Obama-Edwards Landslide--In Maps And Stuff

by: Paul Rosenberg

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 18:45


If you thought that Chris's July 7th Map of the race looked good:

Electoral College: Obama 293, McCain 194, Toss-up 51
National popular vote: Obama 48.3%-43.8% McCain

(Dark Blue (207): Obama +9.0% or more
Lean Blue (86): Obama +3.0%-+8.9%
White / Toss-up (51): Obama +2.9% to McCain +2.9%
Lean Red (104): McCain +3.0%-+8.9%
Dark Red (90): McCain +9.0% or more)

with "solid" Obama better than 2-1 over "solid" McCain (207-90), then....

How about factoring in John Edwards as VP, with his worst showings against McCain from the SUSA polls (using his average worst in states not polled):

Electoral College: Obama 309, McCain 145, Toss-up 84
National popular vote: Obama 49.9%-42.2% McCain

That's Obama better than 3-1 in "solid" category: 245-79!

Michigan solid, Montana leaning, both Carolinas, Indiana, Missouri and Alaska tossups...

Better yet, how about factoring in John Edwards as VP, with his average showings against McCain (using the average of his average in states not polled):

Electoral College: Obama 344, McCain 90, Toss-up 104
National popular vote: Obama 51.1%-40.0% McCain

Now it's better than 5-1 among "solid" states: 286-52!  That's five to one!

Also with Florida, Virginia, Montana, North Dakota and Nevada leaning, and Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, Missouri,  Indiana and Alaska as tossups.

More stuff on the flip...

Paul Rosenberg :: Obama-Edwards Landslide--In Maps And Stuff
Tables Behind The Maps

There's basically just one table behind the maps above, but for easy grasping, you can look at it 6 ways: alphabetical or by margin within categories, and the catetgories reflecting each of the three maps.  So here goes:

Head-To-Head Categories




Edwards Minimum Categories




Edwards Average Categories




Edwards Overview vs. Other VP Showings

First off, here's a chart showing Edwards strength in 12 states where two rounds of SUSA polling have been conducted.  Three new states were added to the second round of polling last week, with more of the same results.  To wit, Virginia natives Webb and Kaine proved inferior to Edwards against a weaker field in their home state (details below), as part of the ongoing pattern already seen:

Here are the underlying figures behind the chart:

Edwards vs. Other VP Showings--Three New States: VA, NY, MA

Virginia

Virginia is the big news, as it definitively shows that Edwards does significantly better than insider favorite Virginians Kaine and Webb in their home stomping grounds:

Here's the underlying data table:

New York

In New York, Bloomberg proves a big help... to McCain.  For Obama?  Not so much....

McCaskill, Webb, even Biden are disasters, again a sharp contrast to Edwards to helps everywhere.  Sure it would change if one of them was nominated and put on the ticket--but how much and how soon?  And look at Webb dropping 5 points to Jindhal.  Looks like his dropping out was yet another sign that he really is smarter than your average pundit.


Massachusettes

And Massaschusewttes tells us that New York was not a total fluke in terms of some of those underwhelming numbers.



Caveat

But, I dunno.  I sorta like Christine Lahti.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Required protest (4.00 / 1)
yada yada yada, I've said it before.

But wtf, those maps looks so good, if we're going to roll the dice, might as well role loaded dice.


If You Thnk THOSE Maps Look Good (4.00 / 10)
you should see the ones with the dayglo colors about 90 minutes after eating some shrooms.  I don't care what anyone says about the 60s!  (Say, is this thing on?)

"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

[ Parent ]
I haven't been keeping up.... (0.00 / 0)
Is the required protest that Edwards has much more name recognition?

Anyway I would be fine with Edwards as a VP but if I were a better man (which I am) I would bet against it happening.  

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


[ Parent ]
Thinking and polling (0.00 / 0)
While there are a lot of specifics people suggest, they all boil down to one basic concept: there is a fundamental difference between polling for opinions people already have versus asking them to think on the phone.  Because these polls ask people to think on the phone about something they haven't contemplated before, there are a large number of reasons they might give a different opinion then the one they arrive at over time.

[ Parent ]
But Isn't That What You WANT To Measure? (4.00 / 3)
We're not talking rocket science here.  Polsters ask folks their opinions about politicians all the time.  Not just who would you vote for, but do you approve/disapprove, would you vote to re-elect, do you trust X on issue Y more or less than Z--in short, this is not a wierd or novel exercise.  And I continue to be confounded by the lengths that people go to in order to ignore what we do know--especially we of the "reality-based community."

So let me be perfectly clear: these polls show quite conclusively that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a prohibitive favorite in the November elections. With the sort of leads they have--up FIVE TO ONE in SOLID states--the odds would be very high that (1) downticket races would be strongly affected and (2) McCain would suffer a major meltdown at some point, and his support would collapse even further.  The 51.1-40 margin in the third case would probably widen to something close to 60-40. (3) Which wouled reimpact (1) all over again.

Does this mean that a relative unknown (nationally) could not emerge as a strong VP candidate? No, of course not.  But they don't give us this strong advantage now.

Does this mean that no other Dem (Clinton, Gore, Dean, maybe Clark) could do as well?  No, it does not.  We have a small bit of data on this, but not enough to say anything for certain.  But we do know two things:

(1) We don't need any of these other figures in order to win in a landslide.  Edwards can do that for us.

(2) There are considerable other doubts about them.  Clinton has very high negatives, and is likely to help energy McSame's base in a way that he is incapable of doing himself.  This is far from certain, of course.  But it is a distinct possibility.  A "non-zero risk" as they say in the trade.  Gore simply doesn't seem interested.  He's already done that, remember?  Dean has been relatively low profile for some time, and is not very likely to have similar polling strength.

So, that's where I end up: What more do you want, and why?

"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


[ Parent ]
I really don't want to get into this again, but... (0.00 / 0)
these polls show quite conclusively that an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a prohibitive favorite in the November elections

These polls are consistent with this ticket would be a prohibitive favorite.  Polls that showed Obama/Edwards doing poorly would counter that notion.  So I agree this is good evidence.

What I disagree is that the final numbers with Obama/Edwards versus McCain/X have the same value as numbers just pitting Obama versus McCain.

Polls show us a snap shot in time, that is all.  When someone is asked a question when they already have an opinion, you get an accurate recording of what they think and how they would behave if the vote that day.

When someone is asked a question they have never thought of before, you are asking for an instant analysis.  The various facts, feelings and thoughts that go into that answer may or may not correlate well to how someone will come to an answer over a longer period of time.

One expects there will be some correlation, of course, but how much isn't known.

You are right, this isn't rocket science.


[ Parent ]
That's why SUSA is so respected (4.00 / 1)
The do robo-calling so people are honest.  If they are polled in person, a white voter might feel embarrassed about admitting he's a McCain voter to a black pollster, for example. If this were Gallup or Zogby, I wouldn't put as much stock in this polling but SUSA is in a class by itself.  

[ Parent ]
Better? (0.00 / 0)
Was that a joke that you said "better" instead of "betting"?
Sometimes the snark is lost on me.

[ Parent ]
its a typo not a joke :( n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
But don't New Yorkers know who Bloomberg is? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't Biden pretty famous? And don't Pennsylvanians know who Rendell is? Don't people in Minnesota know who Pawlenty is?  I don't understand why "name recognition" applies to Edwards but not to anyone else.  Is Edwards the only politician people have ever heard about?  I think that argument is pretty silly, especially when you compare Edwards to politicians in their own states.

As I posted before, the thing about Edwards is not name recognition, it's BRAND recognition. (I'm in marketing so I'm biased to think a certain way but I stand by my analysis). A good brand is very difficult to build.  The fact that Edwards already has a good brand and one that complements Obama, makes him an especially appealing choice.  


[ Parent ]
I doubt it. (0.00 / 0)
Actually if you look at winning margins Edwards isn't outperforming the other candidates as much as Paul is making it seem. The more known candidates Biden, Webb and Bloomberg actually keep up pretty well with Edwards outside Virginia. As all of them have a hugely different profile that shows that for the largest part it is name recognition, and not brand recognition that makes the difference. Now Edwards still is the best on average but as his lead is mainly based on his numbers in Virgina I wonder how much of the difference is based on brand and not on other considerations.

VP specific average winning margins

in Virgina
Edwards:   13%
Bloomberg:  2%
Webb        4%
Biden:      *
McCaskill   0%
Rendell    -2%
Sebelius   -2%
Hagel      -3%

in New York:
Edwards:   16%
Bloomberg: 20%
Webb       13%
Biden:     12%
McCaskill  11%
Rendell     4%
Sebelius    4%
Hagel       3%

Massachusetts
Edwards:   14%
Bloomberg: 13%
Webb:      10%
Biden:     13%
McCaskill:  8%
Rendell     5%
Sebelius    5%
Hagel       3%


[ Parent ]
You're Comparing Apples And Oranges (4.00 / 1)
For example, you claim:

in New York:
Edwards:   16%
Bloomberg: 20%

But that 20% for Bloomberg was identical to the 20% margin Obama had head-to-head with McCain in the second round, while the 16% for Edwards was SIX POINTS above the 10% margin had against McCain in the first round.

