The Case For Edwards-Refuting the "Name Recognition" Canard

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 13:29


This is not a general-purpose argument for Edwards as VP.  I'll be posting that argument later today.  Rather, this is a diary focused specifically on the most prominent argument against Edwards-that his consistent and impressive showing in the SUSA VP matchup polls only shows that he has name recognition, and any candidate chosen will have that, after the convention, at least.  This diary is heavily dependent on comments made by two individuals late in the discussion of my previous diary, "SUSA--New VP Polls Show Edwards Still Unchallenged"-- Blue November and BruinKid.

Blue November focused on the difference between name recognition and brand recognition, arguing that what Edwards has is not simply name recoginition, but brand recognition-and that's something that can't just get overnight. BruinKid focused attention on the matchups in Minnesota, and presented an argument about why they are more revealing of Edwards' strengths than people have realized. In a separate comment, BruinKid also pointed to a DKos diary from late last year in which he shows that North Carolina was one of just three states where Bush did worse in 2004 than he did in 2000.  Bush even did better in Kerry's home state in 2004 than he did in 2000-but not in North Carolina.  It's a major body blow for the argument that Edwards had no impact in 2004-which in turn is part of the "it's only name recognition" argument.  ("It's only name recognition, see, he didn't do anything as Kerry's running mate.")

The argument in full is on the jump.
Paul Rosenberg :: The Case For Edwards-Refuting the "Name Recognition" Canard
First,  Blue November on the difference between name recognition and brand recognition:

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

Anyway, obviously any Obama VP pick would instantly gain increased name recognition.  It is very unlikely, however, that they would be able to generate as popular a "brand" as John Edwards in such a short time (now until November). Companies spend millions of dollars trying to brand products or talent.  And one incident (like Tom Cruise couch-jumping) can undo years or decades of branding. This is also why possible VP picks go through rather intrusive vetting processes. [Which Edwards has been through twice]

One can also add that "brand recognition" may be intangible, but it's worth a great deal of money.  It's a major factor in "corporate goodwill," which can be valued into the billions of dollars.

What Blue November has done here is to clarify a distinction that I have fumbled with trying to make myself on various previous occassions.  It's only after seeing him make the argument properly that I realize what was wrong with how I made the argument.  As I noted in a response to this comment:

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

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

Naturally, I don't expect this argument to have any effect on diehard anti-Edwards folks, or on folks who are enthusiastic backers of some other candidates.. But for those swayed by reason and evidence, rather than fantasy, I think I've finally gotten the point-as I was formerly presenting this argument, one could plausibly interpret it as my own special pleading that Edwards possessed something special that set him apart.

I think that Blue November restates the argument in a way that removes any such confusion.  Brand recognition is not something one gains overnight, it's something that's earned over the long haul, and that's what Edwards brings that the "name recognition" argument obscures.

Further proof of this can be found by following BruinKid's advice:

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

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

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

Just to be clear, here are the matchups BruinKid is talking about:

It's the same basic pattern seen in virtually all the states where Edwards was tested--he puts Obama ahead, everyone else drags Obama down.  But this time the GOP VP candidate who shines is the one who otherwise is a non-entity--Pawlenty.  But in his home state, even he can't help McCain more than Edwards helps Obama.  This is, indeed, a measure of Brand recognition, not just name recognition.

What's more, this test throws a new light on the only other states where similar tests were available.  First of all, Pennsylvania, where Edwards out-performed Rendell:

And second, Kansas, where he pretty much broke even with Sebelius, who has had a much more profound impact on Kansas than Rendell has had on Pennsylvania:

There is no doubt whatsoever that Sebelius has Brand recognition with Kansans, and the fact that Edwards is just as strong as she is provides yet another demonstration that what he's showing us is brand recognition as well.

Finally, here's another state that's worth considering in the same ballpark-the previously unsuspected border swing state of Missouri, right next door to Huckabee in Arkansas:

Please note that (A) Huckabee was consistent shown to be the strongest GOP VP, (B) Huckabee is governor of the state next-door, (C) this is border state with significant Southern demographics, and yet Edwards is still stronger than Huckabee and he alone delivers the state for Obama-and he does so  under all tested scenarios.  This is a test of Brand recognition-he delivers a classic test-case swing state against the strongest identified competition.

Could someone else do better than this?  Could someone you never heard of beat Tiger Woods in the next four majors?  Sure, it could happen.  But should you bet on it?  Not if it's money you can't afford to lose just for the thrill of it.

Edwards 2004

Finally, there's a sub-argument around name recognition, which tries to use the 2004 election against Edwards.  Edwards looked strong then, the argument goes, but he did a terrible job, so looking good now means nothing.  I''e argued myself blue in the face pointing out that (a) 2008 is not 2004, and (b) the 2004 campaign was run by Bob Shrum, not John Edwards.  But BruinKid has a much simpler, more straightforward argument-John Edwards did help the ticket in 2004, a point he made more fully in a DKos diary last December, where he wrote in his introduction:

So one refrain I've seen bandied about in the last couple months has been that Edwards is a weak candidate because he couldn't even win his home state of North Carolina in 2004. Now, the primary rebuttal is that it was John Kerry's campaign, not Edwards'.  But in looking at the numbers, I discovered something quite interesting.

Did you know that Bush got a higher percentage of the vote in 2004, when compared to 2000, in EVERY southern state... EXCEPT for North Carolina?  In fact, Bush improved his percentage of the vote in 47 of our 50 states, and even in D.C.  Yes, even in states that Bush lost by wide margins, he improved on his vote percentage in those states.  He barely got 35% of the vote in New York in 2000, but got over 40% of the vote there in 2004.  Think about that.  Hell, Bush even improved in Massachusetts, John Kerry's home state.  Think about that.

So, John Edwards had a positive impact in his home state comparing 2004 to 2000, while John Kerry, top of the ticket, had a negative impact in his home state.

Again, this is not merely name recognition.  Sure SUSA did us no favors, giving us so little to go on, so that a name recognition argument seemed eminently reasonable, on its face.  But having done the work to dig beneath the surface-as folks like BruinKid and Blue November have done, and have helped all of us do-it should now be quite clear that name recognition is not the explanation for Edwards' strong showing as a potential VP.  Brand recognition is the reason for his strong showing-and it's a very good reason to put him on the ticket, too.

But it's only one piece of the overall argument for Edwards. That diary comes later today.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Case For Edwards-Refuting the "Name Recognition" Canard | 129 comments
This is an excellent post, but I think you needed to add (4.00 / 5)
one other thing. How Edwards has gained brand recognition. As I said in your other post, the reality is that Edwards ran in the primary, and consistently had the support of a certain segment of the population. These numbers I think reflect that reality in that they are additive. The only other candidate for whom that is possibly true, and would need to be tested is Clinton. I do believe there was one poll done for Clinton, but not across the board like with Edwards. Interestly, the elongated primary seems to be a potential gift that keeps on giving-- ie, branding seems to be one of them.
True, But (4.00 / 1)
then what would you comment about?

I've also gotten a bit leery of making too many arguments.  People seem to think that if they can find one flaw, that invalidates everything else.  The distraction factor is really intense.

"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 (0.00 / 0)
arguing what's possible to invalidate what's probable.
[ Parent ]
Very impressive argument. I am looking forward to the (4.00 / 2)
one this afternoon.   Since I started 08 as Edwards, I would love to see him on the ticket.  The only argument I can make is purely emotional.   They are both young and handsome. They both ran on change and a populist platform, and they look great together.

Photobucket

I think the Kerry campaign totally turned Edwards off, which is why I think he was reluctant to even consider being Obama's VP earlier.  Look at them.  Who could possibly resist?


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

They Do Look Like An Ad For A Buddy Movie, Don't They? (4.00 / 3)
Popcorn, anyone?

"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 Danny Glover was even an Edwards supporter! (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
I favor Edwards, but not because of polls (0.00 / 0)
Obama should choose someone because they would make a good President in 2016, not because of polls. I hate the whole focus on polls in this series of posts. The Democratic brand is popular, and we are running against a weak candidate. It's not the time to be picking a VP based on the polling of the moment.

I agree that certain folks should be avoided if they poll very poorly, but polling should not be used to distinguish between the larger number of candidates who bubble to the top.

What Part of "This is not a general-purpose argument for Edwards as VP" Don't You Understand??? (4.00 / 1)
Sheesh!

"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 ]
Polls must be included in your deliberations. (0.00 / 0)
Arrogance is one reason. The wisdom of the population can be noted, and their judgment comes after yours no matter how much arguing you do that they are wrong.

I want a leader who is trusted to lead, even when their judgment isn't always as good as yours or mine. It is why we have primaries. We need to choose winners who are also insightful and supporters of what needs to be done.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Paul (0.00 / 0)
Forgive me if you've taken this up in a previous post, but if not name ID, why is it that he seems to help Obama so much?

My guess is that it's because people generally like Edwards--there's a reservoir of fondness for him--and that he does well among white men and rural voters, which are not strong constituencies for Obama. Also, more intangibly, he brings experience without undercutting the change message, and his culturally conservative aura might serve to soothe anxiety about Obama's different-ness.

