Virtually the entire media narrative on the Democratic nomination campaign has been Clinton's "experience" vs. Obama's "change." If Edwards wins Iowa, the national media will, at least for one weekend, be forced to think of a new narrative that includes him. Stuart Rothenberg, one of the more reliable producers of clueless conventional wisdom, provides us with a preview of what that narrative will be:
Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).
The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America's fault. But he's also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.
Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.
Yes, surely anti-corporate rhetoric will turn off voters. People love big business. Or rather, as I show in the extended entry, outside of Congress, corporations are the least popular institutions in the country, and railing against them has easily made John Edwards the candidate who polls best in the general election against Republicans.
"I am going to read you a list of institutions in American society. Please tell me how much confidence you, yourself, have in each one: a great deal, quite a lot, some, or very little. . . ."
Big Business
Great Deal: 7%
Quite A Lot: 11%
Some: 39%
Very Little: 38%
The only other institutions in which people have less confidence are Congress and HMOs. Yeah, people will really hate the anti-corproate rhetoric coming from Edwards. They also think that large corporations have way too little influence in Washington:
"And now a question about the power of different groups in influencing government policy, politicians, and policy makers in Washington. Do you think (READ EACH ITEM) have/has too much or too little power and influence in Washington?"
Big Companies
Too Much: 90%
Too Little: 5%
Corporations are so popular that people want to see corporate influence reduced in Washington by a 16-1 margin, or more than the influence of any other institution in the country. And the above poll actually oversampled Republicans:
The Harris Poll® was conducted by telephone within the United States between November 8 and 13, 2005 among a nationwide cross section of 1,011 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race, education, number of adults, number of voice/telephone lines in the household, region and size of place were weighted where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population.
In theory, with a probability sample of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points of what they would be if the entire U.S. adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Sampling error for the sub-samples of Republicans (335), Democrats (311), and Independents (254) is higher and varies.
This anti-corporate rhetoric has also taken a real toll on Edwards in general election matchups against Republicans. Over the past month, only three polling firms have tested all three the leading Democrats against all three of the top Republicans, CNN, Zogby and Rasmussen. Edwards clearly polls the best in these polls, which are the only currently available apples-to-apples comparisons of how the top three Democrats currently fare in the general election.
Top Dems Vs. Huckabee Rasmussen
Edwards 49%--37% Huckabee
Obama 45%--41% Huckabee
Clinton 47%--43% Huckbaee Edwards eight points better than the field
CNN
Edwards 60%--35% Huckabee
Obama 55%--40% Huckabee
Clinton 54%--44% Huckabee Edwards ten points better than the field
Zogby
Edwards 47%--41% Huckabee
Obama 47%--42% Huckabee
Huckabee 48%--43% Clinton Edwards one point better than the field
Vs. Romney Rasmussen
Edwards 50%--34% Romney
Obama 45%-41% Romney
Romney 44%--43% Clinton Edwards twelve points better than the field
CNN
Edwards 59%--37% Romney
Obama 54%--41% Romney
Clinton 54%--43% Romney Edwards nine points better than the field
Zogby
Obama 53%--35% Romney
Edwards 50%--38% Romney
Clinton 46%--44% Romney Obama six points better than Edwards
Vs. McCain Rasmussen
Edwards 46%--39% McCain
McCain 45%-43% Obama
McCain 49%--43% Clinton Edwards nine points better than the field
CNN
Edwards 52%--44% McCain
Obama 48%--48% McCain
McCain 50%--48% Clinton Edwards eight points better than the field
Zogby
Obama 47%--43% McCain
McCain 46%--42% Edwards
McCain 49%--42% Clinton Obama eight points better than Edwards
So, Edwards outperforms Clinton in all nine apples to apples matchups, by an average of 9.8%. He also outperforms Obama in seven of the nine matchups, including all six of the non-Zogby matchups, by an average of 3.6%. Rather than making him less popular, it seems that railing against the least popular, non-congressional institution in the country has made Edwards the most popular Democrat among the nation as a whole.
Now, it should be obvious that railing against the least popular institution in the country should make you more popular. But hey, Stuart Rothenberg is one of the best examples of how clueless some beltway pundits really are about popular opinion. BooMan Tribune has more on this.