So the reality is that Edwards helps Obama by 6 points, and Bloomberg helps him not at all, but you're presenting it as if Bloomberg helps Obama by 4 points more than Edwards.

So, um, little problem, no?

And that's not even considering the strong field that Edwards was matched against, compared to the no-names Bloomberg faced.

"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


[ Parent ]
Not at all. You forget the different baseline (0.00 / 0)
But first Your argument about the VP choices; seeing that the strong field you keep trumpeting consist of the worst candidates the republican party ever fielded and that were sounded rejected by the republicans and ridiculed by everybody else I'm not that impressed by them. Especially as none of them have any significant consistent effect on the ticket. Out of the candidates asked in both rounds there only seems to be a single candidate that be considered to have any effect on the McCain ticket. But seeing that is Bloomberg himself only the other candidates suffer from that.

If they were strong candidates you'd find that back in the data. But you look at the data it's clear that both Edwards and Bloomberg face a bunch of ineffectual overrated nobodies.

As for Edwards helping Obama more then Bloomberg, true. But that's were both the higher baseline of Obama comes into play, and the law of demising returns. How much if any of that 6% bump remains if the baseline was 10% higher?

While Bloomberg doesn't give a bump to Obama he does create more undecideds.

So we've got a slightly better winning percentage with more undecideds on the one hand and a bump of which we don't know how much of that will actually transfer. As I said elsewhere Edwards still seems to be a strong asset. But your insistence on only comparing at the bump he gives and ignoring the overall percentages and other things that are not as favorable to him makes this a rather flawed analysis.

I'm not against Edwards, I do have my doubts, but I also have my doubts about my own preferred candidate. I'm not here to argue for or against anybody. I just disagree with the way you constructed your case as I believe that it leaves out half the story.


[ Parent ]
As Wolfgang Pauli Would Say, You Are "Not Even Wrong" (0.00 / 0)
what's wrong, after all, can at least be corrected.

But you've proven yourself quite immune to that.

I hear MTP has an opening. You should go for it.  You're perfectly qualified!

"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


[ Parent ]
Yes Bloomberg is well known. (0.00 / 0)
Actually the other people are more an example of name ID since none of them a) ran for a significant period of time or b) known that well. Edwards is known because of his length of time running. The only other real candidate with this claim is Clinton. One could not claim her name is just name ID either. Those are to my mind the only two people who fit your theory.  

[ Parent ]
Have they begun to include other names (4.00 / 4)
such as Clinton? First, I agree that edwards would help a lot. Second, I think they need to include others in there to deflect from the "but doesn't prove wha tyou think it does" brigade. Third, I don't think this is bout mandates. I am cynical. I think they would rather barely win without progressives than to win with us. The interests involved are to me showed their hand with FISA. There is nothing in terms of the numbers that would suggest why Obama would want to do what he has done on the issue other than what Bowers wrote (namely to win the media primary).

I Don't Think They Want Us, Either (4.00 / 5)
But these maps make it pretty damn clear the lengths they'd be willing to go in walking away from us.

No?

"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


[ Parent ]
Unless (4.00 / 2)
and I offer this under the cover of "I don't know what I'm talking about", Obama brings in a solid Progressive like Edwards to warm the liberals hearts while he embraces his more uh, centrist position thereby having the proverbial cake and eating it too.

I think it will be hard for the Obama team to walk away from these numbers but I too feel that it won't be Edwards although I really would be very happy to be wrong.


[ Parent ]
Only I wish (0.00 / 0)
That most of you would have been as enthusiastic about his presidential candidacy rather than what occurred.  As Edwards said though, Obama energized many of you who are younger to be involved as activists who otherwise would be cynical.

Edwards did say he would do anything Obama asked of him to serve his country on NPR today, but he said that it would be presumptuous for him (or anyone who could be) to be asked for that role.  In other words, it's still a vetting process and too early.  


Hey I only took off (4.00 / 6)
my "Edwards '08/For a Country that Works" bumpersticker a few weeks ago.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
You're not in the majority (4.00 / 2)
You're in the minority with me..

[ Parent ]
I liked Edwards but I liked Obama better... (0.00 / 0)
of course I am one of those "millennial" you keep hearing about.

I believe most of it had to do with the fact that I had already seen Edwards before in 2004, and that Obama represented something that was truly NEW (better? we don't yet know).

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


[ Parent ]
I still have my (4.00 / 1)
oval 'e' sticker which would look cool with my new round 'O' sticker.
Oe! BOje! Oe08!  

[ Parent ]
awww... my oval E! (4.00 / 1)
blush.

I have that one too and the Edwards door magnets which are way cool. :)

Should there be an Obama/Edwards ticket I'll be heading back to the design board. I won't be able to help myself.


[ Parent ]
makestickers.com, man! (0.00 / 0)
The first amendment never had it so good.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Sweet map, Paul. (0.00 / 0)
But #@#$%& my beloved Tennessee.

Montani semper liberi

If Clinton or Sam Nunn were polling this well (4.00 / 4)
we'd never hear the end of it from the corporate media. This is why Obama won't pick Edwards, imo - the corporate media are strongly opposed, and he will cave to them per usual.

And THEN We'll Be Told How Much Shit We Have To Eat (4.00 / 4)
because the election is soooo close.

Yeah, I do know the drill.

"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


[ Parent ]
So if Obama doesn't chose your favorite candidate then... (0.00 / 0)
that is another example of the "kool-aid drinking Obama loyalist" telling you to eat shit?

Come on Paul you are too smart to be making this argument. Or to even be making a comment that implies anything like this. There are other good candidates besides Edwards. Maybe you don't know them personally, but that doesn't make Obama a Republican for choosing them.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


[ Parent ]
He's Not My Favorite Candidate, And That's Not My Argument (4.00 / 1)
He's the strongest candidate we have polling info on, by a substantial margin, and that margin produces an electoral landslide.  There are other candidates I would find acceptable, or even prefer in some ways, but the evidence for their electoral effectiveness is not there, so I am not writing about them.  (Bernie Sanders, anyone? Tammy Baldwin? Barbara Lee?)

What I was referring to re "how much shit we have to eat" is simply what Melissa was writing about in her guest front-page post, and the long history of Democrats running to the right ever since 1972, with almost consistently bad results--even when we did win, the governance that followed was hardly progressive.

"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


[ Parent ]
Well I'm sure Obama's choice will in some way be influenced by polling. (0.00 / 0)
Whether it be internal polls or focus groups or whatever, Obama will choose the candidate he thinks will help him win.

Personally, I hope he does choose Edwards. If for no other reason  than to stop Paul from bitching. If not Edwards then I hope he chooses someone at least who is a dedicated progressive like Edwards, and I will be disappointed if he doesn't.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


[ Parent ]
one of the reasons why its also hard to get them (4.00 / 3)
not to turn right in the GE and governing is that so many people are willing to just go "oh, well, that's what happens in the GE and in governing." I m glad people like Paul bitch because if it were up to some all we would do is sit around saying "thank you for peeing on my leg and telling me its sunshine"

[ Parent ]
What Different Cultures We Come From! (4.00 / 1)
Where I come from it's "pissing on my leg and telling me it's rain."

I'm afraid we'll just never understand one another....

Altough, wait... "raining liquid sunshine" perhaps?

I know it's a bit clumsy and inartful, but we all have to compromise, you know.  If we can agree on that, I'm sure we can work out our differences on peeing vs. pissing.

"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


[ Parent ]
Edwards Polls Through Roof w/ Indeps and Repubs (0.00 / 0)
Having volunteered for John Edwards this past year, I can tell you he is very popular with not only Dems (he won the lion's share of Dem club endorsements in the Bay Area here in CA), but he is also very popular with Independents and Republicans because of his progressive/populist/reformist agenda...He is recognized as an advocate for us "little guys."

Rasmussen had him leading in general electability most of '07.


[ Parent ]
the ol' "yes, but..." (4.00 / 3)
I've said before and I'll say it again: I think Edwards would be an excellent choice for VP - message/image reinforcing (change, youth, handsomeness) and identity balancing (Southern, white, working-class) all at once. And those poll numbers certainly don't hurt the case for him any.

That said, these numbers have got to be an overstatement of the effect he would have on the ticket. First, why would people care so much about the VP to swing the balance of the election this much? It's prime facie almost implausible. Second, he's really the only person in those poll questions with widespread name ID. That by itself surely counts for much of his advantage. Third, the way these poll questions are framed, I think, tends to prime a certain response. I.e., a voter who is lukewarm about Obama might think, well, with that other famous and not unlikable politician on the ticket, this puts me over the top: I support Obama/Edwards. (I think you saw a similar sort of priming towards the end of the primary process, when Obama seemed to suffer in polls against McCain when Hillary was also listed as a choice, presumably because Clinton supporters were primed, by this framing, to choose against Obama.) (The priming might work for any well-known figure, but not all those other VP choices on the SUSA list, who no one's ever heard of. And also not for HRC, who many many people dislike.)