In any case, I'd like to see him on the ticket (he's on my short list along with Sherrod Brown, Feingold, and Sebelius), but I just don't think it's going to happen, in part because Edwards doesn't bring much foreign policy cred, he voted for the war, and, perhaps most important, he's seen as anti-corporate, which would send an un-Obama-like message to the PTB. Also, I've never senses that Obama respects him all that much and resented JRE's claim to being the candidate of the poor.

My guess is that Obama picks Biden.

So, No Response to the CONTENT of The Diary At All? (4.00 / 1)
Interesting.

"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 ]
Oh, well (4.00 / 1)
I'm a former Edwards supporter who thinks he's evolved into exactly what Dems should be: proud, combative, populist, progressive, so you're preaching to the perverted here. My reaction is Awesome. I think Edwards's potential as national political forced was obscured by the juggernauts he faced in the primary. It doesn't surprise me that he'd be a good VP, cause he's the best GE candidate we have.

You've convinced me that the numbers are too overwhelming to ignore, or to attribute to some quirk; I was just wondering why this was so.

[ Parent ]
I think the brand is "trusted and on our side" (0.00 / 0)
and its "brand" that Paul is talking about, not name recognition, or even affection.

This is JRE's brand.

"John Edwards, you can trust him to do whats right for us."

One includes, to talk about your doubts in your first post above, consideration of experience in foreign policy, when one is trying to increase ones support, not because our candidate needs it. These figures prove that.

Obama as I have written previously has the brand "change" and his manner and style and words and responses and policies claim on the brand trust, but do not yet own it. He doesn't have actions that prove it to people yet under his belt. Many are, based solely on their read of the man running, but others need more trust, because it is change we are talking about.

Edwards adds that trust to the change meme, reinforces change of course as we need, but his candidacy solidifies trust.

With Obama/Edwards we have "a ticket that can trusted to bring change, for us."

This is a powerful, mandate creating combination. I trust Obama to pick a VP, but I strongly urge Obama to pick John R. Edwards.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
What? Are we actually supposed to read these? (0.00 / 0)
I thought these diaries were to talk about Edwards and look at pretty red and blue colors.
[ Parent ]
Is it really worth even MENTIONING Feingold? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, I love Feingold but let's be realistic, he's not even going to appear on any official shortlist.  Honestly, the only reason Obama would bring that kind of attention to Feingold would be to prove he (Obama) really isn't our most liberal senator.  Nothing personal, I just find all of this Feingold name-dropping in the netroots a little exasperating and unrealistic.

I really hope it is Edwards.  He just makes sense from every conceivable vantage point.

I don't think there's any way Obama picks Biden.  He's gotta pick someone that doesn't emphasize his youth in a negative way, so he really should pick someone closer to his age.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, you're right (0.00 / 0)
I just like to sneak him in there.
[ Parent ]
But Edwards apologized for the war (0.00 / 0)
So if he was going to pick anyone who voted for the war, I think it'd be Edwards.

But you're probably right about the Obama campaign not being to keen on him. Not sure I can imagine Axelrod wanting it to happen.

[ Parent ]
Well but his name is coming up from groups (0.00 / 0)
like the Congresssional Black Caucus which listed Edwards or Nunn as their pick in meetings with Obama's campaign.  
[ Parent ]
Yeah I saw that article too (0.00 / 0)
And I hope with all hopes that he is the pick. I just don't want to get my hopes up too much for something that I'm afraid still has a low chance of happening.
[ Parent ]
Well I am a realist (4.00 / 2)
I suspect they won't choose him also because Obama, despite what people say , is at heart a centrist. To me, he is Bill Clinton 1992. He was the not-Clinton winner of the primary, and thus, although people think they are voting progressive in that in their minds Obama=progressive, there is nothing so far to give me that belief. Having been through that once with Clinton, I understand what I am looking at here.

So, I won't be disappointed, but mildly surprised if he did something like this. It would push him beyond the Reagan era groupthink that passes for political discourse that to win one must move right.  

As I've mentioned to Rosenberg, I consider myself a left of center moderate. Therefore, I am not per se against a moderate like some are. My problem is that I feel that when in doubt, the decision is always to move right. Whereas for me, I try to reason out what is the best approach.

For example, if I were in Congress I wouldn't per se be against FISA, but I would not allow for immunity, and would fillabuster anything that provides immunity. If we were truly post partisan I would like to see that kind of thinking through policy actually play out in  action, but it doesn't. That's why it's really centrism.  

Right now, Obama has mostly on policy been playing a fairly convention campaign although his strategic approach to getting out the vote and putting states in play has differed. People get caught up because they like him, and therefore they project onto him things that I don't think he is. But, he's still much better than Mr 100 Years War. That's why I am supporting him. And to the degree possible, I hope others will a bullpulpit would make such clear delienation about their support, and try to push him in the direction like choosing a VP like Edwards, but I m under no illusion about Obama or his team.  

[ Parent ]
Oh I definitely agree (4.00 / 1)
I'm not one for hero or identity worship. That's why it was so easy for me to move to Obama once Edwards dropped out. It was like, "Ok, choice number one is gone, who's next in line." I know Obama's a centrist. Which given how right-ward the country has gone, would actually be a nice push left, relatively, although Edwards would have been much better. I know Obama will do things that disappoint me. And I'm pretty dubious as to how hard he'll actually push for card check recognition if he's elected (although if he's smart he'll realize that, and passing UHC would be the two biggest things he could do to keep Democrats and progressives in power for at least the next generation). But he's the best we have, and we have so many problems looming on the horizon that I'll support and work as hard for him as I would have for Edwards.  
[ Parent ]
Yeah, I think we are in the same space about how to look at candidates (4.00 / 2)
People don't know how to respond to me because like you I am beyond the point of worshipping them, expecting them not to be politicians or letting them use my identity to convince me that  they are really just like me. Screw all of that- make healthcare cheaper, get my cousin out of Iraq, and increase my opportunities. The rest is just therapy.
[ Parent ]
Well wait a centrist would have gone along with the oil tax holiday (0.00 / 0)
It was at the time of the Pennsylvania primary and needed those votes, as someone said "he went for the hard truth and not the easy lie." So I think he has smarts and analysis he doesn't get credit for. Not that I'm willing to give too much credit, get more organized when you're doing well not less.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Axelrod surely wants to win (0.00 / 0)
He is a sharp political operative and wouldn't allow any personal feelings get in the way of his advice to Obama. Besides, the campaign has been using Edwards as a surrogate so I think it's safe to assume there aren't any personal problems -- whereas there still seem to be some lingering issues between the Obama and Clinton camps.  
[ Parent ]
I sure hope so. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I think that's true of some Clinton supporters more so than Clinton (0.00 / 0)
She doesn't strike me as emotional in her calculus. if she thinks it will help her she will do what needs to be done. Of course, I say this and am still totally baffled by her last month of campaigning, and what she hoped to get from it.
[ Parent ]
Opening post answered: BRANDING! :) (4.00 / 1)
Edwards has branded himself as the champion of the poor - and added to an Obama change candidacy, is pretty potent.  But I think you make a case that I'm concerned about... Obama has said he wants a VP who's his closest professional confidant, and we've seen that Obama actually puts his professional confidences to good use - some make fun of his persistent advice getting, but I admire it - he leads a competent and trusted team... but, he LEADS.  That means that the number two guy or gal has to be someone who really has his or her own mind, AND really believes in Obama, because Obama might rule opposite what the #2 guy said.  I think in terms of Pres. Bartlett and Leo McGarry level of trust.  Does Obama feel that way about Edwards, and does Edwards feel that way about Obama? In both cases, I think the answer is no.

So despite this apparently being the real dream ticket, I don't think it will come to fruition...  And Kerry is a strong Obama advisor, and I think he's against Edwards.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Where are you getting the idea that Edwards isn't what you describe? (4.00 / 1)
I suppose because Obama is a centrist this maybe a factor, but I don't see how you don't see how Edwards wouldn't add int he ways you describe if you are describing Obama accurately.

Kerry has little room to talk. Kerry stiffled Edwards in 2004. Kerry also screwed Kerry. He's just looking for others to blame rather than himself.  

[ Parent ]
Was this comment to me? (0.00 / 0)
What qualities did I negate Edwards having?  To the best of my knowledge, I've negated no qualities of Edwards.  It's just my opinion, as an outsider looking in, that Edwards & Obama don't much like or trust each other.  I don't think its rancorous the way it is with Kerry and Edwards, but I think there's a wedge of some sort between them.  Maybe its Kerry!  And, that was one of my points.  Obama trusts Kerry, and has Kerry as an advisor, and Kerry actively distrusts Edwards.

I think Edwards lives up to his brand, and I like him a lot.  But I think he'll be passed over for personal reasons.  I think he'll show up in an Obama cabinet, but not in the VP slot.

To adamterando, re: referencing a TV show... I thought it was a fun reference. :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Let me rephrase (0.00 / 0)
I know how you feel, but you aren't giving us anything from which to judge whether you feelings are something that is correct. I imagine you will say that it's just your feelings. That's true, but not very interesting to the audience. I want to know why you feel the way you do with examples so that I can think through what you are saying to me and others.
[ Parent ]
OH! Ok... (0.00 / 0)
Well - there have been numerous articles about the Obama/Edwards relationship. If they are worth any of their ink at all, then I think there's a "there" there, though maybe it's been wrung for all its worth in the press.

