I supported Edwards (4.00 / 1)

He was my first choice in the primary. But this is still a worthless exercise because people have no idea who the alternatives are.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:08:36 PM UTC

Look at the polls though ... (4.00 / 2)

the Republican VP choices are all unknown besides Mittens and Huckabee .. and yet except for Edwards & Webb(He's sure raised his profile fast) we don't get any benefit at all .. and if these polls are at all indicative .. his choice of VP could have consequences

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:22:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not True! (0.00 / 0)

You could make this argument in Wisconsin, where Obama is now ahead by 9 points, and the worst a VP hurts him in the new round is -4.

It still wouldn't hold up too well, because no candidate helps him at all.  But at least you could say, "well, the total range isn't that big, and it doesn't change the outcome."

But in the other states, the swing is still very substantial, and it does change the outcome--from +2 to 8 in Iowa, for example.  And +4 to 8 in California.  You simply can't square that kind of variation with the claim that "no one knows" who these people are.

Certainly they are less known. But they are not unkown.  If they were truly unknown, we would not be seeing such wide variation.

But again, this whole argument ignores the point that it's no mean feat to have positive name recognition in politics.  People seem to think that what Edwards has accomplished grows on trees.  Well, if it does, then how come there's not a line around the block of candidates as strong as him?

Your response would make sense if there was virtually no effect among the other candidates--say one or two points up or down--indistinguishable from statistical noise, and Edwards was good for maybe 2 or 3 points, tops.  But the actual results for Edwards are double that, and the other candidates are not just noise, but generally pink noise--as in, they turn an even race into a "lean McCain".

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:34:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So what? (4.00 / 1)

Let me rephrase what you just wrote because I am tired of argument with non logical conclusions: Your argument is people know and are comfortable with Edwards, and, therefore, that means nothing because they don't k now and are uncomfortable with the other choices? Your argument is an argument against the other choices, not against Edwards.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:51:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why the attitude? (0.00 / 0)

Not just you mind. All these replies to what I said. What difference between the options given is mostly within the margin of error. The number of undecideds should be enough in almost every instance to back me up. The same way Lieberman had small leads in the 2004 primary was because nobody knew much about the other candidates so when they were asked for their preference they were waiting for more info before declaring. I'm not arguing for or against any of the possible candidates for VP. I am arguing against this polling as much of a reason to pick any of them. And at the end of the day people will be choosing who they want for president. The bottom of the ticket makes little if any impact IMO.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:14:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Several points (0.00 / 0)

a) Attitude? Is this how you see rebuttals to your arguments? I think way too many use things like "attitude" or "tone" to dismiss arguments to which they have no real response.

b) You are advancing an argument that several have advanced without much logic behind it. It was first advanced by Kos at Daily Kos, and has continued to be advanced as a net negative for Edwards.  It's not a logical conclusion that you are making,b ut you think it is. I did the rephrase above to illustrate the problem with the logical construction of your argument to illustrate why the logic doesn't hold.

c) You are now advancing different arguments as a response to me. Some of which, quite, frankly rely on what you believe. Not what you can prove. You say things like 'well but I think this is a result of what could be made up by undecideds" and my first thought is can you tell me the  winning lotto numbers for tonight because I would love to have your predictive ability. We are discussing what's actually proveable in front of us. Saying you are arguing against the polling doesn't make much sense. You need to provide a better argument than you don't believe the polling as a counter to why its inaccurate.

d) About the only bit of useful critique that you give is the Lieberaman  in 2003 (not 2004) when he was first running for the Presidential nomination of the party. By 2004, he had already lost out as you remember to Kerry and Dean. Contextually, that argument makes little sense. Lieberman had not just run a national campaign across the US for much of the year in a highly watched primary. The last time people heard of Lieberman was in 2000 (4 years earlier).  Is that the case with Edwards?  The name ID that you and other advance depends on us pretending we didn't just go through a national primary in which they didn't just get to know his name, but his policies, his approach to politics, seeing him as the chang ecandidate. remember it was this agenda that most influenced Obama and Clinton during hte primary. This was the CW. Not Edwards alone, but also what he brough to the table.

e) If that's your belief, that the VP doesn't matter, then why are you here  at all? For the record, I need to know what you mean by impact. if that means we think that it will change the course of the election? No. if that means we think it will help? Yes it can help especially if one use the VP nominee in the right way which Kerry didn't do. that means letting him act as your surrogate.  The right VP can heavily influence perception as Gore did with Clinton in 1992.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:37:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I felt your post in particular was aggressive (0.00 / 0)

But I still responded. You may not agree with my response but it was still a response.

Kos may agree with me but I can think for myself thanks very much. As I already said I am not advancing anything as a negative or a positive of anybody just that I don't think these polls are strong enough evidence to be given much weight towards any final VP decision.

''It's not a logical conclusion that you are making, but you think it is.'' I could have said the exact same thing about your position but I am more civil than that. You know very well different people can come to very different conclusions from the same set of facts.