Yeah, so. In so far as a VP choice makes a difference (not a lot,  but not not at all, either) Edwards would be good. But not that good.


I Don't Believe The Numbers Because I Don't Believe The Numbers (4.00 / 3)
Now, I'm sure I can find a good talking point or three here.

What about his hair?

"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


[ Parent ]
Your cynicism is astounding sometimes, Paul... (4.00 / 2)
there's a legitimate question here, about why the numbers are so far off the chart, and I've persisted in asking why we can't get a head to head match up with Edwards and other big name-ers.  Say like, Edwards, Clinton, Clark, Bloomberg, Powell?  Let's have a poll like that. In fact - can't we get a poll like that, since this community is so aligned with DKOS, and they have their own poll?

Your point before about the Edwards brand is dead on, but what we're seeing is a bunch of polls of generics, against a pretty dominant brand.  I want to see a war of brands. (Actually - the Bloomberg numbers are key - Bloomberg represents the kind of republican New Yorkers appreciate - and so it stands to reason that he does well on a McCain ticket and not so well on an Obama ticket.  But - that's the kind of brand information I'd like to see tested against the Edwards brand.)

And, for the record - I still like Edwards for AG.  But I wouldn't be unhappy with him as VP.  

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
He Doesn't Believe Numbers, And I'M Cynical??? (4.00 / 1)
That's a new one on me, I have to say.

Look, I'd love to have tons more data, including the sort that you're asking for.  But why ask me for it?

I'm doing the best I can with the data we've got.  And there's all these folks yammering about how they want their pony.

Sorry, no pony.  Just the best analysis I can muster of the data before us.  And the data before us tells us plenty.  But people who don't want to talk about the data we've got have an intense desire to talk about ponies.

Fine.  It's a free country. (Ha!)  Just don't expect me to get sucked into that particular data-free zone.

There is one SUSA poll that tests Clinton, but it was a real anomaly--they tested all sorts of Dems as VP against McCain/Romney in Michigan in late May. And Edwards once again did best, and in fact was the only one who helped Obama--gaining one point vs. McCain/Romney over McCain vs. Obama.  Clinton and Gore both lost one point compared to McCain vs. Obama.  Everyone else got creamed.  

So, this does indicate some possible parity between Clinton and Edwards.  But, of course, Clinton had been on the ballot in Michigan earlier this year when no one else had.  So this was a relatively advantageous state for her--and she still came up 2 points shy.  That's probably close to her upper limit, but of course we can't tell for sure.  Still, it's telling that it doesn't show her with any significant strength vs. Edwards.

And since Edwards has already demonstrated such strength in so many states... are you starting to see why the ponies will have to wait here?

"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


[ Parent ]
Serious question (4.00 / 4)
what do you want Paul to do about your question? Everyone agrees we need to see more, but the value of other potential candidtes doesn't refute the value of Edwards. You and other keep raising these points in opposition, but that's an illogical argument since the point you raise isn't a negation of Paul's point.

[ Parent ]
Nothing! (0.00 / 0)
I just want Paul to give folks a break for expressing skepticism!

And - btw - what words did I use to express anything in opposition? I've offered absolutely no opposition!

Absence of data is its own red flag. I'm finding it bizarre that there aren't numbers yet with an Obama/Clinton matchup (and I wrote to SUSA directly requesting it!).  Not because I want to see Clinton on the ticket (I don't) but because I'd like a fair comparison.  Apples to apples, and all that.  I'm really complaining about the pollsters - and defending others who are making a similar complaint. ;)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
You contradict yourself even in your post to me (0.00 / 0)
First you say "what words did you use" then go on to talk about skepticism about what Paul is saying and then continue with Absence of data is its own red flag.  Red flag for what? How does that red flag what paul is saying? It's not a logically constructed argument. You say you aren't looking to refute Paul's argument, but it seems you are. Above you will note that I say that we do need more data simply to have an idea about others, but I don't construct that evidence as some how refuting Paul's argument or even implying it as you do. Whether you realize it or not- that's the purpose that people keep bringing it up and that's how you are using it even if it's not intentional.

Even if you had the data it wouldn't refute what Paul has posted. It would be data for proving others could also prove useful, but it wouldn't refute. Because it wouldn't refute, it's not very useful to constantly bring it up like "ah-ha, caught you Paul." I think part of the frustration with these sorts of comments is that they are distractions if you don't make clear what you mean by bringing them up. If you mean to say- we need to know more- say- we need to know more rather than it's a red flag or you are skeptical about Paul's argument.

Again, not being an asshole, but do you see my point?


[ Parent ]
I wish I was as popular as Paul (0.00 / 0)
and could post a "what does my post mean to you" front pager.

I started a much angrier post, but just now caught your "not being an a**hole" line, and am going to take you at your word on that.  Hang on for the point by point:

First you say "what words did you use" then go on to talk about skepticism about what Paul is saying and then continue with Absence of data is its own red flag.

Wrong.  But perhaps I can see how you see this as being critical of Paul, given my opening post, and then lack of detail in the follow up.  Once again - my criticism of Paul is for his snark at Chachy. That's what I'm reacting to when I accuse Paul of cynicism and that's what I'm reacting to when I point out that there are real questions (Chachy's questions).  The red flag raised for me is not from Paul, but from SUSA, who has an odd collection of VPs to poll about.  At the end, I'll backtrack and issue a caveat of my criticism even of them, but for now, I just want to make the point that I feel that the lack of polling of other big brands is its own red flag...

Red flag for what?

SUSAs objectivity in polling choices. NOT anything about what Paul is saying.

Above you will note that I say that we do need more data simply to have an idea about others, but I don't construct that evidence as some how refuting Paul's argument or even implying it as you do.

Generally speaking, I'm not implying anything.  I have a hard enough time being understood without implying stuff - I think no one would know what I was talking about if I started implying.  Henceforth, if you think I'm implying something, don't do that.  Assume I mean just exactly what I said, and if it doesn't make sense, feel free to ask questions.

To your larger point - we agree, which is why I find it upsetting to be arguing with you again. :(  We need more data - and Chachy's point was - the numbers are so off the charts that they all by themselves raise skepticism.  I think its a fair point - it looks too good to be true, and when you look harder - you realize that SUSA is testing big brands against weaker ones.  MAYBE that's intentional. Maybe the goal is to put one big name in a sea of little ones to get a good read of what the effect of that candidate really is.  I don't think so - Bloomberg is a big brand (or maybe I just think so as a New Yorker?), and he's tested against Edwards...  And testing Bloomberg as a brand yielded really good information.  Which begs the question.  Why isn't SUSA testing some of the more obvious choices?  


Whether you realize it or not- that's the purpose that people keep bringing it up and that's how you are using it even if it's not intentional.

I read this paragraph twice to try to understand your meaning.  Are you saying that people bring it up to discredit Paul and then I unwittingly also discredit Paul by continuing the discourse? If so, I don't agree.  I haven't said anything at all against Paul, other than a chide of cynicism (and I stand by it - Paul's post was really snarky and as such, made me feel that he was impuning poor motive to Chachy - else, why the snark?) But - standing up for someone else doesn't make my opinion theirs.

Even if you had the data it wouldn't refute what Paul has posted. It would be data for proving others could also prove useful, but it wouldn't refute.

Well, actually, I disagree somewhat here as well.  First though let me agree where I can.  Edwards numbers won't change because we get someone else's numbers.  Edwards numbers are fantastic.  That won't change.  BUT - the overall picture presented by the data is that ONLY Edwards is useful in the VP slot.  Everyone else either causes harm or doesn't help.  And, while it is true that we KNOW objectively that we aren't testing everyone - the impression overall is that this sample will extend beyond even to vp candidates not represented.  Again - that's why I'm viewing SUSA with some suspicion.  As I said - I actually wrote to them asking them to test Clinton - that's such a no-brainer I can't understand why they aren't doing it.  But apparently, they aren't.  

Because it wouldn't refute, it's not very useful to constantly bring it up like "ah-ha, caught you Paul." I think part of the frustration with these sorts of comments is that they are distractions if you don't make clear what you mean by bringing them up. If you mean to say- we need to know more- say- we need to know more rather than it's a red flag or you are skeptical about Paul's argument.

OK.  Following our pattern of discourse, I believe that my prior paragraph will now be misunderstood as still meaning I'm skeptical of Paul's argument. So, to prevent that, let me say again: I'm not saying anything at all about Paul's argument.  Paul's argument is based on the data available. It's pretty exciting - especially with Edwards saying he'd serve if Obama asked him.  The skepticism I'm expressing is exactly the skepticism you express. I think we need more data. Or, at least, need to be very upfront about the limits of the data we've got..  Maybe even shout it to the mountaintop.  Cuz otherwise, we get opinions like the one Paul expresses - a pre-emptively anti-Obama opinion - that failure to choose Edwards is a slap in the face to progressives. (I.e., if Clinton or Nunn were polling this well, etc.)