1. During the primaries, Edwards is accused of calling Obama the "p" word when trying to decide who, or if, to endorse.

2. Much was made of Obama's alleged botching of the original endorsement request.

3. Much is made of Kerry's distrust of Edwards - as recent as last week an Op-Ed talked about the VP vetting process, and highlighted Kerry's anger with Edwards, who, the article alleged, refused to get off his own stump  speech in order to support Kerry.  Well - Edwards endorsement of Obama was yet another Edwards stump speech.  Eloquent, passionate, and on message for Edwards.  If that sort of thing bothers Obama or not, I don't know.  I honestly don't think so, but I bet nickels that it rankled Kerry.

Obama is his own man, I think, and I think he'll make up his own mind. BUT, he does show interest in hearing out other viewpoints, and if, as he said, he's looking for his number one confidant as VP, then someone constantly wispering ways not to trust Edwards doesn't help, and I got the impression from the press, that that's the subtext of Kerry here.

***Even Patti Solis-Doyle represents an insider approach - she's insider with the Chicago crew, and gets hired right away.  Kerry's an Obama insider, and as such I suspect he's got plenty of sway.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I disagree with Kerry (4.00 / 2)
a) The speech Edwards gave was meats to the bone of the idea of change. Change to what? For what?

b) Again, my problem with Kerry's opinion on this is that Kerry is milktoast. If Obama is foolishly listening to him it's a mistake. 2004 was hard, but Kerry really lost that because he refused to stop being milktoast. I say this as someone who stomped around in one of the swing states for kerry trying to put the best foot forward. So, his view of the VP nom, if Obama is silly enough to take it, would be I believe a mistake.  This is a man who put Edwards on the ticket, and then never bothered to allow the former Sen from NC to go to NC.

c) Being his own man doesn't mean he should want to surround himself with yes men. Those aren't the same thing. It simply means the buck should stop with Obama with regard to final decisions. Again, this will tell us a lot about him, whether he choose Edwards or someone like him, rather than someoen who reinforced DC groupthink about what leadership means.

d) You seem to be fixed on the primary, and to that, I got to say get over it, and you can't judge GE behavior by primary behavior.  

[ Parent ]
Huge travesty (4.00 / 1)
Edwards was only in NC twice during 2004 and both times they were in liberal Raleigh. He and Bill Clinton (if his health would have allowed it), should have been barnstorming rural areas for votes. I have no idea why the campaign did not let them do that.
[ Parent ]
I'm not fixated on anything (0.00 / 0)
and have no pony in this race.

I have gone from liking Richardson, to Schweitzer (based on posts here), to Clark.  I've liked Edwards some of the time and I've liked Clinton some of the time.  I'm not against Edwards as the vp candidate, I just have my doubts that it will happen.  

Finally - why do I need to "get over it?"  Seriously - I don't feel that I said anything whatsoever to deserve that.  It gets really wearying to post on boards where people's first instinct is to assume an adversarial posture.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Much of your post is about what a) happened during the primary (4.00 / 2)
or b) gives serious weight to what Kerry thinks. Indeed, your first bullet point to me was about what? Some name that Edwards apparently called Obama. I am not even sure what "p" stands for by the way. I just know you thought it was important enough to be a factor with regard to choosing the VP. You also mention Edwards speech - do you seriously think that endorsement speech was approved by Obama's team first? These are the kinds of things I am reading when i read your post.
[ Parent ]
P word (0.00 / 0)
This is in reference to a word a REPORTER used when "describing" what he thought was Edwards' opinion or reaction to Obama at their meeting. Edwards did not use the word and the reporter later apologized.
I'm not repeating the word here.
In any case, it is a silly point.
[ Parent ]
maybe I'm misunderstanding you... (0.00 / 0)
bruhrabbit writes: "I just know you thought it was important enough to be a factor with regard to choosing the VP. You also mention Edwards speech - do you seriously think that endorsement speech was approved by Obama's team first? These are the kinds of things I am reading when i read your post."

Again, I (me, personally) don't think any such thing.  I mentioned it as potential evidence of a less than wholly trusting relationship between the two men.  I (ME, Personally) have read that Obama would like his VP to be his number 1 confidant.  I, based on that small piece of information, made a point that the press about the relationship between the two men didn't lend me to believe that they looked at each other as wholly trustworthy.  I ALSO stated nothing about Kerry's opinions, other than the idea that if Kerry has any sway, his distrust of Edwards (if that's even real, and not just a press construct) might cause Obama to have misgivings about Edwards.

Once again - in terms of MY opinions about who would be a good vp, I've actually not stated in this thread.  I will now, for the record.  I am leaning heavily toward Wes Clark.   But, I have (as I stated before), liked Edwards as a choice.  I was rather moved by his endorsement speech, and if an "attack dog" on the trail is required, then I think Edwards would be a shoe-in (and a better choice than Biden, who isn't always careful in his phrasings).  SO, again, this wasn't about my opinion of Edwards as a choice, as much as my opinion of his chances given the anecdotal stuff I've read in the press.

Even so, I've still said nothing that required such a dismissive "get over it" remark.  Yes, I'm quoting primary stuff.  But it would be Edwards and Obama who would have to "get over it" in order to move past it and trust each other - I don't have to care one fiddle one way or the other.

AND - just in case this wasn't already clear... this is only based on the press being real and not made up stuff.  It's quite possible (maybe even likely) that the press is exaggerating stuff to tell a story, but that Obama and Edwards like each other just fine. (Kerry and Edwards too!)

RedJet - the article I read at a time had the reporter putting those words in Edwards mouth.  I thought it was a bit crass.  If that wasn't the way it went, good.  I'm very glad to hear it.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Queen (0.00 / 0)
when you start off your post with some random statement that Edwards supposedly said in the primary (still not even sure what that was about since I don't remember reading about the "p" word?) then it's natural to conclude you've got an ax to grind. The same is true of your coments about the speech which was universal lauded by Obama supporters and the press in general. YOu keep acting like I am just making this stuff up when I am actually following the lead of what you are writing. If you have a different point you wanted to make, then perhaps you shold have choosen different evidence. I am not above saying I screwed up - see below for example where I misunderstood someone's argument and simply said I screwed up. But here, you aren't providing me much to base my views on other than the evidence you say proves your point, and to which I have to once again ask- why is this evidence proof of what you say? ie, still hve no idea what the 'p' word is since the other poster didn't want to say it.
[ Parent ]
Obama sent mixed messages (4.00 / 2)
Everyone here is right because Obama has sent mixed messages.  He said he wanted a confidant, someone close to him.  He also said he's pragmatic and knows he has to win and plans on tapping his former rivals for positions, perhaps even VP.  

So which is it? Because if Obama is looking for the close confidant, then Sebelius seems like a shoe-in. Everyone talks about how close they are and how much he values her advice. And yet, it stretches belief to think that Obama will actually pick her over someone who could actually help him.

Here I say -- look at Obama's ACTIONS - not his speeches.  Time and again, he show himself to be pragmatic. Just look at FISA.  And the fact that Obama is basically a centrist bespeaks to him being a pragmatist.

I do think that Kerry blames Edwards -- that's obvious.  But I think Obama is pretty smart and he knows that Edwards is not to blame for 2004.  Senator Kerry will argue against Edwards as VP for personal reasons but the Congressional Black Caucus will argue for Edwards as VP for pragmatic reasons (i.e. wanting someone like him to come out and help them in their own races.) Obama does not seem the kind of politician who places emotion above common sense.  He didn't get this far without being a pretty cool number.  

[ Parent ]
Incidentally (4.00 / 1)
signs to me of hostility by the Obama camp is where they are sending out trial ballons saying "uhm no" even as they can public disavow it. I don't see Kerry's reaction as relevant. He's not as I remember on the VP search committee, is he? Certainly, articles bout the CBC including Edwards name doesn't suggest everyone with whom Obama is soliciting input agrees that Edwards is a bad choice. I guess i am looking for more definiative tea leaves from you.
[ Parent ]
My tea leaves (0.00 / 0)
are based on personality, and not practicalities, as Blue November rightly assessed.  And, I think he's got a good point - Obama's tendencies have been very pragmatic, so my tea leaves may very well be stale-dated. ;-)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
I HATE When That Happens To My Tea Leaves (4.00 / 1)
But it's much worse with entrails.

They don't even have to be stale.

