whose rear end he gets a chance to put his lips on.

No, I do not see Edwards, Hillary, nor Obama beating Romney.  The last time America elected a senator was in 1960 with JFK-- a 12-year senator, war hero, Pultizer-prize winnig author, defense hawk, and yet he barely won against Nixon.

The thought that an inexperienced trial lawyer with a mere 5 years in the Senate, an inexperienced 2 year senator, or a deeply divisive opportunistic senator from New York can be elected to the presidency is laughable, and a moderate-conservative former Governor from the Northeast like Romney is a formidable opponent in a national election.

Now that Evan Bayh is out of the race, I do not see any Democrats (at the moment) that have the potential and experience to win the White House in 2008

[Verily]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Are you on acid? You can't envision Edwards, Obama or Hillary defeating at least Romney? What is your basis for saying this? How is being a single-term Governor of Massachusetts who who would've lost a reelection bid BADLY if he had chosen to run again going to defeat a heavyweight juggernaut like Hillary? You are kidding yourself.

It makes me laugh that you consider these three lightweights yet you apparently consider Giuliani a heavyweight, when the man has done absolutely nothing for the past six years but stump for conservative republican slime like Ralph Reed and every other republican whose rear end he gets a chance to put his lips on.

No, I do not see Edwards, Hillary, nor Obama beating Romney.  The last time America elected a senator was in 1960 with JFK-- a 12-year senator, war hero, Pultizer-prize winnig author, defense hawk, and yet he barely won against Nixon.

The thought that an inexperienced trial lawyer with a mere 5 years in the Senate, an inexperienced 2 year senator, or a deeply divisive opportunistic senator from New York can be elected to the presidency is laughable, and a moderate-conservative former Governor from the Northeast like Romney is a formidable opponent in a national election.

Now that Evan Bayh is out of the race, I do not see any Democrats (at the moment) that have the potential and experience to win the White House in 2008

Your argumentum ad antiquitatem doesn't actually say anything meaningful.

[Deano963]

Yes.  The fact that Democrats have such a crappy list of candidates at this point gives me shivers.  If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards get the nomination, I do not see any situation where Dems take back the WH in 2008 if McCain, Guliani, or Romney are the GOP candidates

Are you on acid? You can't envision Edwards, Obama or Hillary defeating at least Romney? What is your basis for saying this? How is being a single-term Governor of Massachusetts who who would've lost a reelection bid BADLY if he had chosen to run again going to defeat a heavyweight juggernaut like Hillary? You are kidding yourself.

It makes me laugh that you consider these three lightweights yet you apparently consider Giuliani a heavyweight, when the man has done absolutely nothing for the past six years but stump for conservative republican slime like Ralph Reed and every other republican whose rear end he gets a chance to put his lips on.

No, I do not see Edwards, Hillary, nor Obama beating Romney. 

You were right Scoonie, he is a republican troll. Or maybe another one of DWTL's identities.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

The fact that the democrats have such lightweights really shows that,
maybe Hillary IS the most qualified candidate for the democrats.
Obama is a two year liberal Senator who just three years ago was
an unknown state senator. Edwards even being considered a frontrunner
two years after leaving office as a one-term North Carolina Senator,
and two years after being defeated on the democratic ticket, bringing
nothing to the table at all, he is expected to pull the heavily
Republican south out in 2008? The breck girl? Come on.

Okay, let's say Edwards wins Iowa, South Carolina, and get the big mo'
against Hillary and wins the nomination. He faces off against Arizona
Senator John McCain. How does McCain's stature as a deficit hawk,
a foreign policy hawk, and a distinguished 20 year Senate career as
a maverick Republican face against Edwards' 4 year former liberal Senate
career?

I'm being honest here. McCain takes all Bush 2004 states, grabs New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, and Oregon while Edwards takes the rest. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota
and Michigan would be close. I think Florida would go atleast 5-6 pts for McCain.

So what if he's been out of office for two years?  He's spent that time doing more work for America and the world than most people that stayed in the Senate.  And yes, Edwards did not make anything in the South close nor was he picked to do so, he was brought in to help Kerry in the economically torn Midwest, which he did well.  Consider strong Kerry victories in Minnesota and Michigan, Kerry's victory in Wisconsin (where Bush led by up to 10) and the closeness of Iowa and Ohio.  There's only so much a VP candidate can do, he's not at the top of the ticket. 