*****************

OK, now for the backpedal.  SUSA may be avoiding polling for Clinton because she's too big a name and the data is too tainted due to the primaries. And if she were getting these kinds of numbers, the pressure to put her on the ticket would be almost unbearable.  Just as Edwards partisans here are planning to hold it against Obama if he chooses anyone but Edwards (barring a surprising and really progressive choice, I assume), Clinton fans would hold it against Obama if he chose anyone but her - and there are a lot more of them then there are Edwards fans. In this regard - and assuming that Clinton's numbers would hold their own against Edwards - maybe I'm glad we don't have them.

In general, and I believe I said this last time, I'm against anything that paints Obama into a wall. He wants a candidate he can trust - and I want him to have that.  If that turns out to be Edwards, and Edwards has these numbers - OUTSTANDING! As the Doctor would say.  If that turns out to be someone else, even with numbers not as good as Edwards, I'm just going to hope he wins the election, and that will be good enough for me.

********************

LAST POINT!

I'm being pretty hard on Paul, and I feel bad about it. Mostly it's because I feel like Paul is being pretty hard on others.  But anyway, Paul, you've been kind to me since I've been here, so apologies for harping on the few sharp words you expressed here.  And double apologies if I'm misreading you - which is always a possibility.

Sincerely,
QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
Your prior writing wasn't very clear (0.00 / 0)
That's all I was saying.

You also seem to miss the point where I said that the reason why he's getting annoyed is that these arguments are repeat each time he posts no matter how many times he says pretty much several of the things you have said. Its like it doesn't matter that he says it or not. As I was trying to point out to you- I can see why that would make one frustrated. Finally, I am interested in working toward a progressive center rahter than any particular candidate. What I am looking for here is whether Obama is working toward progressism. Paul has also said this too. He's also said that it doesn't have to be Edwards so long as its a progressive and that progressive can do the same thing as Edwards. he's said this multiple times. Again, I can understand why he gets frustrated to read "but you didn' say x or y or z" when those things have been said.


[ Parent ]
By the way- on if you google paul's name (0.00 / 0)
or use his name to link to his various articles, you can see all of the provisos we are once again discussiing here. I guess the question becomes can he ever just make the argument without poiting out he knows the provisos. I don't get into all of your points. Some I disagree with, and some I don't.

[ Parent ]
QueenTiye, (0.00 / 0)
As bruhrabbit is trying to explain below, these questions have been "asked and answered" as the lawyers say, numerous times already.  But what exasperated me in this case was Cauchy writing:

That said, these numbers have got to be an overstatement of the effect he would have on the ticket. First, why would people care so much about the VP to swing the balance of the election this much? It's prime facie almost implausible.

What this says to me, quite simply, is "Don't bother talking to me."  Because if he can look right through hard data like it wasn't even there, then what could I possibly say that would make any difference?  It's simply a losing proposition.

Of course these swings are large.  That's indicative of how little many folks know about McCain and Obama.  But the swings are much smaller when we're talking about most other VP candidates (Bloomberg as McCain's VP in New York is the exception that proves the rule, the one candidate in one state who shows the same magnitude of impact that Edwards has shown in a number of other states.)  What this indicates--as Blue November says here, and has said before, is brand recognition, because Edwards is not just a name, he's a brand, he stands for something larger than himself.

If Cauchy had expressed bewilderment, and then said, "I don't understand this, can you offer an explanation?" then I would have been willing to repeat this explanation, which I and others have given various times before.

But insread, there was certainty and rejection.  "The evidence is too strong," he was saying, in effect. "If the evidence were less compelling, I might believe it."

At some point, you just have to say to yourself, "There's no point in having this conversatiion."  Particularly if you've had it 10 zillion times before.


"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


[ Parent ]
response (4.00 / 1)
But what exasperated me in this case was Cauchy writing:

   That said, these numbers have got to be an overstatement of the effect he would have on the ticket. First, why would people care so much about the VP to swing the balance of the election this much? It's prime facie almost implausible.

What this says to me, quite simply, is "Don't bother talking to me."  Because if he can look right through hard data like it wasn't even there, then what could I possibly say that would make any difference?  It's simply a losing proposition.

I mentioned the 'prime facie argument' first because it was simply, as I explicitly stated, a prima facie objection. The fact that the numbers swing so much when Edwards is mentioned is simply a ground to be skeptical - not a ground, in itself, to reject the data.  I thought that the way I phrased it made this clear.

Beyond that, my srgument was not indefeasible. Specifically, you could have given a reason for why the choice of Edwards as VP would matter so much to people. Maybe there is a good reason for this; I don't know. Please: offer reasons. That's the purpose of this sort of discourse.

As for this:


If Cauchy had expressed bewilderment, and then said, "I don't understand this, can you offer an explanation?" then I would have been willing to repeat this explanation, which I and others have given various times before.

I don't know, maybe it's my academic background, but I tend to view the statement of an argument as, in itself, an invitation for refutation. I guess from now on I will state, at the end of every post, a disclaimer that I might be wrong, and a request for countervailing evidence. I will make sure to maintain a "bewildered" tone in discussing any matters about which there may potentially be some doubt. And I expect to see the same in your posts, Paul.

And finally:


But insread, there was certainty and rejection.  "The evidence is too strong," he was saying, in effect. "If the evidence were less compelling, I might believe it."

I'm not sure what that's even supposed to mean. After all, I said twice in the course of my post that I thought Edwards would be a good choice for VP. I'm obviously more than open to the argument for him. My criticism wasn't that the evidence was too strong - it was that the evidence was too minimal. If multiple polls, using different methodologies, controlling for some of the "priming" factors I mentioned in my original comment, were to corroborate the SUSA data, then I will be the last person in the world to deny the sugnificance of that data - especially since I want Edwards to be chosen as VP.

That brings me to my final point: you wrote upthread, Paul, the following:

I'm doing the best I can with the data we've got.  And there's all these folks yammering about how they want their pony.

Sorry, no pony.  Just the best analysis I can muster of the data before us.  And the data before us tells us plenty.  But people who don't want to talk about the data we've got have an intense desire to talk about ponies.

The best resonse to limited data is not necessarily to afford that data 100% significance in our analysis. The most prudent thing may be to consider the data in light of other variables which that data may not fully reflect. Consider the approach Nate Silver takes at 538 with his polling analysis. He doesn't look at the one poll of Montana that shows Obama with a five point lead and conclude that the only reasonable analysis, given the dearth of data, is that Obama will win the state by 5 pts. He incorporates that polling result into a holistic analysis which includes a regression model that, ideally, corrects for some of the bad data. Well, consider my skepticism of the Edwards-as-VP polling results a sort of regression analysis - an effort to correct what I think may be a misrepresentation of voters' actual preferences. You may or may not agree with my skeptical postulates. But it is not reasonable to dismiss them outright on the grounds that they do not accept the data at hand - that is a case, in philosophical parlance, of begging the question. And it seems especially silly considering that I LIKE EDWARDS FOR VP. If your argument cannot abide a critical challenge from an ally, then you can hardly expect it to withstand the criticisms of those opposed to your view.


[ Parent ]
Fine You're More Intelligent Than You Seemed (0.00 / 0)
And you're not like the dozens of others who have said they really like Edwards, but 2+2=22, not 4.

Then please go back and read all my posts about Edwards as VP, wherein I explain the deeper logic, and provide the contextual arguments you desire.  These include Chris's arguments about building an expanded progressive coalition from December 2004, his arguments about reinforcing running mates, Edwards' superior head-to-head strength in 2007 polls, my elaboration of Blue November's argument about brand recognition vs, name recognition, and the analysis of how Edwards reduces the swing among Democrats vs. Independents, as well as the analysis of the first round of SUSA polls, before getting to this second round.

And yes, it includes examples of Edwards consistently doing well compared to favorite son & daughter candidates in different states, to answer your primng argument. Sebelius is the only one who isn't simply crushed by him, and that's in a very anomalous state that no one expects to be competitive.

Sorry to come off so grouchy, but I'm truly tired of fending off a never-ending flood of the same bad arguments made over and over and over again.  If you read my earlier posts (the Edwards and SUSA tags should get them all) you will find that everything you've brought up has been discussed and refuted before.

And then someone like Ernst comes along, who reminds me of some of the worst math students I ever tutored. And makes even worse arguments!

"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


[ Parent ]
And i'm sure you're not an asshole (0.00 / 0)
More helpful way to make the point: citing or linking to those other discussions which address similar concerns.

Less helpful way: snide comment which leads to grousing by various parties and a silly waste of time.

Anyways, Edwards for VP! Right, people? All right.


[ Parent ]
You're Overlook One Thing, My Friend (0.00 / 0)
Which is the initial impression you gave that numbers didn't matter to you.  If that was the case, then what was the point of arguing any further?  Either directly or by way of link after link?

Maybe I was wrong to draw that conclusion.  In my comment above I'm trying to get beyond that. But bruhrabbit, bless his ex-lawyerly heart, wants to keep the record straight, and he does a very good job in nailing down just why that conclusion was so easy to draw.  His last line says it all for me:

It's the conclusionary nature of your post that's the problem.