"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 ]
Defending Queen (4.00 / 1)
I think it's safe to assume that John Kerry will argue very passionately against Edwards and it's possible (not probable but possible) that he might be so darn articulate that he convinces Obama to act outside of his own self-interest.  But Kerry is not the only person with Obama's ear. From what I understand, John Conyers is a big fan of putting Edwards on the ticket.  If Edwards is the favorite of congress (and he will might be), that would certainly act as a counter-weight to Kerry's personal feelings.  
[ Parent ]
I am not attacking Queen- I am just not sure that (4.00 / 1)
we can read the tea leaves based on kerry. My first thought process and this shows my bias is who in their right mind would listen to Kerry with regard to electoral strategy after 2004? But, again, having been a foot solider in 2004, and watching how disorganized and how much he really was a bad leader makes me feel this way.
[ Parent ]
Thank goodness Obama seems organized (4.00 / 1)
It's very heartening to see how organized and on message the Obama camp is.  And yeah, you're right. 2004 was really disorganized!
[ Parent ]
Yeah, re Kerry (0.00 / 0)
For him to sit around blaming is failures on others is annoying. I was a poll monitor in one fothe battle ground states, and they didn't even have their paper work together so that I could help voters go into the polling booth. They thought it was required by law that we couldn't but it turned out they just didn't bother to understand what hte law said we could do versus not do.  I ended up using my cell phone all day because they didn't have a way for us to contact them (the higher ups) etc. It was just organized chaos, and he changed strategies multiple times, and often in ways that didn't make much sense. My friend said of the time- these are things that they should have done months in advance. That they did it weeks he said meant they weren't going to suceed at it. He's heavier into politics than I am. So when I hear people try to blame Edwards for Kerry's fuck ups- as the Bush political director said of the time- the problem with the Kerry campaign was Kerry's lack of leadership.
[ Parent ]
Sorry to reply out of sequence (0.00 / 0)
but the ever-narrowing threading is annoying.  

I'm going to address this in hopes that we are simply misunderstanding each other.

bruhrabbit writes: "Queen, when you start off your post with some random statement that Edwards supposedly said in the primary (still not even sure what that was about since I don't remember reading about the "p" word?) then it's natural to conclude you've got an ax to grind."

I disagree that that's a natural assumption, but be that as it may, here are my actual words, this time with highlighting to lend to a sense of tone - which may be what's missing here:

"Well - there have been numerous articles about the Obama/Edwards relationship. If they are worth any of their ink at all, then I think there's a "there" there, though maybe it's been wrung for all its worth in the press.

1. During the primaries, Edwards is accused of calling Obama the "p" word when trying to decide who, or if, to endorse."

There is no axe to grind here - you asked what I was basing my opinion that the men in question weren't all that close on, and I responded.  Breaking this down some more - I states that I'd read some stuff in the press.  I acknowledged that it could be press overdoing something.  I stated, however, that if there was anything to be said at all, it might reflect the idea that the men don't have a close trust relationship.

bruhrabbit wrote: "The same is true of your coments about the speech which was universal lauded by Obama supporters and the press in general."

The speech I found eloquent (in this thread)?  

Again, my words:
"as recent as last week an Op-Ed talked about the VP vetting process, and highlighted Kerry's anger with Edwards, who, the article alleged, refused to get off his own stump  speech in order to support Kerry.  Well - Edwards endorsement of Obama was yet another Edwards stump speech.  Eloquent, passionate, and on message for Edwards.  If that sort of thing bothers Obama or not, I don't know.  I honestly don't think so, but I bet nickels that it rankled Kerry."

The key point here was talking about Kerry's axe to grind, not mine!  I was making the point that if the pundits are right that Kerry's got a resentment against Edwards, chances are good that Kerry is also pulling Obama's ear on that issue.

OK, regarding the "p" word, in researching the issue I've come up with this link, which supports RedJet's assessment - the bottom half of the "apology" is what made me think this was a quote being attributed to Edwards, but that's not necessarily the case: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... (And, so, thank you, RedJet, for the correction.)

Finally - yes, I believe you are a person of good will and would apologize for a mistake if made. I'm not saying you've made one - in text its easy enough to misunderstand one another.  I am still standing upon principle though.  Even if I did have "an axe to grind" I have said nothing that required dismissiveness toward me, and I have not been dismissive toward you.  I hope that point can be acknowledged, without any requirement of you apologizing at all for the rest of our conversation - I'm willing to accept that I'm being misunderstood because of faulty writing! ;-)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
You've Explained Yourself Very Well, QueenTiye (4.00 / 1)
bruhrabbit is very upfront and very perceptive in taking on all manner of BS, and sometimes--pretty rarely, though--he comes up with a false positive.  I think you've shown pretty well that this was such a case.

Still, what underlies this all, it seems, is partly his general distrust of virtually all insider Beltway narratives--a distrust that I think, perhpas, you share a little more with him than was first apparent, if I read your "tea leaves" comment properly--as well as the caveats in this comment.

"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 ]
Thanks! (0.00 / 0)
I'm still fairly new to the community, and not precisely an ideological soulmate, so I don't always comment here.  So, I'm not so familiar yet w/ personalities.  But anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion for the most part, and am glad we've come to some degree of understanding!

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Just to be clear- you seem nice to me (0.00 / 0)
and its more the arguments which as rosenberg said- seems like CW to me. So my radar goes up when I see stuff liek that. I don't t hink Democrats win by following CW. The GOP wins through the status quo because they have had control of that status quo for 30 years now. We are starting to break it, but that's difficult to do.
[ Parent ]
Never a good sign... (0.00 / 0)
when one uses a TV show with which to base a political hypothesis.
[ Parent ]
Depends on the TV Show (4.00 / 1)
When it comes to small-town politics, I think it would be hard to go wrong with Buffy, The Vampire Slayer's portrayal of the mayor, Richard Wilkins, as an immortal servant of the local demon population, preparing himself for his own ascension to immortal demonhood.

Wikipedia notes:

Richard Wilkins arrived in California in the 1800s, looking for gold. It is shown in Tales of the Slayers that he founded Sunnydale after the last Slayer died there. Wilkins found a place infested with demons, with whom he made a pact to avoid being killed.

He agreed to found a town atop the Hellmouth for "demons to feed on", on the promise of an Ascension and subsequent immortality once a full century has elapsed (cf. "Enemies"). Until Wilkins attains demon form, he would not age until after 100 years to the very day Sunnydale was founded, at which point he will supposedly lose his power. As it so happens, Richard Wilkins III was also Richard Wilkins Sr. and Jr., pretending to be the son in each subsequent generation to conceal his lack of aging. This created a problem when his wife Edna May, whom he married in 1903, began aging and probably contributed to his lack of romantic relationships later on (cf. "Choices"). Wilkins seemed to have sold his soul early in life (cf. "Lovers Walk") as one of his "campaign promises."

Sounds pretty accurate to me.  But, then, I'm a second generation native Californian.

"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 ]
Brand Recognition (0.00 / 0)
That's a good term and certainly the best case made yet why the poll numbers and the reinforcing arguments for Edwards are actually related.
I think this post is pretty convincing (0.00 / 0)
on its own, but I have another question: If Edwards does have a broadly popular brand, why didn't he do better in the primaries? (In particular, better among the low-income voters you'd think he'd be best with, which I think Hillary did best with in reality).  If your answer is along the lines of "the media hates him", why wouldn't that impact the general election as well?  
Well that was a part of it (0.00 / 0)
But you also had two celebrity candidates with lots more money behind them. In New Hampshire you had the start of identity politics, with women rallying behind Hillary and in SC you the overwhelming support amongst African-Americans. Given that those are the two most important constituencies in the Democratic Party, the demographics just weren't right for Edwards this year. Trippi even kind of hinted/predicted this way back in late 2006/early 2007 when he said do not underestimate the importance of African-American voters in the Democratic primary. Think about what all those deep southern states did for Obama's delegate lead.

But it still doesn't take away from Edwards strength in those southern states amongst demographics that Obama did not do well in. The only county Edwards won in SC was in the far northwest of the state, i.e. Appalachia. He did the best in all the upstate counties which is exactly the sort of demographics that Obama does worst in.  