''You are now advancing different arguments as a response to me. Some of which, quite, frankly rely on what you believe. Not what you can prove.'' Neither can you ''prove'' your position. You believe it. Fair enough but I disagree and so do many others in this very conversation down thread.

Indeed I was talking about 2003 when I said Lieberman's ''early'' leads.

You are splitting heirs with the definition of impact. Surely if it ''helps'' then that is changing or affecting the course of the election. That is what I meant. I think it has been shown that a VP is worth a couple of points at best in their home state.

Interesting thought though that just because I don't believe the VP selection can make much difference (I do believe it can do harm) that should also mean I don't belong here. Who exactly appointed you to the position of posting privilege police officer?

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:43:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I am not even doing sophisticated logical analysis. Just taking what you said, and asking logically speaking how one can take x (Edwards popularity) to mean anti-x (Voters liking him isn't a good thing with regard to him as a choice) with regard to choosing candidate p (Edwards) over candidate u (other candidates) when candidate u is an unknown variable. That's my logic in a nutshell. Yours is this twisting branch of well, but maybe someone out there possibly maybe liked better, but you know, even if they're not liked better, then it doesn't matter anyhow, because VPs don't matter. The last point alone, as I said, begs the question- then why are you here? there is no agression in that. Just logical argumentation.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 22:02:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One way to find out... (4.00 / 1)

Inevitable, the anti-Edwards rap will be, "It's only polling name recognition."

Wrong.  People recognize "Paris Hilton."  I don't think she'd do any better than Webb.

I think this is a silly and dismissive refutation.  Edwards is the only candidate who was tested in all four states who's run for national office before and campaigned in each of the states listed.  

It's curious that SUSA tested "Obama/Richardson" in California only, but the results are telling:  This candidate who ran for national office and actually campaigned in California scored better than the state-level candidates listed.

A fairer way of measuring Edwards's support is to test "Obama/Edwards" with pairings like "Obama/Kerry" and "Obama/Gore" and even "Obama/Clinton", none of which were included.  That would eliminate name-recognition as a factor in the polls.

By including Edwards, and not (for example) the widely-touted-in-the-media Clinton, SUSA appears to be skewing their results to push a desired conclusion.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:28:12 PM UTC

Richardson TIED Bloomberg In California, And You Think THAT'S Significant? (4.00 / 1)

Look, I've never defended SUSA's pairings.  Bloomberg on both sides?  Come on!  What is he, paying them for the polls?

But that said, neither Kerry nor Gore is going to be on the ticket, so the only function they would have is to test the limits of the name-recognition hypothesis.  You only need one such person to do that.  But Clinton can do that all by herself. So we don't need to waste slots on them.

But then we get to the real point--who would make sense to put on the ticket?  Clinton has two problems.  First, she made attacks on Obama that the Reps will be using come September.  Having her on the ticket at that time would only make those attacks more damaging and difficult to deal with.  Second, she does not make sense in terms of the reinforcing argument that Chris made, or in terms of any other logic, aside from placating her embittered supporters.  And that's simply not a wise way to go--particularly given how large Clinton's husband would loom over the campaign.

So, in short, Clinton's real function in being polled would be as a benchmark to test how much Edwards helps Obama compared to her.  That should be seen as a ceiling for how much good a VP could do, and I dearly wish that SUSA had polled Clinton for precisely that reason.

But they didn't.  

So we have to make do with what we've got, and the brains we were born with.

But the bottom line, simply, is that lacking anything else, Edwards shows a strong performance, and it would be a crapshoot to expect anyone else to perform as well.

So why take the gamble?  What's the upside?  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:53:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's the upside? I'll get there... (4.00 / 1)

But that said, neither Kerry nor Gore is going to be on the ticket, so the only function they would have is to test the limits of the name-recognition hypothesis.

If you're going to block my suggested polling alternatives because you consider them purely hypothetical, then I think it's absolutely fair to denounce your use of Paris Hilton in dismissing name-recognition arguments.  

But then we get to the real point--who would make sense to put on the ticket?  Clinton has two problems.

Now you're bringing other arguments into the equation.  Yes, Clinton "has problems", and so does Edwards.  Do you want to discuss the flaws in SUSA's methodology, or would you rather discuss the flaws in the potential nominees themselves?  I'm prepared to do both.

But the bottom line, simply, is that lacking anything else, Edwards shows a strong performance, and it would be a crapshoot to expect anyone else to perform as well.

So why take the gamble?  What's the upside?  

The gamble: John Edwards did well in hypothetical matchups in Spring 2004 as well:  CBS news gave Kerry/Edwards a ten-point lead over Bush/Cheney about this time four years ago (source); an AP/IPSOS poll the following month gave Edwards a 5-8 point advantage over Gephart, Vilsack, and Clark (source).  The lead he held in hypothetical polling failed to pan out in November.  

In other words, showing a strong performance now is something we should expect of Edwards; the "crapshoot" is whether the energy he brings is durable enough to last until November.  

The upside: Furthermore, in the CBS poll cited above, a Kerry/McCain matchup performed even better than a Kerry/Edwards matchup; and I think we can all agree that a Kerry/McCain pairing would have been disastrous.  But that shows the pronounced effect that name-recognition has on low-information voters.