I'm quite willing to believe that that was not your intention.  I only ask that you realize that both bruhrabbit and I saw the same thing in it that made further argument seem pointless, and that something you wrote had some part in that.

Some part. Nothing more.



"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


[ Parent ]
Look we obviously started off on the wrong foot. (0.00 / 0)
Seriously.

All I wanted was to note that I thought that you were making a mistake in only looking at the bounce Edwards gave and not at the margin percentage which actually preceded that margin.

There simply is no way that bounce stays the same when Obama improves his margin with 10% due to the partisan layout of the voting populace. There simply would be an overlap between the people that Edwards would have converted back then and the people already converted by Obama now.

Second I felt that you were to quick in denouncing the second string again by over emphasizing the bounce as hardcoded instead of depended on swing voters and undecideds.

These are not controversial points. Instead of simply starting insulting people by telling them how stupid you think they are you might actually engage them with an open mind. Your conversation will probably be much pleasanter as a result.


[ Parent ]
Then You Should Have SAID That (0.00 / 0)
All I wanted was to note that I thought that you were making a mistake in only looking at the bounce Edwards gave and not at the margin percentage which actually preceded that margin.

In which case, I would have said, "That's a fair point, but it's unlikely to make much of a difference overall, since (1) 6 states showed an increased Obama margin and 6 states showed a decreased margin, and (2) the states that matter most in terms of his potential impacts are those where Obama's margin remains small or negative. Still it's worth looking at."

But, instead of saying that, you made absurd comparisons that entirely ignored how well Obama himself did face-to-face.

Moral: What you write matters a whole lot more than what you wanted to write.

"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


[ Parent ]
wait... (4.00 / 1)
I actually said this already, in my first comment even!

The one you immediately used to insult me...

It looks we didn't get off on the wrong foot, It looks like you're just an insulting Asshole. Pathetic.


[ Parent ]
This Is The Thanks I Get For Seeking Common Ground! (0.00 / 0)
Anyone who cares to look can see that you were making your bonehead comparisons from the very beginning.

Such as:

The weakness of your method is especially clear in New York, where you compare data from a month ago, were although the ticket Obama/Bloomberg wins with better margins over all then Obama/Edwards, you claim that Edwards is the better VP choice.

That's you comparing Bloomberg, who produces no change from Obama's showing, in his own home state, vs. no-names Jindal and Fiorina to Edwards who produces a bump of 2, 6, 6, and 10 points against Lieberman, Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty, respectively--and saying that Bloomberg is stronger!

A completely bogus comparison for a completely bogus claim.

The fact that, buried behind them, you actually had something positive to contribute has only become clear quite late in the game.

I am happy to move forward.  But don't lie about the past.

We all do dumb things from time to time.  It's called being human.  But denying our past mistakes means we can't learn from them.

"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


[ Parent ]
Just wait... (0.00 / 0)
...till he gives you the Nazi salute.

[ Parent ]
You are from academia (4.00 / 1)
and they make conclusions based on unanswered questions raised? I think you are misusing the term "prima facie" It's not enough to raise the question. You must provide evidence to back up why the conclusions are drawing are likely correct.

Here are examples from your original posts in which you run with pressumptions of which you never ask and answer whether your supposition is probable:

"Why would people care so much about the VP to swing the balance of the election this much?"

You ask the question, but then assume the answer, but there are other answers.

One possible (and I would argue likely) answer is because he was a candidate in the primary that was drawn out and they know him from before.  This isn't that far removed from the time of the primary. Democrats now heavily outnumber Republicans. Indeed, independents now lean to the Democrats. A large part of those people (even amongst the conservative leaning independents) are economic populists. It fills in the blanks about Obama in a way that they already appreciate whether Obama keeps Edwards message or not. For that portion of the population, it gives a certain segment of the population (let's say the 15 percent he regularly polled in the primary) reassurance.

Then you say "Second, he's really the only person in those poll questions with widespread name ID. That by itself surely counts for much of his advantage. "

Accept again, he's just come out of a primary that was drawn out in which a lot of people got to know him beyond  just his name. Blue November refers to  this as his brand. Again a competing answer that isn't one you considered, and then in turn provided no evidence for your own conclusion. Whereas, the primary did happen so that provides its own conclusion. Edwards was a message driven candidacy. You can read the number of articles by googling it about how for a while people kept saying the other two candidates were being influenced by the Edwards message. Whether Obama wants that message or not or that brand is another matter, but there is a reason for the appeal outside of name id. I believe Blue November expained it like this- people may know a product name, but not know its branding (ie, whether its what they want or not) but once its branded, it becomes something more than just a product name. Name id fuctions as an argument akin to a product name , but again Edwards went through the primary.

Additionally, you argue "Third, the way these poll questions are framed, I think, tends to prime a certain response. I.e., a voter who is lukewarm about Obama might think, well, with that other famous and not unlikable politician on the ticket, this puts me over the top: I support Obama/Edwards. (I think you saw a similar sort of priming towards the end of the primary process, when Obama seemed to suffer in polls against McCain when Hillary was also listed as a choice, presumably because Clinton supporters were primed, by this framing, to choose against Obama.) (The priming might work for any well-known figure, but not all those other VP choices on the SUSA list, who no one's ever heard of. And also not for HRC, who many many people dislike.)"

Why do you think this is an argument against Edwards? Unless you assume that name id is the same as branding? That people don't know who Edwards is? Just that he's well known? Your argument is flawed because that's actually not the case by the way. Name id isnt enough to win over many converts. For example, in PA , Obama plus the Rendel doesn't outperform Obama plus Edwards. Likewise, Sebelius plus Obama in her own state doesn't markedly outperform Obama plus Edwards despite his having dropped out of the race by KS and also her being governor of the state. Were your arguments plausible one would n't see this or expect to see this.

Finally, I believe Paul probably finds arguing these points (which have been discussed before) annoying. Frankly, your theories, if you are academian, are something you could have easily tested by looking more closely at the numbers (ie, again the comparator of Obama/Edwards to Obama/Rendel or Obama/Sebelius).

These numbers aren't conclusive. But they are probative. Prima facie anything requires you look at these numbers not just from the angle of "I am a skeptic" but to look at what evidence test your set of assumptions, and is anything proven. All you did was a list a bunch of questions without much explanation of why they proven anything other than you have some potential questions. It's the conclusionary nature of your post that's the problem.


[ Parent ]
bruh (0.00 / 0)
Well, embedded in that spiel is a good response to the questions I originally raised, and I thank you for it. To respond: I wasn't trying to "make conclusions based on unanswered questions raised." I was only trying to establish a basis for skepticism. My (unstated) premise was that the data seemed too minimal to warrant Paul's strong conslusions about the effect of Edwards on the Dem ticket; the questions I raised were meant to suggest possible reasons for why the data might not be accurately reflecting voters' real preferences - they weren't meant as conclusions in themselves.

As for your response to my rhetorical 'why would people care that much about Edwards being on the ticket?' I think you give a good reason, and one I agree with, as far as it goes - I just have a hard time believing that in an actual election the VP choice would have that big an influence on voter's decision processes. Think about it this way (and this is just a restatement of the priming thing): if you are asked "Do you prefer X or Y, given that Y is influenced by variable a?" the mere asking of the question is likely to lead you to overvalue the significance of variable a, even though variables b, c, d...n are equally or more important to your ultimate decision. (By the way, this would account for an inflated positive result for Edwards in the SUSA polling, even given the fact that he polls demonstrably better than other Big Names like Lieberman/Romney/Huckabee; if L/R/H aren't as popular as Edwards, or aren't regarded with net favorability overall, you might see the inflated priming effect as described above show up only for Edwards. That is not to say, of course, that the polling doesn't suggest Edwards would be a good choice - a better one than any other VP choice would be for either candidate - which, in fact, I believe he is.)

Moving on! As for branding, I think I'll have to take your word for it. It's not obvious to me that Edwards had a stronger brand in the primaries than, say, Clinton or Obama. Or Huckabee or McCain or Giuliani for that matter. But then, I have always had a hard time with Edwards - the contrast between his Senate record and his 2008 manifestation always seemed too discordant for me to quite hold together. But obviously, others responded more to him than I did, so I'm willing to believe he does have a uniquely strong brand, as you say. And if so, then that may well account for his polling strength.

Regarding your response to my third point, see above. I think I laid out the priming issue a little more clearly here.

As for Paul finding these arguments annoying: clearly he does. I'll just say I haven't been following these debates with the close scrutiny of one who does it for a living, so I apologize if the points I bring up are redundant. Also: my academic background is in the humanities - we don't do numbers. :)

Finally, I didn't set out to prove anything. Like I said, I only wanted to raise questions, because the data look, on the face of it, wacky - they seem to invite skepticism, and I was trying to kind of palpate the nodes of the wackiness, to see if I could come up with a reason for why they might seem that way. Of course, it might be the case that Edwards really would turn this election into a blowout if he were the running mate. You and Paul have laid out a case for that. I still don't quite buy that Edwards would have this monumental effect, but I am even more convinced, from reading you guys's comments, that Edwards would be the best choice for Obama.