[ Parent ]
Your question is irrelevant-- it's an apples and orange discussion (4.00 / 1)
You want to ask why didn't he have enough appeal to be the nominee when others are asking does his appeal add to Obama's chances of winning as the nominee. Not the same question at all. The reality is not whether Edwards has enough appeal to win the Democratic nomination. It's whether he has enough appeal over other Democratic VP nominees in terms of his brand to be additive for Obama. He doesn't need to add up to 51 percent of the Democratic primary base to significantly aid Obama over McCain/McCain's VP. He only needs to make up certain percentage differences. Hence, why one looks at those percentage differences to see the impact of Edwards appeal to the ticket. Your question is- why couldn't he win on his appeal for the nomination alone. There may not be enough people to have done that, but those people who did support him, maybe more willing to support Obama because Edwards is on the ticket. Thus, the numbers you are seeing.
[ Parent ]
It's not completely irrelevant (4.00 / 1)
If we're talking about the Edwards brand, questions like who the brand is strong with and what are its limitations are important.  The elections Edwards has actually run in are the data we have about his popularity.  I'm looking at Iowa exit polls now, Edwards did better the more affluent voters were, and, more or less, the more conservative they were.  He also did best with people looking for a candidate who "cares about me"  So he helps Obama in head-to-heads.  I'm wondering if it's still those demographics that give him strength.      
[ Parent ]
Then that's a very good point (4.00 / 1)
On first read it felt like you were saying he couldn't win the primary, therefore how can he help with the GE. Now, targeting and understanding precisely how he can help, if at all, is a fair point. My guess is that he helps with working class voters. The candidate who I believe most benefited from edwards leaving the race was Clinton because if he had not left she would have had a harder time in some of the states she eventually won such as in WV or PA. That's just gut check. Now, I don't think Obama will win those folks even with Edwards, but I do think there is a small secion that maybe influenced. I also think the numbers indicate that there is that segment that feels reassured by Edwards on the ticket. My friend, whom I mentioned on the prior diary, her eyes lit up when I mentioned the idea although previously she was luke warm to Obama. The reason being she's an economic populist (what are you going to do for me type) who  is tired of rhectoric. She keeps asking where's the beef. For some reason this combo gives her a feeling there is beef to such a ticket.
[ Parent ]
I was just trying to prompt (0.00 / 0)
Some more detailed thinking about Edwards.  Some of his fans write as if he's the most charismatic politician in the country, and all he has to do to shore up political support is show up in a district and denounce corporations in that magnetic drawl.  (Since that's what he used to do for living, someone said--I forget who, Neil the Ethical Werewolf?).  I think Edwards is a very good politician, but he wasn't good enough to win any of his three national races.  So his rhetoric isn't magic and his popularity isn't blanket.  Who is it with?  I don't think it's with the working class, despite his rhetorical emphasis on poverty and economic issues, he generally did better among rich than poor (in Iowa, despite coming in second overall he came in second among only one income bracket: people making over 100,000 a year; in South Carolina, he came in second among two: people making 75-100,000 a year, and people making over 200,000 a year, although that in particular was such a tiny sample it's hard to draw any conclusions).  I know class is about more than income, but those facts should be acknowledged.  Now, affluent relatively-conservative white guys are a perfectly good group for Democrats to target.  A good third of the country made over 75k in 2004, and Bush beat Kerry among those people by over ten points.  Lacking crosstabs, I have to assume that's who Edwards is helping with.  Maybe it is with working-class voters, who just found Clinton more appealing, but I'd have to see some evidence for that.    
[ Parent ]
You completely ignored my response to you. (4.00 / 1)
In South Carolina (unfortunately) there are still two working classes. White working class and black working class. One went for Obama and the other split between Hillary (white women) and Edwards (white men).

That is where Edwards's popularity is. Edwards's strength in Iowa was among rural voters. Another key constituency that Obama needs a "vouch" for.

[ Parent ]
Yes, I'm sorry about that (0.00 / 0)
I had hoped to reply to both posts at once, but I guess I didn't do a good job of that.  Thanks for the info about rural voters in Iowa, but Edwards also did best among affluent voters, so I still don't know if we're talking about the white working class.  Remember that paper that claimed the ideal Republican voter was a rich guy in a poor state?  Maybe Edwards' appeal is to similar people, I mean, in primaries, he did seem to generally do better the more Republican the demographic.  (I'm not saying that to impugn Edwards, I'm just looking at the data).  Since Iowa has so few black voters, its exit polls might correct for the south carolina effects you're talking about.  I know "Caucus exit polls" aren't the best data but they're better than nothing.    
[ Parent ]
I don't understand why there's a contradiction (0.00 / 0)
If he does well with a wealthy demographic group and a poor demographic group why is that a bad thing?

The only county he won in SC is poor and white. The counties he did the best in were poor and white. Hillary did the best in suburban counties. Obama did the best in AA majority counties.

I feel like your trying to find pieces of evidence to say that Edwards does poorly with white working class voters when that evidence just doesn't exist if you dig into the numbers.

[ Parent ]
I was looking at Iowa (0.00 / 0)
Because there wasn't a racial component to the voting there.  And doing well in an area with a characteristic isn't the same as doing well among voters with the same characteristic.  Republicans do better in poor states than rich states, but that doesn't mean they do better among poor people than rich people.  States are, of course, much bigger and more diverse than counties, so it's not a great analogy by any means, more of a warning to be careful.  If there are polls that parse South Carolina voters by both race and income, I'd very much like to see them, but I can't seem to find any.  Even in South Carolina, though, Edwards did better among "postgraduate" than any other education level, better among higher income than low, better among people who saw national economic conditions as "Excellent/good" than otherwise, etc.  He also, it's true, did better in Appalachia than in other parts of the state.  That makes things complicated.  I wouldn't say Edwards does poorly among white working class people, but that's just not the data I can see for someone who does better with them than with others.  
[ Parent ]
You keep conflating "Working Class" with "White Working Class" (0.00 / 0)
much as Hillary so famously did.

There are many many black folks who are working class as well.  So of course exit polls are going to show muddled results or Obama coming out ahead of Edwards. So that's why you examine actual election returns in counties where blacks do not make up a significant portion of the population and there is a high proportion of white working class folks.

Why is it so complicated? It's not. Just control for demographics and it's pretty clear where Edwards does best. White working class rural males. Exactly the folks that Obama does worst with.  

[ Parent ]
There's a lot to what you're saying (0.00 / 0)
But it's still looking at only a few counties out of the whole state.  I won't be completely convinced unless there's a poll that slices by both ethnicity and income.  I mean, Edwards won among whites in South Carolina, period--no need to add working-class, rural, or men to it.

As for New Hampsire, 41% of those exit poll respondents self-identified as "rural", compared to 37% in South Carolina.  In both cases Edwards did just about as well among self-identified rural as suburban.  How do you account for that?    

[ Parent ]
Because (4.00 / 1)
rural whites in New Hampshire who are Yankees are different than rural whites in SC who are Appalachian Scotts-Irish.

Why do you need polls? The sub-samples you'd be looking at are really small. You keep doing all you can to discredit what is plain as day. Isn't the best 'poll' the actual electoral returns, especially if those electoral returns are from a county heavily towards the demographics you're interested in?

It's really exasperating at this point, but you obviously have some axe to grind and your counter-arguments have been refuted over and over again. Now you're just down to, "well I don't like those results, I want to see more."  

[ Parent ]
Actually Edwards campaign wasn't about charisma (4.00 / 1)
That alone suggests you aren't maybe appreciating my posts to you. This isn't about personality. The branding is about messaging. The point is that he's appealing to demographics based on messaging about change specificially as it relates to economic populism. That number is maybe 5 to 10 percent in the primary, which wasn't enough to win, but enough to win a GE where you are fighting on that persuadable percentage in many states. You are also wrong about why the messagine works. Most of the white guys you talk about- I work with -- especially at the ranges you are talking about they are the middle class working part of the population. I can certainly cut some links, but you can look at the info your self- economic populism isn't an issue of the low income worker anymore. After 2006, New York Times did these articles and other papers as well, about the rise of middle class economic populism. I think you don't full appreciate this reality.
[ Parent ]
By the way (0.00 / 0)
the friend I mention makes over 100 k, but is also facing the risks of the global market place. I think many peo seem to think its just manufacturing that's experiencing this. There is a large population of "middle class' (in quotes because you base it just on present income and she basis it on thinks like increased risk (ie, she pays more for benefits and employers are paying less, etc) that I don't think you understand.
[ Parent ]
I know you didn't talk about charisma yourself (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't referring to you, but to some of Edwards' fans who, I think, exagerrated the political implications of his trial lawyer chops.  As for economic populism and anxiety going beyond the traditionally-defined working class: sure, in fact I think that's the likeliest explanation, but we shouldn't confuse it with economic populism appealling to the traditionally-defined working class.  That said, maybe someone will do a more detailed vice-presidential matchups poll, Edwards will show the most strength among low-income voters, and all this will be off.  
[ Parent ]
I don't think that's likely to happen (4.00 / 1)
I mean the polling data you are requesting is expensive. I also question whether it matters on that level. Rosenberg is right about about the degree to which sometimes the questions become trees for forrests discusisons. The best we can do is to go with what we know.

For example, in totality, Edwards has a brand that's producing some clear polling results that no one is producing.

This is where we go from possible to probable. The fact is we have numbers to say there is some kind of impact.

Sure, it would be good to know exactly what. But, we have a general contour,a nd indeed, that contour refutes your argument. I am not even sure which suppoers you are referring to who supported him due to charisma.  I don't know one person who d id that. Frankly, it just sounds like a throwaway line meant to dismiss Edwards actual appeal. Well it must be name id. Well it must be charisma. Everything but Occam's razor. Everything but the message itself.

Your saying you don't believe it's with low income voters is well your just saying it. My first thouhgt when I read that was 'what's your proof?" Another poster has shown that it actually did appeal to rural voters etc. So how does that fit into your claims?

Why would a message of economic populism that's both about the poor (his two Americas and focus on poverty) and about the middle class (people like my friends who found the message appealing) not be about what it seems to be about? Why should we have to go there that deep in order to make the case?  I am asking these questions to illustrate a point- there is a difference betweek skepticism- trying to ask the right questions- and then making up your own narrative, and beliving in that narrative. I've given you competing views to what you are saying. These competing views are actually something that can be substantiated. I think its only fair if you believe his message didn't reach the people that he's been shown to reach- that yo uprove it. THrough numbers. Where are you getting your claims?

[ Parent ]
Rural voters aren't the same as poor voters (0.00 / 0)
Per se.  Again, Republicans do better among rural voters than Democrats do, or among rural states anyway, but not among poor voters.  I think polling individuals gives a better demographic picture than looking at regional results, although the regional results certainly complicate things.  As for numbers, I've made many specific references to exit polls from Iowa and South Carolina, South Carolina's here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...
Iowa's here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...  Edwards has been shown to do well in head-to-heads, but he hasn't been shown to do well in head-to-heads among any particular demographic groups, that's the whole point at issue. The reason I don't believe it's among low-income voters is he kept coming in third with them, even in Iowa, when there was no racial component.  Maybe that was all college students, maybe it was just because they preferred Clinton, but I'd still like to see it addressed.