So, the "upside" is that by testing other candidates of similar national stature as Edwards, we're better able to assess just how much of Edwards's lead is due to Edwards himself, and how much of it is tied to how well-known he is.  

In short, I think SUSA's methodology is flawed (you've acknowledged as well that it lacks an important benchmark), and the flaws are serious enough to make it dubious to use the polls to support a particular nominee.  There are good, valid arguments in favor of John Edwards; this diary isn't one of them.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:07:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Hatred Is Duly Noted (0.00 / 0)

It's one thing to try to make a novel argument.  It's quite another to get all in a huff because others don't see it as novel before you've laid it all out, when it sounds just like dozens of other iterations that are functionally brain-dead.

So, your argument is somewhat novel compared to others.  But it still relies on completely inappropriate and misleading comparisons to 2004.  The prominent thing to keep in mind right now, is that this is not 2004.  The Democrats in Congress just passed a horrible anti-constitutional bill based on the false assumption that it's still 2004, and just because they're a pack of jackasses doesn't mean I'm going to be one too.

Now, I'm certainly not accusing you of destroying the Constitution.  But you are neglecting to factor in the many differences between now and then, one of which is that we're in an open election, with no incumbent President or VP.  Drilling down  bit into the detail of your argument, the argument that Kerry/McCain may have polled well, but been a disasterous ticket misses a few key points:

(1) The press loves John McCain, but hates John Edwards, so their public popularity is not simply evidence of one and the same thing.

(2) The McCain popularity was based on an illusory picture of him that the press was heavily flagging.  Had that picture been accurate, then a Kerry/McCain ticket would not have been disasterous.

(3) There is a clear and compelling integration of the Obama message and the Edwards message.  This was never the case with Kerry and McCain.

Stepping back a bit, you are making the larger argument that good poll number now don't guarantee anything in November.  That is certainly true.  But good poll numbers now do constitute an advantage that can be used to continue eroding the other side's chances.  And the lack of good poll numbers now shows the need to do something in order to compensate for not having that advantage.

In my view, it's best to simply assume that media is 100% in the tank for McCain.  They love him.  They're his base.  They will die for him.  In fact, I hope they do.  The more that their love affair with him serves to damage their credibility, the better off we'll all be in 2009.  But to win against such odds, we need folks with a proven ability to connect with people despite the press onslaught.

John Edwards is one person who has proved his ability to do that.

Who else has?

p.s.  This diary was not an argument in favor of John Edwards.  It was a report on the fact that the new polling data had failed to turn up an serious, credible alternative to him. That's a much more limited goal.  Of course I have broader arguments in support of his candidacy, which I'm prepared to lay out once again--and some of those have come out in the discussion.  But the diary itself was simply reflecting on the continued lack of any seriously strong alternative.  

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:15:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"My hatred"? (0.00 / 0)

"all in a huff"?
"functionally brain-dead"?

This level of personal attack isn't worth responding to.  I hope you'll reconsider your remarks; meanwhile, I stand by my earlier comments.

---

by: osterizer @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:31:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Things: (0.00 / 0)

(1) You need to learn to read a little better. I didn't call you "functionally brain-dead."  Quite the opposite. I was saying that your initial presentation of your argument was virtually indistinguishable from such arguments, but then you went on to distinguish it.

Which is why I wish you had responded to the substance of what I wrote.

(2) Since you've ignored the substance of what I've written, I can only assume you have nothing to say, and concede that I am correct.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 21:55:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking of "reading a little better". (0.00 / 0)

You need to learn to read a little better. I didn't call you "functionally brain-dead."

I never said you called me functionally brain-dead.  I said that it was a "personal attack".  I recognized that that phrase was addressed to the authors of previous arguments, and not to me, but it's still a personal attack.  

If you'd like me to respond to "the substance" of what you wrote, then provide some instead of "assuming that [I ...] conceded that [you are] correct" or treating a rebuttal as an "exercise to the reader".  

---

by: osterizer @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 22:50:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again huh? (0.00 / 0)

Let's assuming you are 100 percent correct, you would  have to waste valuable time and resources trying to build a positive brand for other choices that Edwards has already built up.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:57:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton and Kerry (4.00 / 1)

Why didn't SUSA poll Clinton and Kerry? It would be interesting to compare Edwards with other well-known Democrats. And why not Biden? He's largely unknown, but then so are most of the other candidates polled.

Also, Webb's numbers would drop dramatically if his bizarre past comments were known. My guess is that he would alienate a lot of younger people who are not used to rape being discussed in such a matter-of-fact way.  

---

by: SG @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:31:47 PM UTC

Beats Me Why SUSA Chose These Matchups (4.00 / 1)

Bloomberg going both ways?

I can understand not polling Kerry.  The only purpose he would have would be as a benchmark.  But not polling Clinton is just absurd.

As for Biden, why should they poll him?  As you said, he's largely unkown. Richardson at least made some headway in the primaries.  Edwards, Clinton and Richardson should certainly have been polled.  After that, it's very debatable, and one could reasonably opt for testing favorite son/daughter candidates.