Of course, there is still the matter of his hair...


[ Parent ]
I would argue that if they poll clinton (0.00 / 0)
and her numbers are strong for Obama, then a similar case could be made for even if I don't want her on the ticket. I don't think the same is likely to occur with other primary people because they were never given the national attention of either CLinton or Edwards.  

[ Parent ]
Okay (4.00 / 1)
I will try to remember that this is a source of frustration and try not to add to it...

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net




[ Parent ]
What about the Wingnuts (4.00 / 2)
who are saying they are flying over his home tomorrow with a hot air balloon to protest that he doesn't adhere to Global Warming.  Yeah right, he has an estate, but it has solar panels and rated 5 stars.  And the most progressive agenda on Global Warming next to Al Gore's, but at least Obama is coming around on that slowly.

http://katysconservativecorner...

Asshats.  


[ Parent ]
Chachy -- Look at cross tabs in the polls (0.00 / 0)
You're right in that seems incredible that anyone could make such a difference.  But remember a couple of things. 1) Edwards was pitted against 3 very famous VP picks (Lieberman, Romney, Huckabee), so you can't just credibly claim that he's more famous than they are. 2) When he goes up against the one lesser known candidate (Pawlenty) in Pawlenty's own state, he cleans his clock, whereas Pawlenty helps McCain win in every other match-up.

But what seems incredible is explained when you look at the cross tabs.  A general trend from state to state is that Edwards attracts whites and men to the ticket. (Though there is not a tab for "white men" we can guess that's his sweet spot.) White men are not yet comfortable with Obama but don't like McCain that much either. But because they trust Edwards (because of his brand), they are willing to take a chance on Obama. Other white men, like Biden & Webb, don't really help Obama in that area. I would speculate that their trust level with Edwards is far deeper because he's been on the scene more, but also because he has a gift for tapping into white male anxiety. I think white men are hurting and they feel that Edwards is not talking down to them but honestly empathizing. He has branded himself as the son of the Millworker, the son of the "working man", so they feel that Edwards is one of them made good.  


[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
That's a good point, in re: the crosstabs. I think Edwards, by virtue if 2004, is still more well known than the others, but certainly, Lieberman, Huckabee, and Romney are three names that are at least in his class. Of course, all those names are being matched with McCain, whereas Edwards is being matched with Obama... but still, good point.

And you paint a plausible picture of Edwards' appeal. As I said in my original comment, I thought that Edwards' identity balance vis-a-vis Obama was part of the rationale for picking him, so I buy it to some extent. Still, though, I wonder if the effect is really as pronounced as it appears to be. I mean, the question still remains, regardless of who is more likely to respond favorably to Edwards being on the ticket (i.e., white males): is their favorable response as favorable as the SUSA data make it appear? Or is the response to some degree primed or overstated? For the reasons given above, I suspect it may be somewhat overstated.


[ Parent ]
I mentioned this above (0.00 / 0)
but I will say it shorter here. First, these aren't the first time these polls have been done. They've been done in other states. They've tested obama/sebelius versus obama/edwards without much difference in outcomes despite name id for sebelius in her home state (where she's govenor) and tested obama/rendell in PA in the same fashion.

also, your argument at the end seems confused. much of what you asked you can look up and figture out on your own without coming to conclusions before hand.


[ Parent ]
Edwards Attracts More Than White Men (0.00 / 0)
I can't tell you the number of African American females , females of all races, and young people I met who were for Edwards...

I am sick of Edwards being pigeon-holed as the candidate of middle-aged white men.  He has wide appeal because of his strong stands for working class and poor people.  Remember, also, that Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte were endorsing Edwards, and Martin Luther King III all but endorsed him...

Let's quit trying to put people in boxes.


[ Parent ]
Thank you Paul. (4.00 / 2)
I feel like I will sleep a lot better tonight. Tomorrow there will be more little crises, more disappointments. Can we get Barack on the phone here for a bit?

This is exciting stuff, this is the change America wants. They want some of the big coercive players to be scaled back to human and competition encouraging sizes. Yes America wants the government to be more transparent and the corruption out of it too. Lets put Lawrence Lessig in as Attorney General.

Now I'm not going to sleep at all. I may be dreaming already but these are sure exciting possibilities.



--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


I agree (0.00 / 0)
that Edwards would be a strong addition on the ticket for both political and policy reasons.  I'm worried though that his decision to debate Karl Rove in September is an indication that he won't be the VP nom.  It seems to me that our VP candidate would not be hanging around at the University of Buffalo debating Karl Rove in the height of the cycle.

I Think Edwards Could Gracefully Bow Out (4.00 / 2)
Or not, depending.  It might could be exactly what they'd want at that point.

McCain running like the dickens away from Bush, and the Dem's VP nominee debating Bush's Brain?

Sweeeet!

"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


[ Parent ]
he could send Elizabeth :) (4.00 / 2)
I'm sure there's another worthy replacement. As much as I want either Edwards to smoke Rove out, there's a part of me that feels he isn't worthy of being put on the same plane as either of them.

[ Parent ]
Brillaint! (4.00 / 1)
That would be soooo good!

Of course he's not on the same plane.  But it would be really fun to watch him sputter.

"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


[ Parent ]
I think that is a signal (4.00 / 1)
And a good one, but PR suggests otherwise.

I'd like to see JRE take on Bush's Brain Rove and see what they do.  My chops are lickin'.  


[ Parent ]
On Crushing... (4.00 / 2)
I hear chatter about how Edwards "Would do a lot of good as Attorney General". I definitely believe that's true. But it may do even more good to break the GOP's spine for a generation by scoring 300-400 Electoral Votes against them.

I, for one, would delight in the crushing of my opponents.

Until people get pissed at the Dems for not doing shit from 2008-2012, and then... shrug


Edwards populism cuts across party, regional lines (4.00 / 2)
He's developed a strong brand over the past year. His policy is progressive, but his image is straight-up "working American". Even with all the efforts to go after his haircut. Nobody really gave a shit about that.

Well, I Do Think Some Folks With Bad Rugs In High Places May Be Jealous (4.00 / 4)
Maybe we could poll on that?

"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

[ Parent ]
True! Most Republican voters want the banks and the insurance compaines the hell out their lives too (4.00 / 3)
They just dont trust a lot Dems to do that. I guess they can feel the passion in Edwards' gut that he really will act against coercive corporate power. I dont want to start an argument about any other Dem, because remember Im talking about republican voters not my opinion here, but I think they don't trust Clinton, Shumer or Daschle to do it. In some ways this is a post partisan thing too.  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Absolutely Agree...Progressives/Indeps/Republicans Like Edwards (0.00 / 0)
The most progressive/electable Dem we've had in my lifetime.

[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
Paul, do you know if Edwards is (was?) even on Obama's VP vetting list? Do you know if he is even being seriously considered?

I was saddened to see a post here earlier today about the Veep candidates, and Edwards wasn't even on it.  


If The Past 2 Weeks Have Taught Us Anything (4.00 / 2)
It's that NONE of us have ANY idea what Obama is thinking.

Frankly, his rightward plunge seems to be a pretty strong indication that he won't choose Edwards, and isn't even thinking about it.

I just want to make it clear how deliberately stupid it is to walk away from Edwards--and how much bad faith will be involved in saying afterwards, "this is a really close race, and we need all of you to fall in line and do everything possible so that we can win--and don't complain about anything."

We very clearly have it in our hands to win a landslide, blowout, map-changing victory.  And I want to make it as clear as possible that the choice is ours whether we want that or not.  Or rather, the choice is Obama's now, in'it?

"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


[ Parent ]
if it's about winning.... (0.00 / 0)
In 2004 Edwards was a serious hindrance in achieving message coherence and unwilling to compromise for the strength of the team. Combined with the fact that such bumps by VP choices have never shown any conclusive staying power I'd say that there are actually reasonable arguments to make in favor of not making Edwards the VP.

Especially as the actual winning margins are the same with Edwards then with Biden, Webb or Bloomberg.


[ Parent ]
That's a lie, but what'sthe point (4.00 / 2)
Aren't you a former Clinton supporter?

[ Parent ]
Biden actually. (0.00 / 0)
Last time I was a Clinton supporter was in October 2007. I've always Edwards just fine though. But real classy assuming good faith there bruhrabbit.

The internal troubles between Kerry and Edwards are well documented. They've been mentioned by both Edwards, Kerry as well as Shrum. Edwards rejecting the campaign's slogans in favor of his own. unwilling to go negative, etc. Seeing that Kerry lost Edwards might have had a point there but he certainly wasn't a reliable asset he was supposed to be as a vp.

As for the VP specific average winning margins Edwards does have a lead, but's it's exclusively based in the numbers for Virginia. Numbers which I'm rather doubtful about as as they show a rather amazing average win of 13%.