And no, I don't think anyone supported Edwards because he was charismatic, I think some people, though, supported him for his message but gave his charisma too much credit about what it could do to enact his message.  

Does it matter what groups Edwards does well in?  I suppose not, a vote's a vote, I'd just like to know to have an accurate picture.  (And, frankly, you haven't referenced any numbers at all, other than the ones in the original post, just an anecdote about one person you know.  Anecdotes can be revealing, but it's a little weird that you incorrectly say I'm not citing numbers, when you're not citing them).          

[ Parent ]
You said so yourself looking at caucuses is dubious (0.00 / 0)
Really the only state we have to go on is SC because it's a primary, so turnout is much higher, and there is a much larger proportion of rural working class whites than there is in NH.

And from SC it is clear that Edwards did best among the very demographic that Obama does not do well in.

You keep providing evidence that leaves out key points in your argument. The main one is that working class is not the same as white working class and black working class (in terms of voter preferences in this primary). When you control for that simple fact, it's clear where and with whom Edwards does best.  

[ Parent ]
frankly one of the reasons I am getting tired of arguing with (0.00 / 0)
some of the people here is that they claim they are open and then they make arguments which a high school debater with clear facts can refute.  
[ Parent ]
Is that necessary? (4.00 / 1)
We have three states (actually, Nevada too, but didn't Edwards poll like single digits there?  Not very helpful).  Two are almost all white, one isn't.  In all three Edwards did no better among rural voters than suburban, among low-income than high-income, among low-education than high.  Adamterando explained this by ignoring the two almost-entirely-white states and saying racial voting complicates the data of the third.  I'm trying to look at all three states.  You don't have to agree with me, but you don't have to insult me either.    
[ Parent ]
Again you ignore important points (4.00 / 1)
I said you have to look at SC because IA and NH were caucuses. And you yourself said there were problems examining exit polls from caucuses because of the smaller voter-pool that participates there.

I said NH was not a worthy comparison because it does not have the same demographics. The background of whites in NH is very different than the background of whites in SC. Obama will have no trouble with whites in NH just as Kerry had no problem with whites in NH but he did have problems with whites in the south.

You're trying to look at all three states but we're pointing out that if you actually are interested in seeing where Edwards strength lies, you need to look at a state where you can control for things such as race and self-selection bias in caucuses. In addition, by examining exit polls, especially from states with very small populations, you are opening yourself up to large errors because the sub-samples are so tiny.  

[ Parent ]
googled (4.00 / 2)
you want a simple answer, but what we are saying isn't. You must realize that class is only one factor. So is identity politics. Demographics is extremely important here. When we talk about class we aren't saying that Ewdwards message willa lways trump all. We are saying that for  a part of the population focused on class over gender- it matters.

you also can't look at all three states together. they are very different demographics even amongst whites. remember the claim of obama's apalachia prolbem- that argument grows out of the fact that a low income white person in OR isn't the same as one in NC- that's the point of contrast you hve to make.  There is a tipping point with race that others have made.  A lot of this is just stuff I picked up by reading a lot. Here is something I just quickly did by googling

a) SC - race and gender

http://www.voanews.com/english...

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/...

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

this is telling:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...

http://politics.nytimes.com/el...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01...

class and income in south carolina by race

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/ab...

You will note that  Clinton and Edwards as I said split the white vote. The frustration with your post is decoupling race from economics and doing the same with regard to type of vote (caucus versus primary). so although edwards message was more on point by the point SC happened there was already ID politics at play. AAs voting regardless of class for Obama, and women voting in higher percentages for Clinton. Whites as a race splitting between Edwards and Clinton.  There's a lot more I can write, and google to get my point across, and I am sure you will dissect the data, but all it shows is race is a factor as much as class.

b) Nevada was a caucus state. Meaning organization is key etc. By that point as I remember Edwards second in IA and 3rd in NH had hurt him and indeed some key union support went to Obama at hte last minute (remember that this was a 3 person race. In some states Clinton and Edwards hurt each other with the low income voters and that advantages Obama. Clinton won here, but Although I haven't done a county breakdown I will bet much of Edwards support for Edwards came from more rural counties.) His percentage from the exit polls differents for example from his percentage outcome in the caucus. this was similar again as I remember to the weighting within IA.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

c) NH (gender helped Clinton to win and age helped Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20...

Much of the data points for this also came up after edwards dropped out in PA and OH for example.

OH

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...

There's again  a lot more tha can be said. The point is that the overall thesis doesn't change by digging deeper. Its a queustion of to whom he appeals. If identity trumped all- then my guess (and this par tis a guess) then CLinton or Obama won out. If class arguments won out, then Edwards tend to have more of an appeal.

Indeed, that appeal to class explains the change of rhectoric by Obama and Clinton when it looked like Edwards was starting to gain traction. What they decided to do smartly was usurp at least some fo the rhectoric of the messaage so that they could sound like they were on point ont he class issues which probbly (again my theory) shifted it back to identity politics.

[ Parent ]
examples of where messaging changed to reflects (4.00 / 2)
edwards leftward attack was on NAFTA, healthcare,e tc. Both OBama and CLinton refused to have an economic plan until edward pushed for it. Thats fine, but one then askes where does the plan derive. this isn't to replay the primary but to understand what we can glean from it about why things happened the way they did. Sometiumes because there is so mcuh its easy to miss some of this stuff. You can see the right ward shift of Obama away from his NAFTA statements  in the primary right now for example. because he know longer thinks he has to worry about the economic populist. That they will naturally vote for him as the change cnadidate. The question is does he have that brand staying power ? He will probably win regardless but it will be tighter in some ways because of the abandonment of these issues.
[ Parent ]
one other point (4.00 / 1)
if you want to know why Obama might not choose an edwards it would be because the battle that's been fought between the economic populists and the rubinites will have been won by the later. the segment of the voters with whom Edwards had an appeal were economic populists. rubinites are pretty much happy exept for some tweaking with the way things are going. economic populists see that things can't continue as theya re going. check out this book, The Great Risk Shift:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Ri...

If I hd to guess (since I didn't ask her outright) I would guess the reason why she supports Edwards on the ticket is that the issues that the middle class face with regard to the concepts that this book raised would seem like they are something that Obama recognizes. So far, there is a sense that Obama doesn't much care for those who can see the future of these issues rising more and more, ie, like benefits reductions. Do you know that almost all union battles over the last few years have been over corporations shifting risks like healthcare from the corporation to the individual? This is true regardless of income level, and can be worse when oen is a working professional without a union. This is all OT, but it's to illustrate the problem that I see with your post.

[ Parent ]
You Seem To Be Ignoring Major Questions Here (0.00 / 0)
Low-income voters tend to be low-information voters, too.  With less money to reach them, Edwards certainly under-performed his potential with this group, I would argue.

But there's another factor as well--similar to the initial reluctance of blacks to embrace Obama before he won Iowa.  The reasons are parallel--rather than embrace someone who seems to good to be true, embrace someoone who is reliably good for you, even if they're not really good.  And Clinton fit that bill pretty well.  So, people who are hurting, but not truly desperate may well be the most likely to embrace a populist message in times like these, contrary to more common assumptions.

If Edwards had done better, and stayed in the race, we would then have had a good deal more data to look at, and maybe we could have seen shifts in the distribution of his support that could tell us something with greater confidence.  But as it is now, there is just way too much of our own speculation going into this aspect of the discussion.  Far too little signal, and far too much noise.

"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 the low-information point is a good one (0.00 / 0)
And certianly the signal/noise point is valid, but the information we have is the information we have.  How much does campaign spending help in Iowa, though?  I mean, Huckabee beat Romney, so it's hardly fatal to have less money if you're a good politiican there, and the whole rationale of the tiny early states is that they limit the importance of fundraising.  (I wouldn't be surprised if that's nonsense, but again, I'd have to see a full argument).  Certainly, though, Obama's campaign apparatus should be a big boost to the political impact of whoever he picks, and I'm not even saying Edwards would be a bad choice, I'm definitely not ignoring the information you put in your post.  But I'm still wondering.  Low-income voters are no more low-information now than they were in Iowa, so who is it that's helping Edwards in those matchups?      
[ Parent ]
Yes, Huckabee Beat ROMNEY (0.00 / 0)
And if they'd both been Southern Baptists?

(2)

But I'm still wondering.  Low-income voters are no more low-information now than they were in Iowa, so who is it that's helping Edwards in those matchups?

Unfortunately, SUSA didn't give any income data in cross-tabs.  But we do know that Edwards helps most with solidifying the Democrat base, and secondarily--though still strongly--with indepedents.  See my diary, "The Edwards Benchmark--Winning The Swing".