But, then, I don't run SUSA, now do I?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:40:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I dont know where I saw it but other polls tested Clinton as VP , and she harmed Obama with the independents. Not sure how that plays with the partisanship to the electorate being more Democratic this year, but at least amongst indies, she tends  to hurt.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:59:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Michigan? (4.00 / 1)

Think she was tested there.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:42:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No it was some poll where they tested her name (0.00 / 0)

as VP but not just Michigan.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 00:14:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Basically: (0.00 / 0)

The conclusion we can draw is that Edwards would be a popular VP candidate. He has extremely high name recognition and is well-known among the populace, and the polls show that he helps the ticket significantly. He is a known quantity.

The conclusion we cannot draw is that the other candidates would not be popular VP candidates. Their name recognition and familiarity among the populace are, for the most part, low. When they get their name recognition and familiarity up to near-Edwards levels (which they will, after being VP candidate for a while), almost anything could happen: they could end up detracting from the ticket by as much, or even more, than these polls show; they could have no effect either way; they could end up being as popular as Edwards; they could end up being more popular than Edwards. We, at this point, simply cannot tell.

If Obama's team cannot tell either, then it seems Edwards would definitely be the safest choice for them. On the other hand, if they have ways of telling which we do not, then they are in a better position to make an informed decision about this than we are, and they could choose one of the others who would actually be better a candidate than Edwards would.

In my opinion, the only logic you could use to favor Edwards based on this polling data is that he would be the safe pick.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:52:08 PM UTC

Close, But... He's MORE Than A Safe Pick (0.00 / 0)

A "safe pick" would not lose you any support.  Edwards brings significant support, by cutting the Democratic swing dramatically, as I showed previously, and reducing the independent swing as well, though not as dramatically.

You are correct to frame it in terms of a gamble vs. a known quantity.  But you need to assess the known quantity a little more carefully, IMHO.

The fact that Edwards is as strong as he is is the major reason why I think it's fruitless to think about anyone else--if winning a strong governing majority is your prime concern.  If that's not your concern, then by all means, consider anyone you want.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:01:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

I think now we're down to semantics. I defined "safe" as "definitely good", you're defining it as "definitely not bad", and maybe your definition is better, but I think we're pretty close on the substance for that part. In defense of my definition, I find it improbable that there is only one person in the country who would help Obama's chances as VP candidate, and the goal should be to choose one of those people; anything less is a bad pick.

In any case, while I (now) agree that it makes sense to promote Edwards based on these results, it still doesn't make sense to use them to dismiss any of the other candidates -- except maybe in cases where they're significantly outperformed by Edwards even in their own state. (Which would be... Rendell, and who else? I just checked and in Kansas, Edwards and Sebelius both have a combined margin of +31 against all the Republicans. Which is a very impressive showing for Edwards, but also doesn't knock Sebelius out by any stretch.)

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:25:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the difference (4.00 / 2)

and I think this maybe what the polls are reflecting (just a guess). But Edwards just came off of the primaries in which he was polling around 10 to 15 percent in a lot of these places. We aren't dealing with someone who is just name recognition. People had months to get to know who Edwards is during th eprimary. He appeals to a certain segment of the population. The economic populists types that Obama does not. This is strictly anecdotal- I have a friend who when I said edwards was a possible VP choice for Obama her eyes lit up. She's supporting Obama because hes' the nominee, but for her, Edwards made Obama seem like a better choice because of the economic issues Edwards expoused during his run this year.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:50:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now I agree with this (0.00 / 0)

Obviously Edwards has more to offer than name recognition alone because he has built up goodwill with the electorate. But only because he has been running national campaigns since 2003. Sebelius, Webb etc have not had that opportunity to build up any goodwill because they have not been running national campaigns. In other words how do people know if they like somebody, what they stand for or what they have done in the past if they don't even know who they are. This is obvious in the high number of undecideds such match-ups throw out, particularly on the GOP side where McCain/Fiorina can hardly break 40% over and over again.

---

by: conspiracy @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:52:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But htat doesn't add to their appeal, it decreases it. (4.00 / 1)

Whereas someone like Edwards or even Clinton can point to real world numbers , not just polls, to show they have a base across the country, these other politicians do not. The polling data adds additonal weight.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 22:07:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed On Semantics, Then (4.00 / 1)

But I don't see how Sebelius having a home-state performance on a par with Edwards makes her a legitimate contender.  It seems to indicate that her ceiling is where Edwards already is.  The only reason one would look to another candidate is to exceed his ceiling, and to do so with a high degree of certainty.