Overal:
Edwards:   14%
Bloomberg: 12%
Webb        9%
Biden:      9% (I used Bloombergs % for virginia)

without Virgina:
Edwards:   15%
Bloomberg: 17%
Webb:      12%
Biden:     13%

in Virgina
Edwards:   13%
Bloomberg:  2%
Webb        4%
Biden:      *

in New York:
Edwards:   16%
Bloomberg: 20%
Webb       13%
Biden:     12%

Massachusetts
Edwards:   14%
Bloomberg: 13%
Webb:      10%
Biden:     13%


[ Parent ]
the lie part was where you claimed (4.00 / 1)
edwards was not on message for what Kerry wanted in 2004. Kerry lost for kerry. Anyone claiming otherwise I question their reasoning. Every step of the way  Kerry screwed it up. And as for whom you support, the point is to give people a clear perspective of why such outlandish claims are being made by you. You keep saying biden for example which frankly has no basis in reality. If you are going to pick someone who is a better foreign policy choice that would be Richardson who at least puts more Latino and possibly western states at play.  

[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
No he doesn't, Richardson has absolutely no coattails amongst latino's what so ever. I've seen nothing about Richardson that shows that he would put western states at play outside his own. He horrible on the campaign trail and terrible in debates. He got no ability as an attack dog nor does his brand fit with Obama's

His foreign policy knowledge is certainly O.k. My problem is that due to his complete inability to form them into a coherent sound bite that would help Obama.  

I seriously can't think Of a single reason that would Richardson an asset to win the white house.

As for my reason to say the things that I do?

It's what the data says.

As for who lost it for kerry?

If you had read my comment:

Edwards rejecting the campaign's slogans in favor of his own. unwilling to go negative, etc. Seeing that Kerry lost Edwards might have had a point there but he certainly wasn't a reliable asset he was supposed to be as a vp.

You know, one thing I haven't missed about you is your favorite debate trick of casting everybody who doesn't agree with you as a lying partisan.


[ Parent ]
Uhm- okay. (4.00 / 1)
Again- Kerry lost for Kerry.  Not being hostile was Kerry's idea, including how he didn't want to mention Bush's name at the convention, refused to let Edwards go campaign in NC etc.  Look, I will be blunt- in 2004, I did some canvassing, worked as a poll monitor etc. To call the situation an organized mess and changing messages every few weeks is to put it politely. Remember Kerry having to shake up his campaign in the fall due to his mismanagement?  When Kerry and his campaign tries to put this on Edwards- that makes me want to laugh. The fact is Kerry was screwed up from the start, refused for almost a month to answer the swiftboaters, tried to run on his biography as a war vet (again remember the convention when it was Kerry's biography,etc). The idea that Edwards was running against Kerry's message is also a joke.

And as for a debate trick- trying to pretend that 2004 was Edwards fault is just plain a joke. What I am dispiraging is how out of whack your arguments are with reality and trying to figure out how anyone who was paying attention at the time could be making these arguments now.  Its like those people who say but Edwards didn't win his own state for Kerry as if Kerry campaigned in the state at all or allowed Edwards to campaign in the state.

So, yeah, when someone is so out of whack with reality I am going to think there's soemthing ulterior going on other than what they are talking about. Reasonable people don't just randomly make shit up that is so out of whack. Even Edwards debate was part of Kerry's strategy. Remember how Kerry wouldn't said that bush was dishonest and instead (even with his better debateing skills) kept saying mislead, etc. The list is too long to take this seriously.

I would rather hear about your choices for the VP slot rather than these crazy arguments about 2004 becauset at least then we can compare and contrast.

For example, you mention you can't think of a single reason why Richardson and I've given you several. None of which you refute other than to give me your personal views. At least, I've given you things that are testable. He's in a swing region that's going Democratic, he's got the foreign policy gravitas (same as Biden), he's got the executive experience. The only problem with Richardson is that he has foot in mouth disease- the same as Biden. We could have disagree about that. I would have accepted that.  That would have been a real discussion, but what you did instead was to provide the fake one about Edwards. I


[ Parent ]
Djeez, READ MY COMMENTS!! (0.00 / 0)
You really do have a serious reading disability...

I've now said twice that it was KERRY WHO LOST THE ELECTION.

Again, i wrote:

KERRY LOST THE ELECTION. Not that hard to miss actually I think I used bold even.

Seriously learn to read what is actually written instead of just making things up. Having written twice that KERRY LOST THE ELECTION in two comments should have been enough I think to make sure you got the message that i think that it was KERRY LOST THE ELECTION and not Edwards.

Did it cost Kerry the election?

NO, Like I said before, quite often actually, but I'm just making sure you actually get that.

What I said was that he wasn't a good team player with Kerry.

Now I was talking about things like Edwards continuing to use his old slogan despite Kerry didn't want that. Forcing the campaign to incorporate it against their wishes. Having a VP who continues to use his own slogans and messages instead of the ones you want him to use is not being on message to me. This is not me being out of wack with reality, this is wildly reported, confirmed, televised, etc. This is not something new. Now personally I think Edwards message would have been more effective but that isn't the point.

And yes I thing that the 2004 election makes very clear that if Obama wants to have somebody he can completely rely on as VP That with Edwards and Obama must have the personal click and trust that Edwards and Kerry missed. Again not because of the election but because a good working relationship is important at that level. If Obama has that trust and good working relationship I don't think Edward would cause any problems at all.

The only crazy thing here is your crazy notion that somehow I though that Kerry didn't lose the election, even though I mentioned it quite clearly several times.

(Just to make sure, one last time, I SAID THAT KERRY LOST THE ELECTION, NOT EDWARDS)

As for your points for Richardson. Seriously if you look at the actual data, it shows that Richardson has actually very little pull amongst latino's mostly because it's there very diverse groups that have been lumped together but are from very different backgrounds. You can see that also in they way they distribute their vote. They do so on a cultural basis rather then that of a perceived ethnicity amongst all latino's. And the admittedly little data we have (not based my personal opinion) show that for his background Richardson has extremely little electoral pull in most of those groups. If you'd want to court that group Hillary is showing a far better and consistent strength in those groups. If you have more current data then the few polls I encountered please share them, I'm always willing to learn.

As for turning additional states, every election until now have shown that to be unlikely VP's have shown to have a small effect on their home states, but I haven't heard of any VP choice that turned neighboring states, You might want fill me in on that if there are such VP's though.

It is indeed my personal opinion that while both have considerable foreign experience it is Biden who's been more effective in crating the foreign policy sound bites that we and Obama need.

As for the bad campaigner I mentioned unlike my testable and verifiable positions on his electoral pulling power that is like my preference for Biden as a foreign policy sound bite creator a personal one. But all around the netroots I've never heard him described as a good campaigner and a lot as a bad one. So my position might still suffer from perception bias, but I'm hardly alone in being less then impressed with his prowess on that field.

And please, when you respond to me, make sure it's to something I actually wrote... That would prevent a lot of irritation for us both.


[ Parent ]
you wrote this (0.00 / 0)
"if it's about winning.... (0.00 / 0)
In 2004 Edwards was a serious hindrance in achieving message coherence and unwilling to compromise for the strength of the team. ..
by: Ernst @ Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 22:55
[ Parent | "

And later said you didn't understand what was the lie part. I read wht you wrote. As Rosenberg said above part of the problem is that there apparently is a difference in what you write, and you think you are saying.  Repeating what I say in the context in which you still try to stick it to Edwards is unconvincing.

You have also been provided data which refutes your claims on the numbers. Good luck. I am really not interested in this weird conversation with you.


[ Parent ]
The Figures You're Using Here Are MEANINGLESS! (0.00 / 0)
In Massachusetts, for example, Bloomberg, Webb and Biden were paired against non-entities Jindal and Fiorina, while Edwards faced Huckabee, Romney, Lieberman and Pawlenty--just one true non-entity.  Furthermore, Edwards IMPROVED on Obama's margin by 7 to 11 points, while the best of the others, Biden, spanned the range from 3-point GAIN to a 3-point LOSS.

You are embarrassing yourself with these innumerate arguments.

"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


[ Parent ]
Previous result are not a guarantee... (0.00 / 0)
Mheh, At least you're here as well, so I wont be alone. Neither of us is Chris Bowers after all.

Again as I mentioned to you before:

For Huckabee, Romney, Lieberman and Pawlenty to be strong candidates you'd have to ignore every poll up there that says that's shows that actually there really, really, pathetic candidates that nobody likes and are disliked and ridiculed by everybody that know them.

Seriously the data is crystal clear here, and everything tells you that they suck as VP choices. Simply being know, doesn't mean your a good candidate, they also have to like you. Hell, the reason why McCain won was because everybody hated all the alternatives. I think that would be a good disqualification for being named a "strong" candidate. And Lieberman? Besides that in these matchups he does as poor as any republican, can you even name a single group that would change their vote based upon him being on the ticket? Broder has only one vote you know...

Actually I can think of a lot of people who'd change their vote if he was on the ticket... The problem is that I just can't think of any that would change towards the republicans...

I might be innumerate but at least I can read the data well enough to see that it's non-entities all around.

Again, I'll repeat what I said in my first comment. My problem is not with that you proclaim Edwards as probably the best VP electorally. I agree with that. But that you completely overlook the actual end result and simply tag on a bump created under completely different circumstances.