"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 did come in second in Iowa. (0.00 / 0)
It was only youthful exhuberance that allowed Obama to come in first.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Obama also has a terrific Brand (4.00 / 1)
He is the "Change" candidate and everything about him speaks to being the anti-Bush. Clinton also had a great brand -- the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years. You can think of it as soda - Obama is Diet 7UP, Clinton is Coke, Edwards is Diet Coke. People who want "change" or People who want "Diet" are drawn towards Obama and Edwards, the "diet" sodas, but people who want the Traditional Democratic Brand want a cola, so they go towards Clinton and Edwards (Coke and Diet Coke).  But in this contest, Diet 7UP seems like more of a change than Diet Coke and in this contest Coke seems like more a traditional tried and true brand than Diet Coke. Diet Coke satisfies folks who want diet (change) and cola (traditional flavor) but Diet Coke is not the first choice of folks who are more passionate about one aspect (change vs. tradition).

Now we come to the question of balance vs reinforcement. A VP that provides what we call "balance" is usually someone who seems almost too different from the candidate. But if Obama were to go with someone like Hagel, who isn't even a Democrat (isn't even a soda) but a Republican (let's call them Milk products), the presented image of Diet 7up paired with Skim Milk is discordant.  It might bring some milk drinkers but it would upset soda drinkers. If Obama picks someone who seems too much like him (another centrist like Bill Richardson), it's just more Diet 7up. People who don't like Diet 7up aren't going to become more interested in the product just because there's more of it.  But if "Store Obama" started also selling Diet Coke, there would be no disconnect. It's a still a Diet Soda/Change store, but it now has AN ADDED FLAVOR. Store Obama keeps it's identity but expands its customer base by adding a product that is similar to the original Obama product but different enough to bring in new customers.

[ Parent ]
I appreciate this explanation (0.00 / 0)
Which sounds like an LSAT word problem (There are three sodas, some of which are diet, and three milk products, some of which are skim...)  I'm still not sure his national brand is as you describe, but I think Edwards would be a good reinforcing pick.  
[ Parent ]
I'm a word problem geek (0.00 / 0)
So maybe that came through. LOL!
[ Parent ]
To answer why Edwards didnt do as well in the Primary (0.00 / 0)
It was democrats mostly and they dont want what the entire country wants, and I dont mean republicans I mean non active democrats, voters too.
And second, but more to the point, its his brand.

America wants change, Obama is change, Edwards is trust.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Paul, this is an emotional issue for many people (4.00 / 1)
I am not sure why, but liberal bloggers are strangely emotional on this VP issue.  Offline, when I talk to Democrats, they are happy with either Clinton or Edwards as VP, and my more conservative friends hate Clinton but tend to like Edwards.  Would they change their votes if Obama picked Edwards?  Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to tell.  But they definitely won't vote for Obama if he picks Clinton. My point is that (except for the conservatives who hate Clinton), in the offline real world, people aren't too emotional about this issue.

I think from an intellectual point of view, the argument for Edwards is strong.  When you really sit down and work through the polls (as you have), the argument is very sound.  The question, IMO, is why so many liberal bloggers, especially Kos, want to deny something that is true.  Of course, they could easily say that someone like Jim Webb has the potential to become a Democratic superstar, so let's weigh that in also.  But that's not their argument.  Their argument is all about ignoring or dismissing the pro-Edwards argument. Perhaps some people have strangely strong emotional attachments to other possibilities (like Clinton or Sebelius) or perhaps some people do not want a southern white male on the ticket or perhaps some people are afraid the Republicans will destroy Obama if he doesn't have a former military man on his ticket. Regardless, they are allowing their own feelings and fears to color their critical thinking. This is the most important election of our lifetimes and (at the risk of sounding condescending) I think some liberal bloggers have lost perspective and have lost touch with how real world voters think and act.

I can sense your frustration as you try to explain to people what is fairly obvious but I would invite you to remember that the same Branding power that allows Edwards to attract new voters to Obama is the same Branding power that makes someone like Kos enamored of Richardson, in spite of the fact that Edwards would clearly help Obama more in a general election.    

Exactly right (0.00 / 0)
but I would say it a bit differently. I would say that's what motivates this is that certain segments of the party are trying to carry influence over  the other. That Coco is trying to beat Sprite out. They come up with a real justification for it so they end up making up arguments that are simply distractions.
[ Parent ]
Which Is Why It Would Be Nice To Have Richardson Polled In More States (4.00 / 2)
So that his relative lameness could be demonstrated again, and again, and again.

Not to mention his stellar campaigning skills.

All of which is just a snarky way of sneaking up on and agreeing with your larger point.

We are dealing with some pretty serious irrationality here, and I probably wouldn't have written about this so much if there were actually some cogent counter-arguements and reasonably strong alternatives.

I mean, I was one of those ferverently hoping that Feingold would get into the race.  But as it is, I think Edwards would make a better VP choice--and Feingold is a great advocate right were he is right now.  (Though I wouldn't mind him as Chief Justice, not one bit.)  Still, I would be quite open to hearing a well-thought-out argument for him.  Haven't heard it yet.

So what I'm doing here is as much an argument for rationality as it is for Edwards.  Let's try and be as rational as we can.  We've already shown we can be passionate.  That's not at issue.  But can we be both?  Right now, not looking terribly good in a lot of places.

"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 ]
Chicken & Egg -- (0.00 / 0)
I wonder. Do we support Edwards because we know he can help so therefore we downplay the things we don't like (Iraq vote)? Or do we think he can help because we support him? I tend to think most Edwards supporters are in the former camp because if we controlled the way people voted me might actually install someone like Feingold or Kucinich instead. Those of us who are progressive but also realistic about the way people vote probably see Edwards as the only progressive (maybe the only Democrat) who helps make a Democratic victory more certain if added to Obama's ticket.

I think that with strong advocates of other candidates (and that's really the motivation for them being anti-Edwards, right?), it's a belief that once America sees how wonderful Webb, Clark, Rendall, Hagel is, etc., then suddenly that person will become hugely popular and become a game-changer for Obama.  They come from a place of emotion and hope, and that's fine, as long as they are willing to admit it.  This points to a larger problem of too many people thinking their opinions, based on feeling, are interchangeable with reams of data collected by one of the top polling outfits.

[ Parent ]
I Think You're Absolutely Right (4.00 / 1)
This in particular nails it exactly:

I think that with strong advocates of other candidates (and that's really the motivation for them being anti-Edwards, right?), it's a belief that once America sees how wonderful Webb, Clark, Rendall, Hagel is, etc., then suddenly that person will become hugely popular and become a game-changer for Obama.

It's like they have a teenage crush.

I was actually quite troubled by Edwards war vote for a long rime.  But I didn't just arbitrarily shut out what he said about it later, which is why I was open to being persuaded that he had actually learned from his experience, and changed in some significant way.

I then compared this to Obama, and how he had originally been right, but then failed to speak out once elected to the Senate with anything close to the passion he expressed when he had no power whatsoever.  The comparison left me more impressed with Edwards evolution that Obama's devolution.

Sometimes "what have you done for me lately?" is anything but short-sighted and narcissistic.  Every once in a while it's the essence of sobriety--and dare I say, wisdom?

"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"ll second that (0.00 / 0)

I think that with strong advocates of other candidates (and that's really the motivation for them being anti-Edwards, right?), it's a belief that once America sees how wonderful Webb, Clark, Rendall, Hagel is, etc., then suddenly that person will become hugely popular and become a game-changer for Obama.


It's like they have a teenage crush.

Reminds me of people grasping for reasons why Paul Hackett was a better choice than Sherrod Brown for the senate race in 2006. When really Sherrod was more progressive, he just didn't tote an AK47 and shoot his mouth off and call Bush an SOB. Which I guess appealed to a lot of people, but they wouldn't just come out and say that's why they supported Hackett.

[ Parent ]
But calling Bush an SOB was great! (0.00 / 0)
I wish there had been room for both Hackett and Brown.  Brown's a great progressive but Hackett's a cool dude in my book, too.  
[ Parent ]
I dissent. (4.00 / 1)
1. There was a productive discussion of the so-called "canard" yesterday, which descended into an ad-hominem attack on your part, calling the objections "hatred", and describing the objector as "in a huff".  By labeling the counter-argument as a "canard", you are pre-poisoning this debate.  You raise a few valid points, along with a few invalid points, but the manner in which you raise them is objectionable.

2. The SUSA diary on which you base today's diary has already been discredited; their methodology was to compare an Obama/Edwards matchup versus other hypothetical matchups in which the vice-presidential nominee had never campaigned in the states surveyed.  Your conclusion was that SUSA "had failed to turn up an (sic) serious, credible alternative to him."  Certainly, any survey which avoids polling serious, credible alternatives, will fail to turn those alternatives up.

You've augmented the data from yesterday's diary with more data from SUSA:   Obama/Rendell was tested in Pennsylvania, where the team compares favorably to Obama/Edwards (3-5 points, comparable to the margin of error) and beats all other matchups; Obama/Sebelius was tested in Kansas, where the team outperformed Obama/Edwards in some matchups.  Today's data only serves to strengthen, not refute the point that a candidate who has campaigned extensively in the state being tested will outperform a candidate which hasn't.

2a. Bruinkid's first comment, regarding the data you've added today, highlights how favorably Obama/Edwards performs in Minnesota versus McCain/Pawlenty.  Comparing a Democratic matchup to a Republican matchup is an example of cherry-picking.  Pawlenty's "tough re-election battle" took place before the I-35W collapse and the subsequent revelations about how Pawlenty's administration has handled infrastructure issues.  You've argued that other years aren't comparable to 2008 (more about that later), but I claim this is an especially conspicuous example of old information not corresponding to current political realities.  