Does the phrase, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" ring any bells?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:05:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What would be the ways of telling before introducing the (0.00 / 0)

candidate to the public? Let me put it another way- how would they do so hitting the ground running trading off the branding rather than having to first introduce, wait a period (hope the branding is positive) and then build upon branding. Let me also point out that it takes time to build up positive branding in people's minds so -- yes, Edwards would be the safe choice, and what does that mean? That we should choose something that's not safe here and go for a less progressive chocie that doesn't have the positive branding? Just trying to piece together the conclusion other than what you have stated thus far.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:02:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Simply put (0.00 / 0)

I don't know. I've never been involved in polling, a campaign, or anything of the sort. But it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that they would have ways to tell, so I'm not about to rule the possibility out. Campaign pollsters are purportedly much more accurate than the public polls we see. There was an anecdote I read somewhere where during Al Gore's first Senate run, his campaign pollster told him that if he ran this one ad, then his opponent would respond by running an ad something like this other one, and in two weeks he would gain 7 points in the polls. So they ran the ad... their opponent ran the counterad... and in two weeks, Al Gore gained in the polls... by 7 points. And if they can predict the effect that an ad would have, it strikes me as highly possible that they could also predict what effect a VP candidate would have.

---

by: illissius @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:36:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's the key difference (4.00 / 1)

At least for me, there is a difference between what's possible and what's probable. To the degree that it helps, polling data provides a way to start to give us a sense of probability rather than simple well candidate x or y or z is possible. My frustration with much of this, is that I feel people just think o the possible, and ignoring that this is also about the probabilities.  

As for your point about internal pollsters, who knows. That's again wild speculation. What I do know is that pollster internally aren't objective. The value of polls such as the one above is that it provides the view of an organiztion that doesn't have a vested interest in telling you what you want to hear. Going again to the probabilities- this is a valuable thing from which to judge actions.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:41:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There Are Reasons Stories Like That Travel (0.00 / 0)

and it's not always because they reveal great cosmic truths.

Just sayin'.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:58:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anti-Edwards Rap (0.00 / 0)

Isn't the inevitable anti-Edwards rap:

(1) He did a terrible job as running mate in 2004; and,
(2) Another one-term only senator is not the kind of doubling-down we ought to do?

---

by: attorney at arms @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 15:56:04 PM UTC

Give your reasoning regarding 2004 (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:03:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not my reasoning. (0.00 / 0)

Just to clarify:
I was stating what I thought the "inevitable anti-Edwards rap" would be, not what my personal views were.

I would be happy to see Edwards. I just think that Democrats are bad at picking candidates of general appeal, and, so the more noise I hear from lefty blogs in favor or someone or against another, the better they sound to me.

---

by: attorney at arms @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:36:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards is even better ... (0.00 / 0)

because as I have said a few times now .. people think he's a conservative Southern guy .. which is obviously not how he ran this year .. but that is what I am sure helps him in these polls ... so this is a time when the wrong perception helps greatly

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:44:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ultimately this is Obama decision (4.00 / 1)

but the fact is that I hope he would not use such faulty logic. The fact is yes there swill be a subset that will say "but he did badly in 2004.' Guess what I 've talked in person to that sort of subset. After providing a critque, if they return to their frame,  I simply say "okay" and move on. The reason why is that it is a frame. I had someone say to me this week  (a fellow lawyer) Edwards is a "lightweight" and blah, blah blah. After she said that, i stoped listening.

The one key part of what you just said is that lefty have a problemw ith candidates of general appeal, and that's true. Which is why I think these arguments against Edwards are so bizzare. I don't like Edwards as a choice because people know him. I think edwards is a bad choice because he's wealthy. etc.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:46:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a misleading argument. (0.00 / 0)

I dissected the Edwards as VP in 2004 stuff last year.  Many point to how he couldn't win North Carolina for John Kerry.  I show that with him on the ticket, he actually bucked the NATIONAL trend from 2000 to 2004.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:36:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

they aren't making the argument because they believe it (0.00 / 0)

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 16:54:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Asked And Answered Dozens of Times (4.00 / 2)

(1) In 2004, he was doing what Kerry told him to do, and that meant he was doing what Bob Shrum told Kerry to do.  No one has ever done well listening to Bob Shrum, so this is simply irrelevent.

(2) Yes.  See Chris's argument about reinforcing vs. balancing VP candidates.  (See, also, "What part of 'change' don't you understand?")

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:04:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kerry was a bad choice (4.00 / 4)

In 2004, Kerry was a horrible choice as the nominee. Kerry was a weak candidate with a weak message (I am not Bush).  If you look where Kerry sent Edwards (Southern Ohio, Western PA and rural areas), Kerry got more votes than Gore did in 2000. IMO, Kerry would have lost Ohio by double digits without Edwards and Kerry would have lost PA too. Kerry did not campaign in NC so I do not see how it was Edwards fault that he could not carry NC for Kerry. By that logic Obama can choose Webb, Warner or Kaine and Obama won't have to sit foot or spend a dime in VA and still win the state in November.  The fact is people still vote for the top of the ticket. If they do not like the nominee then they won't vote or vote for the other party. The problem in 2004 is that people did not like Kerry. A VP nominee can only do so much to bring in voters and I think Edwards did as much as anyone else could have done.  

---

by: margo99 @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:25:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There's somewhat of a theoretical problem (4.00 / 2)

insofar as Edwards, Rendell, Hagel and Sebelius were tested against a different group of potential VPs than were Bloomberg, McCaskill, Schweitzer and Webb.  

An argument could certainly be made (and, I think, correctly) that Huckabee, Lieberman, Pawlenty and Romney are a stronger group of choices than Bloomberg, Fiorina and Jindal, and, as such, Edwards' bigger margins are even more impressive.  However, the lack of a control group means that any conclusions that you draw from these comparisons are necessarily a little bit speculative.

John McCain

---

by: djm84 @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 16:00:11 PM UTC

I'd feel more confident (4.00 / 1)

If they quit testing blue states and even the swings where Obama is clearly strong, like IA and WI.

Run these matchups on FL, OH, MO, CO, NV and VA. Then you've got two in the South (Obama's weakest region), two in the Midwest and two in the West, and he's likely gotta win at least three of these six. I'd add NM and WV too, to get as thorough an overview as possible.

It's not just name recognition. Candidates like Biden, Dodd and Richardson simply didn't resonate in any primary season as well as Edwards did both times.

The only others who did in at least a few states the past two election years were Kerry, Clark and Dean, so SUSA should pair Obama with these four and test them in the states I suggested and we can safely say the results will settle the name recognition factor.

But isn't it likely Obama's pollsters are doing the same sort of polling quietly? So they already have an idea?

IMO, the real keys to Edwards' strength in these polls is:

a) name recognition
b) an economic populist in a terrible economic year
c) attractive to independents
d) pulls in more white males.

Past performance signifies little because 2004 was before Abu Ghraib, torture, Katrina, subprime mortgage collapse, and $4/gal gasoline where the GOP brand was most seriously damaged.

---

by: Kevin Hayden @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 17:44:51 PM UTC

SOME of Those States Were Polled in May (4.00 / 1)

I agree that SUSA's state selection could be improved, along with their candidate selection, and it's nice to have someone rasing new gripes.  But in case you missed it, SUSA did poll in some of the states you mention--most notably VA, OH and MO.

The worst that Edwards did vs. Huckabee, Romney, Lieberman and Pawlenty was +3 in MO, +9 in VA and +11 in OH.

I would certainly like to see them poll NC and FL both.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 18:32:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They tested his name is KS (4.00 / 1)

and other states. I mention KS because he outperforms, Sebelius the governor of the state who is being looked at as a possible VP nominee.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 22:05:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They tested his name is KS (4.00 / 1)

and other states. I mention KS because he outperforms, Sebelius the governor of the state who is being looked at as a possible VP nominee.  

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 22:05:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

These polls having an effect? (4.00 / 2)

As dismissive as some are about John Edwards' continuously good performance in these polls, it's interesting to note that in the last few days stories have suddenly surfaced about Edwards not only being on Obama's VP list but Edwards modifying his flat-out refusal to be VP to something he's not seeking but would have to consider if Obama offered it.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if we think Edwards would help Obama win in November.  What matters is if Obama thinks he will.

Only way to find that out is to wait.

Personally, I'll be a lot more optimistic about our chances in November if he does.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance

---

by: katerina @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 19:38:53 PM UTC

One kind of interesting thing... (4.00 / 3)

Most of this discussion is on the resulting difference between Obama and McCain when various VPs are added to the mix.  And in the long run, that's what's important.  But I think there's another interesting thing going on here, and I'm not sure whether it might not be worth a thought as we try to evaluate the data...

On the Democratic side, Edwards helps Obama (a lot) and everyone else hurts him.  On the Republican side, Huckabee (and, in an few states, Romney) helps McCain (a little) and everyone else hurts him.

That seems to say to me that other than Edwards (and maybe Huckabee), the VP choices aren't adding to the tickets -- they're altering perceptions of the presidential candidates.  (And that may actually be true of Edwards and Huckabee too...)

I don't really know where to take this -- but it seemed worth a mention...

---

by: NYSusan @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:15:41 PM UTC

This IS An Interesting Thing (4.00 / 1)

And, in fact, I've puzzled over it myself.  Romney actually was more of a help than you remember, but there's still the largely negative effect of eveyone but Edwards on the Dem side to consider.

It may be that they don't fully trust Obama--a sensible reaction to someone so new on the scene--and if he were to choose a VP who's got nothing to recommend them (in the eyes of the voter who's never heard of them before), then this would signal that his judgment maybe isn't that good.

This is sheer speculation on my part, however. It is certainly consistent with the notion that choosing a VP is the most important decision a presidential nominee makes (reason #357,938 that no one in their right mind should have voted for Bush in 2000).  But simply being consistent with a sound idea still doesn't really prove anything.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:47:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As of now, I'm all for Edwards (4.00 / 1)

This could change by the convention depending on world events, but right now it is clear to me that Edwards is the clear choice.  Talk of this polling being only name recognition seems a bit off base.  What do we think national elections are?  In my opinion, for average voters it is about name recognition to start with anyway.  I heard something in the last ten days that proves the point.  I can't provide a source for this, because I just can't remember where I heard it, sorry.  Anyhoo, the report said that even when low information voters were given 4 or 5 hours to research the candidates, most of them ended up choosing their original candidate.  Based on this it would seem that if Edwards has this much affect on the election now, it is likely he will have nearly the same affect in November.