Look at Massachusetts. Anybody who gives the same 9 point bump that occurred when a candidate has 45% when the candidate has 53% is simply being a fool. or as you call it "embarrassing [him]self with these innumerate arguments"

My point is that it's not reasonable nor advisable if your whole point is about who creates the biggest point spread victory to completely ignore the actual numbers that deal with it. My insistence of them here is only so stridently because you completely ignored to mention that you weren't comparing an a level playing field and thereby overstating the possible Edwards effect.

Yes both relatively and objectively Edwards is currently the best candidate. Relatively he's blowing very body away  But objectively his lead is slightly better but still in line with other candidates. That means that having a dependable key to translate how his relative performance will translate with Obama gaining the waivers on his is actually quite important in order to have a reasonable predictive tool. Can you name one sensible reason why you'd think the relative advancement of Obama numbers would remain immutable?

And I'm sorry but thinking up new ways of insulting me isn't actually going to actually improve your analysis. But it might help your stress levels so if you really feel the need go right ahead. Given your brilliancy shown in your analysis I'll no doubt be suitably impressed.


[ Parent ]
by the way (0.00 / 0)
if you can't to the convo honest (assuming you are a clinton supporter) i have said that if clinton is tested, and she does as well, she is the only other VP choice who has a brand so the numbers would be hard to refute. I would prefer Edwards or clark for progressive reasons, but at least the argument can be made. But that's not what many of you are doing here.  

[ Parent ]
I don't have a firm VP preference. (0.00 / 0)
I can see a lot of good candidates, I'd think Biden would do well as would Edwards. Gore would be an instant winner.

Those are my favorites.

I really can't see any upside to clinton at the moment.

I just have a lot of trouble with Paul analysis as he's seems hell bent to fit the data to support his points instead of basing his points on the data.


[ Parent ]
About the only oen that makes sense on your list is Gore (0.00 / 0)
and he isnt going to run. I have no idea why you think Biden would matter at all. I suppose policy, but this isn't merely about that, and nor do I think Biden sends the right message on the economic issues.

[ Parent ]
another time perhaps. (0.00 / 0)
I was just mentioning my own preferences for the record. The explanation would require a lot of writing and I'm as dyslectic as they come it would just take up to much time to write it all down right now, especially as it's not really germane to the discussion here.

[ Parent ]
Gore is Great Where He Is (0.00 / 0)
Al Gore can do great things on climate change where he is...He is too much the calculating politician for my tastes...too cautious (witness his interview on Larry King a few months ago...painful to see him become his old cautious self on political matters again).

I have a lot of respect for Al, the global warming warrior, but it would be politics as usual as VP.  Besides, he's already done that.


[ Parent ]
Oaktown Girl (0.00 / 0)
I think the post omitted Edwards, if I remember correctly, because of Edwards' previous statements that he was not seeking the office of VP. However Edwards has been on the reported short list.

With Edwards statement today Edwards may be a little more seriously considered by bloggers but like Paul said, I don't think we really have any idea who is on the "list" - except we know Webb was on the list before he removed himself.

In the NPR interview today Edwards said the following:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

On Tuesday, NPR interviewer Guy Raz called the former Democratic presidential candidate's presence on the list an "open secret," and asked Edwards whether he'd weigh accepting a vice presidential offer, or might take himself out of consideration as Virginia Senator Jim Webb had done Monday.

"I'm glad to hear that's an open secret because I didn't know it," joked Edwards of his rumored consideration as Obama's running mate.

"My answer to that is, I've run for vice president, I've run for president twice. I would do anything that I felt I could do to serve this country but I think it's a huge presumption for me or anybody else to suggest what Senator Obama may decide," he said.

"To answer your question directly: I don't expect to be asked, have no expectation about it at all, I will - anything that Senator Obama asks me to do, including this, including campaigning for him, I intend to do, because what I'm going to do, I intend to take seriously," he added. "What I intend to do is everything in my power, use everything in my power to make sure that he's the next president."

Pressed on whether that meant he might join the ticket if asked, Edwards would not rule it out. "I am prepared to seriously consider anything, anything he asks me to do for our country," he told NPR.

I hope that was OK to post that part of the interview.


[ Parent ]
Thank you RedJet, and thank you Paul n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
mhmm... (4.00 / 1)
I've got some problems with the fact that you combine two almost completely different sets of data into one. The polls feature different baselines, different counterparts and are taken at different times.

The weakness of your method is especially clear in New York, where you compare data from a month ago, were although the ticket Obama/Bloomberg wins with better margins over all then Obama/Edwards, you claim that Edwards is the better VP choice.

You also proclaim McCaskill, Webb and Biden as disasters while, outside their match up against a popular local politician, they either tie or outperform Hagel, Sebelius and Rendell in both margin and change in head to head.

While Edwards numbers are so impressive that if any bumb would occur through VP selection his would be the best, just porting over the previous average onto a new baseline doesn't work as it doesn't take the law of diminishing returns into account. With Obama having taken the more easily swayed aboard already Edwards won't be able to sway the numbers as he had because the people get progressively more strong in their convictions.

It's a nice dairy that will surely motivate our side but as a predictive it simply has to many assumptions and flaws to build an accurate case for or against anybody.


Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)
Your post above where you portray Bloomberg as comparable to Edwards in New York indicates a level of statistical ignorance and/or confusion that discourages me from making any attempt at all with these more psuedo-sophisticated arguments.

Suffice it to say, however, that (1) Obama lost ground in Virginia, and some of the other round 2 states as well, and (2) Edwards faced much stronger VP candidates than any of the Dems in round 2.

Of course this method is imperfect.  All polling is.  But it is a very reasonable method, and if you want to go to the trouble of developing your own alternartive method, I will be happy to debate the pros and cons of our respective approaches with you.

"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


[ Parent ]
mhmm Good points, But... (0.00 / 0)
1. Yes, didn't McCain ran ads since then? Might that not have an effect on, say, undecideds and swing voters?

2. hahaha, no. A famous disliked non-entity is still a non-entity.


[ Parent ]
Paul (4.00 / 1)
Is there evidence that these polls have accurately predicted a Vice Presidential bounce in the past? Is this advantage unique in polling? Because I can't remember when a VEEP choice has ever made as much of a difference as this map implies.

Our Situation Appears Close To Unique (4.00 / 1)
Right now, both presidential candidates are somewhat poorly defined, while Edwards is relatively well-defined.  I can't think of any real parallel in US history, and there certainly hasn't been this much polling beforehand.

However, it's fairly straightforward to understand why we are seeing this sort of impact, however unprecedented it might be.

Other candidates don't help Obama, which is what we'd expect, as he's campaigning on change, and the rest of the candidates are either known because they represent the past, or unknown because they don't. (Overbroad generalization, but I trust you get the point.)  Edwards is the one candidate who breaks that mold, and his identity (Southern white male) and brand of change (economic populism) complement Obama, which is why they add to his margins against virtually all comers in virtually all states.

"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


[ Parent ]
Edwards probably my favorite pick for VP... (0.00 / 0)
So I hope it happens...

As for Edwards only being lukewarm about it... My question is, does he want to be President or not?  He's shown that he basically excels at being a distant runner-up in the primaries, but can't seem to break through.  If he wants to basically more or less be guaranteed the nomination in 8 years, he should be doing whatever he can to be VP.  I hope that this realization is the reason for his more recent comments about being more open to VP, but who knows.


I Think He Feels Burned By His Experience With Kerry (4.00 / 1)
Culminating in Kerry throwing in the towel, less than a day after Edwards said--following Kerry's earlier pledge--that they would fight to make sure that every ballot was counted.

After that, I think he may well feel that it's self-defeating to seek the VP role, that it will always be on bad terms if he seeks it out, and can only be on good terms if he is sought out.

This is, of course, pure speculation on my part.  But it does appear to at least make some sense, and not be entirely arbitrary.

"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


[ Parent ]
Edwards Didn't "Break Through" Because of the Media (0.00 / 0)
Read this study by The Project for Excellence in Journalism:

http://www.journalism.org/node...

It basically says that five of the 18 candidates--Obama, Clinton, McCain, Romney, and Giuliani--were given the majority of media coverage right out of the starting gate.  

Based on my canvassing efforts throughout the U.S., I am convinced that if Edwards had received the press that Obama and Clinton received, he would be the nominee now...He appeals to voters of all stripes because of his strong stands for working class families and his honesty/sincerity.

We have to quit letting the media be the "king makers" in our country.


[ Parent ]
a progressive the good ole boys can accept (0.00 / 0)
edwards, a progressive, was my original choice for the pres, he has already been veted and will only scare the most uninformed and partisan in the electorate, whats not to like, and with so many taking their name out of the running for the vp he is looking like a possible front runner at least for now.

also, even though he doesn't fit the mold of attack dog some see the vp as being, candidate obama is quite capable of doing that himself and in a way that won't turn off the phony sensibilities of the media and those that believe the media actually are neutral in this election, fox noise anyone.  


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox