Talk Elections

Survey USA just released a poll taken over the last three days showing:

Bush         53%
Kerry        42%

Bush         47%
Edwards   50%

Yes Miami, it would be my worst nightmare.  I don't understand Democratic primary voters.  What are they thinking?

:( Vote Edwards :(

You didn't answer my question.  Seriously, it would be like our side having someone that could give Clinton a run for his money, and Republican primary voters choosing to nominate a Dole instead.

Specter could have given Clinton a run for his money.

Well, to answer your question, Kerry has rode his media wave from Iowa to all of these victories.  Why he is portrayed as more electable is beyond me.

As I've said before, Edwards is twice the candidate that Kerry is with a lot less baggage.  Seems like a no brainer to me.  It's beyond me as well.  Guess Dems want to try to do it the hard way.

I would vote for Edwards over Bush, and that's saying something considering that Bush got 100% on that president match website test thing and Edwards got 0%.

Edwards is an amoral, ambulance chaser, with absolutely NO sense of coherent beliefs. Essentially, he is Bill Clinton with a better record as an attorney, and better control of his genitalia...and he would still do far less damage to this nation than John Kerry. Any Republican who says they would vote for Edwards over Bush needs to really sit down and think about what he's saying. Though I will say that Edwards would be an easy choice over Kerry if those were the only two choices.

Shhh.  I'm sure the Democrats are making the choice that is best for them.  I respect their decision to nominate Senator Kerry.

Well, that's the first poll I've ever seen, at least since Kerry became the frontrunner anyway, that showed Kerry running worse against Bush than Edwards. Every other poll has shown Kerry running better.

Well, if Edwards wasn't outpolling Kerry in his home state, he might as well quit now.  Interestingly, I haven't seen any other state polls in Southern states comparing Kerry and Edwards vs. Bush.  This is the type of data Edwards needs to swing the electability argument.

And a couple months ago, Edwards was LOSING to Bush IN NORTH CAROLINA by 15+ points!

Duh, I failed to notice that the topic of this thread was "NC poll". My bad. I thought this poll was for the entire country.

In that case, I fail to see why Republicans are touting it as good. Kerry is doing better than Gore in NC...yeah, Edwards would be stronger in the South. But I still don't think he'd win much in the South, and Kerry has other strengths which help him with swing voters in the swing states--greater experience, a military record, etc. Also, he has much more money and by not taking the primary matching funds, he won't be hamstrung while Bush spends freely. Bush would have far more money than Edwards for this reason and would rip him to shreds while Edwards would be unable to raise the money to defend himself.

The Democratic nominee doesn't need to win "much" in the South, just one state to win the EC!

Yes, but I think that Kerry has a better chance in states such as New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, and Nevada than Edwards does. Edwards would have a better chance in North Carolina, Arkansas, and possibly West Virginia and Florida.

Overall I think that Kerry's money and experience are more important than Edwards's charisma and geographic advantage. I can see how one would argue otherwise, but I'd say that in a post-9/11 world, Kerry's military record and greater foreign policy experience are more of an asset. If 9/11 had never happened, I would say that Edwards would be a stronger nominee than Kerry.

The ONLY swing state that Kerry has a better chance than edwards of winning is NH.  The rest, Edwards ahs the edge.

I think the key here is really Ohio. If Bush takes Florida in November, Ohio is essentially a must-win for the Democrats. Talk about piecing it together with NH, NV, and WV while holding IA, WS and NM is very speculative - a big state like Ohio gives room for error.

And in Ohio, it would seem that Edwards has the edge. The jobs issue is strong, and the southern, Appalachian region of the state will feel more comfortable with a southern candidate. If he can win this state on Tuesday, I think he gains critical momentum.

Bush is going to win NC very easily, and Ohio by a much bigger margin than in 2000, due to the cultural war and gay marriage.

bush would beat edwards in nc.

i realize the press is fawning all over edwards, but edwards has never been very popular in nc  he barely beat a very weak incumbent, lauch faircloth, in 98.

had he decided to run for reelection this year, i think richard burr would have beaten him.

this john edwards love affair that the country (especially the press) is going through, reminds me a lot of the mccain lust of 2000.

Yes WalterMinty, you hit it right on the head. It seems that the entire media is overlooking the fact that Edwards isnt popular in his home state. There is absolutely no doubt he would lose re-election in nc.

I think we're forgetting that Dems will probably have a better turnout then republicans this time around.  Democrats I know are PISSED.  IA and WI have a good number of dem voters, I don't think hanging on to those 2 states will be a problem.  NM will be tough.  I really think Kerry has to just pick up Ohio, and it really shouldn't be THAT hard.  The job loss there is tremendous.  A little more bad news for Bush and Ohio is going into my strong Kerry category.  

Feel strongly about that do you?  I respectfully submit that it's a hot potato he can do better without.  

Not so - its a wonderful 'wedge' issue.

Not so - this is truly my analysis:  that the gay marriage issue helps Bush a lot.  Personally I don't care about the issue itself at all, I'm just happy that it will help Bush win certain swing states.

Actually when Edwards beat Faircloth it was a big upset (you get one every year).

BTW no one has held NC's second Senate seat for more than 6 years since Sam Ervin.

it wasnt a very big upset.  of course, it is always somewhat of an upset to knock off an incumbent senator.

as i stated earlier, faircloth was a very weak candidate, for that matter, he was a weak senator.  edwards was heads and shoulders above faircloth in terms of campaigning.  edwards is just a flat out better politician.

i voted for faircloth in 98.  i had to hold my nose and do it because im no faircloth fan.

It suprised most political observers... are you saying they are out of touch or something?

what do you mean by 'surprised'.

faircloth was very vulnerable from the get go.

the polls were tight all through the race.  edwards had ample money and spent heavily on tv ads (a medium he excels in).

some political observers thought faircloth would pull it out because  1. nc is a conservative state, and  2. clinton, who was unpopular in nc, was going through the lewinsky ordeal.

I agree... Faircloth was very vunerable (as is evidenced by the result). My point is that political "experts"are fools.

Hah! Someone else published a poll! :D

Edwards won't be the nominee though, so what good does it do... :(

I think if everyone knew about Edwards being unpopular in his home state, they'd be like........WTF?!  

i dont understand the newly found love affair with john edwards.

he has always reminded me of the good looking guy in high school who wins the student council election.

the guy was a freakin ambulance chaser for most of his life.  there is nothing wrong with that, and he made darn good money doing it.  however, i dont see how you can parlay being an ambulance chaser into being president.

edwards is an amiable fellow who can communicate well.  if i needed someone to get me the 'insurance settlement that i deserve', id give him a call.