I would agree that it would be nice if SUSA put some better names (Clinton) with these polls to provide a better baseline to judge Edwards.      

---

by: zelt @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:16:33 PM UTC

My take (0.00 / 0)

I believe these polls give an accurate take of the relative differences between the VP choices, but exaggerate the the raw numbers.  Obviously, the only people who might change their stated support between Obama and McCain are those still largely undecided.  What ultimately gets them to go one direction or another could end up being most anything.  This poll, by its very nature, makes the responder focus on the VP choice and use that as the tie breaker; but they may or may not be focused on VP choices when they reach the voting booth.

So this is still good evidence to support Edwards for VP, but one should be careful to take the final numbers too seriously.

In the long run it isn't going to be the people's view of the VP that will determine who they vote for, but of Obama and McCain.  So theoretically, you want someone that does one of two things (preferably both): improves ones opinion of the main supported candidate or increases the negatives of the main opposing candidate.  The first leads to the re-enforcing VP theory that has been largely discussed on this site and the second leads to the "attack dog" theory, where the VP is given a large stage to attack the opposing candidate.

For this reason I give much more pro-Edwards weight to Paul's previous posts that show what a strong, reinforcing choice Edwards would make for Obama then I do these poll numbers.  But clearly, you'd rather have good poll numbers like these than not.

I still prefer Wes Clark over Edwards because I prefer a reinforcing strategy based on foreign policy instead of one based on domestic policy.  Instead of an election where the electorate assumes McCain is better on foreign policy and Obama on domestic, and then is forced to choose which they think is more important, I'd rather win the foreign policy debate outright.  We already dominate on the domestic side.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Sat Jun 21, 2008 at 21:57:11 PM UTC

Actually, Mark (4.00 / 1)

I think that Obama's intentionally starting to go after McCain on foreign policy, and I was even going to write a diary about this, before the whole FISA blowup.

Bottom line, I still think it's quite possible that Obama can demolish McCain on foreign policy.  The guy really is clueless. It's an Emperor's New Clothes situation, and all Obama has to do is keep saying, "Clothes?  What clothes?" over and over again, long enough, and the people will be with him.

He's started doing this by repeatedly insisting that the people criticizing him are the ones who deliberately dropped the ball on going after bin Laden, and chose to invade Iraq instead.  If John Kerry had just stuck with saying that same thing over and over again, he would be running for re-eleciton right now.  I think that Obama is smart enough to realize that, and I think he is capable of hammering that point home over and over and over again, until McCain's "credibility" on foreign policy lies in ruins, at it should be.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 02:54:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think the most compelling numbers... (4.00 / 2)

come from Minnesota when their governor Pawlenty is McCain's VP.  You go from a baseline of Obama beating McCain 47%-42% to where Obama is LOSING to the McCain/Pawlenty ticket... unless Edwards is Obama's VP.

What's amazing is the double-digit swing Pawlenty has against other matchups.  However, the Obama/Edwards ticket manages to not even bleed any support, but gain two points, to make it 49%-42%.  Think about that, to take the governor of the state, who would otherwise give McCain a ten point swing at least, still ends up losing ground to an Obama/Edwards ticket.

And with Pawlenty having just survived a tough re-election fight two years ago, you can't tell me he doesn't have high name recognition in his own state.  So here you have two VP candidates who have both campaigned in the state.  Edwards still provides a boost against the hometown candidate.

---

by: BruinKid @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:45:34 AM UTC

Thanks For The FOCUS! FOCUS! FOCUS! (4.00 / 2)

I sometimes get so wrapped up in arguing that folks are cherry-picking and ignoring the big picture that I forget to lock on to compelling exmples like this.  I think I may have mentioned it once in passing, but I'm positive I didn't put any real weight on it, and you're absolutely right.

It's an even stronger case study than PA or KS.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:17:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Branding vs. Name Recognition (4.00 / 2)

Nice work on breaking down the data, Paul. I am a fan of polls and an even bigger fan of votes.  I don't trust pundits who presume to know who Obama should pick or how he should campaign.  Anyone can spout their opinion and be considered an expert. The idea that Obama needs a military person as his VP is just that -- an idea.  There is no evidence that adding a military man to the ticket would bring more votes into Obama's column.  

I think some people have confused Brand recognition with Name recognition. (Yes, I work in marketing). Brand recognition includes not just knowing what a product's name is or what it does but it also inspires emotion and feeling. Think of the difference between "car", "Volvo" and "Lexus" - a vehicle for transport, a "safe" car, a "luxurious" car. We can apply this to talk show host, Jerry Springer, Oprah or color, yellow, gold. Each word, each idea elicits feelings around it. And the deeper the brand recognition, the more loyal the consumer.  Also, brands build over time and change over time, so it's a bit tricky to refer back to 2004 as a mark against Edwards as his brand as evolved over four years and as more and more people have (sadly) came to see the truth of the "two Americas". It's fair to assume that the power of the Edwards' brand would only increase from now until November.