I don't think being only a one-term Senator matters.  When have long Senate careers ever helped anybody?  Did Kerry win?  How about Dole?  How about Gore?  All these guys ran partly on a distinguished career in the Senate.  Not only that, most times in a Presidential election people are looking for outsiders who haven't been in Washington for a long time.  Look at how many governors have been elected throughout history. 

FDR won after being a losing VP....so what? 

About McCain.  Reiterating my point, a long Senate career almost never helps.  After 8 years of failed foreign policy, what makes you think the American people are going to want to put a "hawk" back in office?  And I don't think we can call McCain a maverick anymore, he dropped that a long time ago, and it has shown in his unwavering support for George W. since the 2004 election.  I don't think any Democrat opposing him has to do much  more than cite the fact McCain wants MORE troops in Iraq to pull in at LEAST 40% of the vote.  And in Edwards' case, being a bit liberal has helped him.  He would undoubtedly have the Democratic base in his hands, as well as a good portion of the populist vote that has gone to Bush in recent elections.  Not going to say that McCain wouldn't eventually win, but saying McCain is almost unbeatable is ridiculous. 

Now to the states you mentioned:

New Hampshire - this state is going the way of the rest of New England.  A Democratic governor, two Dem House members, and recently on the national level, a 2 pt victory for liberal John Kerry in a Bush win.  This is not a GOP stronghold anymore, nor does it lean GOP anymore.  If a Republican wins here, consider it over, Edwards would easily take it in a close contest. 

Wisconsin - no way would McCain win here over a populist.  If Bush couldn't pull this off in 2004, I doubt Edwards would lose it against anybody.  His message fits the state perfectly. 

Oregon - McCain would have to get rural Oregon to outvote the heavily liberal/Democratic Portland area, something that has not been done in over 20 years.  Don't count on it. 

Ohio - Edwards would win Ohio....and easily. 

Pennsylvania - have you looked and the trends in PA?  The Philly 'burbs are moving sharply towards the Democrats, and Edwards would nullify the GOP trend in the Pittsburgh area.  This is anywhere from a 5 to 8 pt Edwards victory, even in a tight race. 

Minnesota - it could be close, but I really doubt it.  Edwards plays well in the Midwest. 

Michigan - This could be an interesting one, McCain has always seemed to be popular here.  I think Edwards wins by 2-3. 

Florida - Edwards v. McCain?  Dead heat.  No way to tell.  I'd predict McCain by <1%

Anyhoo, my prediction for a Edwards/McCain matchup? 

Edwards 306
McCain 232

I just think Edwards is a fresher face, despite being the VP in 2004, and wins because of it.  His populist message resonates especially in the Midwest, and don't think for a minute that 8 years of an unpopular GOP administration is not going to hurt McCain.  PV is closer than EV, but Edwards pulls it out 50-49. 

[Deano963]

I don't like Edwards. Partly because I don't see what is so great about him. The South? I've given up on the South. Democrats need to focus all over their attention on states like Iowa, Ohio, New Mexico, and Nevada... Just look at the 2006 mid-terms. I have a hard time believing the South will be voting Democrat any time soon.

You'de better hope the South starts voting Democrat after 2012 since they're going to suck all of the EVs out of the Northeast and Midwest.  Giving more attention to the Interior West is a good plan though.

Not quite. The states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, etc are not gaining any CD's. Georgia and Florida are, and Florida is not exactly a red state. Way, way too much noise is made over reapportionment. The net effect on the Dem and repub parties will likely be a wash. Also, the midwest, southwest and mountain west are turning more and more blue.

[CavanaughPark]

The South? I've given up on the South.

But Independent candidates have done so well in the South! Look at George Wallace!

[Reaganfan]

After 8 years of failed foreign policy, what makes you think the American people are going to want to put a "hawk" back in office?

Uh....with terrorist attacks occuring often (9/11/01, 10/02 in Bali, 3/11/04 in Spain, 7-7-05 in UK, and the thwarted 8/16/06 UK-US terror plot...Americans are gonna want a strong leader on defense.

[HardRCafé]

Consider strong Kerry victories in Minnesota and Michigan, Kerry's victory in Wisconsin (where Bush led by up to 10) and the closeness of Iowa and Ohio.

Since when is 3% strong?