Anyway, obviously any Obama VP pick would instantly gain increased name recognition.  It is very unlikely, however, that they would be able to generate as popular a "brand" as John Edwards in such a short time (now until November). Companies spend millions of dollars trying to brand products or talent.  And one incident (like Tom Cruise couch-jumping) can undo years or decades of branding. This is also why possible VP picks go through rather intrusive vetting processes. I can't say how Webb, Clark, Sebelius, etc. would do in the vetting process. I can say that Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards survived Gore's vetting and Edwards, Harkin, Gephardt and Vilsak survived Kerry's vetting. So to the extent that we can assume a VP pick is "safe" and won't engage in the VP equivalent of a couch-jumping incident, we can say that about Edwards, who has survived being vetted twice. As for Clinton, Obama has to weigh her positives (her brand as a feminist icon, a fighter, and a friend to Latinos and Jews) versus her negatives (her brand as a sometime liar, her husband's shady business dealings, her high negatives among conservatives).  I wish SUSA had polled Clinton because I think we all want to know if Clinton is a plus or a minus. And remember - Obama has the biggest and best brand in politics. Edwards' brand easily fuses with Obama while Clinton's may not. Other pols who would seem to fit nicely with Obama's brand are Feingold, Dodd and Warner. And even though it would bother many Democrats, I can also see Obama picking Bloomberg or Hagel to fully establish a "post-partisan brand."

It is absolutely possible that Obama could pick someone who is able to create their own brand and help Obama more than John Edwards.  It's also possible that George W. Bush might have a change of heart and pull out of Iraq.  Sure, many things are possible.  But is it likely? Is it probable? Is it worth the gamble, especially when the pick in question is a solid progressive Democrat? It seems unwise to take the risk. If we fail in November, we don't get a do-over.

---

by: Blue November @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:27:15 AM UTC

Thanks For Saying This Just Right! (4.00 / 1)

Your whole comment really nails it, but the core for me is precisely what you announced in your subject line--and I intend to steal it!

I've actually tried to say it numerous times before, but you have the language I've been groping for, and didn't even realize it.

I've tried to say things like, "It's more than recognition, it's trust."   Which I think is true--but I realize that it can sound like special pleading.  Putting it in terms of brand recognition vs. name recognition highlights the fact that I'm not saying Edwards has a magic elixer.  He has something that hundreds and hundreds of brands have established over the years.  It's a comprehensible phenomena, not something you just have to take my word on.

Now that you've said your piece, all this is obvious to me.

Duh!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:13:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You can steal the whole thing Paul (0.00 / 0)

Actually McCain is living off of his brand as a "Maverick" even though we all know that he's know become Bush's doppleganger.  

---

by: Blue November @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 17:59:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, But... (0.00 / 0)

In cyberspace, everyone can see you steal.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 18:10:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You should recreate this as a diary on Mydd and Daily Kos (4.00 / 1)

The fact is this is the core issue not just with regard to Edwards (I also tried to grope to get to that point above with the primary) but also with regard to people understanding why negative branding of the GOP works to create a gift that keeps giving , and working to build the Democratic brand does the same thing. That it's not just hearing the name- it's the branding of what that name means- or the good will that's built up. People used to give the GOP and emotional pass not just because of the media but because of perception of teh brand that hte GOP traded off of for  3 decades- for example "fiscal restraint" although they never were fiscally responsible.

---

by: bruhrabbit @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 17:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Utah poll (KSL News) (4.00 / 1)

A separate poll in Utah shows that when asked about VP choices they like Obama/Edwards best however, and it doesn't say how it is matched up, McCain is ahead 57 to 29%. (7% undecided) I think this polling is without a VP.

The VP breakdown was
Edwards 26%
Richardson 16%
Clinton 12%

They also asked if they would vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket and 48% said they would be less likely to vote for the ticket while 28% said no difference.

Romney was the overwhelming choice as VP for McCain. Huckabee in a distant second.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&si...

In other news...

Edwards (representing Obama) and Thompson (representing McCain) were at a "party" for the newly named Manufacturer & Business Association in Erie, PA where they participated in a debate with, ick, Ari Flesher as the mediator. The largely leaning McCain crowd was energized and enthused by Edwards, in particular, but not surprisingly voted for McCain over Obama in the end.

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbc...

Edwards has been making the rounds lately (Spain, India) and what is the deal with Fred Thompson? Please tell me he isn't a consideration on the VP side? But I'd pay money to see a debate between Edwards and grampa Fred. No, really.

As to the content of this diary I would love to see Edwards as VP. The branding argument makes perfect sense and it extends to Elizabeth as well. If they don't love John the love Elizabeth and while she isn't on the ticket people connect with her and when talking about branding Elizabeth is pure gold.  

---

by: RedJet @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 15:35:37 PM UTC

Elizabeth proves that real value is the Best Branding (4.00 / 1)

Elizabeth Edwards is the real deal and people can see that.  Of course, as a wife, she can afford to be very honest in a way that her spouse and other politicians cannot.  I do wonder if a politician can be as honest and open as Elizabeth Edwards and still be successful.  

---

by: Blue November @ Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 18:04:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]