3. The comments you've chosen to elevate in this diary represent only the comments that support your position.  As this is an opinion site, you have no obligation to cover dissent, but it makes your argument weaker to present it in a slanted manner.

4. Your refutation towards the argument you characterize as "Edwards 2004" is to say that "2008 is not 2004".  That's tautological; but on the other hand, June is not November".  You're claiming that one set of data--the set which supports your premise--has a predictive value in an upcoming election, while another set of data--the set which doesn't--fails to have predictive value because the dates are different.  (Your second argument that Bob Shrum, not John Edwards, ran the 2004 campaign, makes little sense.  Are you suggesting that John Edwards will be running Obama's 2008 campaign if selected as a running mate?)

5. You then cite Bruinkid's refutation of the "Edwards 2004" argument.  He writes,

Did you know that Bush got a higher percentage of the vote in 2004, when compared to 2000, in EVERY southern state... EXCEPT for North Carolina?

To cite this refutation immediately undermines your earlier claim that "2004 is not 2008"; by dismissing one set of data on that basis while promoting another, you're cherry-picking.  

5a. Bruinkid's argument, though, highlights another weakness.  You conclude that

So, John Edwards had a positive impact in his home state comparing 2004 to 2000"

but he---by the same data---had no effect in any neighboring state.  The data you've elevated suggests that Edwards's appeal is very limited.  (In fairness, I suspect that his appeal is broader than the data represents, but bruinkid's claim can't be cited as evidence of this.)

To be clear:  My objection isn't that you advance John Edwards as a potential running mate; he's certainly a strong choice which deserves examination.  My objection is to the facile way in which you make his case and the fallacies by which you categorically dismiss opposing arguments.  

I Said Something That Rubbed You The Wrong Way (4.00 / 2)
and from there on, you've gone all irrational on me.  That's your perogative.  But don't expect me to waste my time treating you like a dispassionate, rational interlocuter, when everyone can plainly see that you are not.

I should point out that I have long-established reputation for snark, aka irony, dry humor, sarcasm, etc., etc., etc.  So when I wrote "Your Hatred Is Duly Noted" I was somewhat humorously pointing to an edgy tone that you then dramatically escalated.

Now would be a good time to say, "Oh, sorry, I was having a bad day and thought you were really calling me names."

And I would say, "That's okay.  Comes with the territory of being snarky online."

And then we could proceed to discuss things like normal human beings.

Or not.

The choice is yours.

Until then, your arguments are simply tiresome, based on either simple repetititon of already-refuted positions, or misrepresentations/misunderstandings.  What runs through all of them is a lack of fairminded reading, and deep inability to grasp context.  For example:

5. You then cite Bruinkid's refutation of the "Edwards 2004" argument.  He writes,
    Did you know that Bush got a higher percentage of the vote in 2004, when compared to 2000, in EVERY southern state... EXCEPT for North Carolina?

To cite this refutation immediately undermines your earlier claim that "2004 is not 2008"; by dismissing one set of data on that basis while promoting another, you're cherry-picking.

 

Let me break this down to make it very simple to you:

(1) I have always maintained that how Edwards did in 2004 as Kerry's VP was an irrelevancy, for a multitude of reasons.

(1a) VP candidates don't run shit,
(1b) and to pretend otherwise is sheer delusion.

(2) But BruinKid showed that
(a) even if you want to argue that 2004 is relevant,
(b) the conclusion that Edwards was a weak candidate is not warranted.

The argumentative strategy of assuming something for the sake of argument, and then showing it to be false is as old as the hills.  For you to completely misunderstand this is not a good sign in terms of your basic reasoning skills.

But, like I said above, I'm willing to write it off as having a bad day.  We all have bad days.  Something gets to us, and everything we know goes out the window.

It's just, now would be a good time for you to remember the first law of holes.

The deconstruction of the rest of your arguments is left as an exercise for the reader.

"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'm standing my ground. (0.00 / 0)
Now would be a good time to say, "Oh, sorry, I was having a bad day and thought you were really calling me names."

I wasn't having a bad day.  Considering that you followed up the "hatred" remark with "You need to learn to read a little better", and "you've gone all irrational on me", I think it's absolutely fair to assume that you were being defensive as well as "snarky".

In any case, I can apologize for words that I choose, but it's not my responsibility to apologize for the words that you've chosen.  If you didn't mean to call my points hatred.

I've chosen my words carefully.  I've called your argument facile, but I've never said that you were facile.  (Indeed, I thought this diary was excellent.)  At every instance, I've chosen to attack your words, and not your person.  By characterizing me as "in a huff", or "rubbed the wrong way", and saying that "everyone can plainly see [that I'm irrational]", you've failed to grant me the same respect.  

I share your belief that an apology is due.  

(2) But BruinKid showed that
(a) even if you want to argue that 2004 is relevant,
(b) the conclusion that Edwards was a weak candidate is not warranted.

The argumentative strategy of assuming something for the sake of argument, and then showing it to be false is as old as the hills.  For you to completely misunderstand this is not a good sign in terms of your basic reasoning skills.

My reasoning skills are sound.  In the second paragraph, you're describing a proof by contradiction: Assume P is true. Show that a false statement follows from that assumption.  Conclude, therefore, that P is not true.

What BruinKid claims in the first paragraph is quite different: Let P be the premise that "2004 is relevant". Let Q be the premise that Edwards is not a weak candidate. Show that P implies Q.  That's not a proof by contradiction; that's modus ponens. And modus ponens requires the assumption that P is true. You've granted that assumption to BruinKid for the sake of this argument, and simultaneously denied that assumption to me when you wrote, "2004 is not 2008".  

[ Parent ]
Golly there are nothing but positives in every test of Edwards as Vice President in any polling I've seen (4.00 / 2)
Also there are amazing positives from the primary period ion which Edwards was put in a potential race against all possible Republican Presidential nominees. Polling in amazing, at the time, levels against McCain, Romney, Huckaby and the rest. Edwards beat all comers in those polls and there were more than one, held at different points.

That was one small reason I was an Edwards supporter at the time, and wrote tryi9ng to figure out what he appealed to, in order to poll higher than the entire Democratic field.

These polls from SUSA mare not perfect, but Paul is correct when he points oput that it obviously isn't just name recognition, or affection, but a added power of attraction as a candidate, higher than Sebelius in Kansas. This isn't name recognition! This isn't one race, this isn't a single poll, nor a single period of time.

These are points that are harder to refute than you think.

To clarify, I support Edwards as VP, I supported him as President till he had the good sense to withdraw. I had good reasons, they are still good reasons. Polling is only one.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
I agree in part. (0.00 / 0)
Also there are amazing positives from the primary period ion which Edwards was put in a potential race against all possible Republican Presidential nominees. Polling in amazing, at the time, levels against McCain, Romney, Huckaby and the rest. Edwards beat all comers in those polls and there were more than one, held at different points.

I have never said, here, or at any other site that Edwards would be a poor choice.  He's one of the strongest choices available to Barack Obama, though I disagree that he's the strongest.  I agree with everything you've said here.

These polls from SUSA mare not perfect, but Paul is correct when he points oput that it obviously isn't just name recognition, or affection, but a added power of attraction as a candidate, higher than Sebelius in Kansas. This isn't name recognition! This isn't one race, this isn't a single poll, nor a single period of time.

These are points that are harder to refute than you think.

I'm not trying to refute all those points.  Your first statement, "These polls from SUSA are not perfect" is exactly the focus of my argument.  

SUSA provides only statistical data; Paul Rosenberg provides the analysis of that data.  But if the data is flawed, then the analysis which follows is necessarily invalid.  

My original argument (which I began yesterday) is that SUSA's methodology is too weak, and consequently, Paul's reliance on SUSA's results weakens his argument.  An argument that gives fair credence to all the statistical evidence, regardless of whether it helps or hurts Edwards, and then draws a conclusion would earn my respect and admiration.  But this argument that says in one paragraph "2004 is not 2008" to slap down a piece of data that hurts Edwards, and then proceeds in the next paragraph to use a different piece of 2004 data which helps Edwards, does not.

Since then, I've followed up with a second argument that Rosenberg's use of ad hominem attacks against his critics (which he calls "snark") further weakens his argument.  (It also endangers the atmosphere at Open Left and threatens to turn this site into the sort of echo chamber that we've seen at other sites.  Belitting people who contribute to this site, because you disagree with their contributions, is a de facto quest for groupthink.  But I consider this to be a separate, and much broader issue.)

[ Parent ]
Hurting Your Feelings Is NOT An Ad Hominem Attack (0.00 / 0)
An ad hominem attack is an attack on a person in place of a response to their arguement.

In fact, I said some things that upset you, and you attacked me for it.  In that comment attacking me, you ignored all my substantive arguments.  As I noted in my reply:

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

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

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

Now, I may have hurt your feelings (how was I to know you were such a Michael Schwimmer-type sensitive guy?), but I didn't stop making a substantive argument.  You, OTOH, went into total finger-pointing mode, and the substantive points went unrefuted.  That means that you were the one making ad hominem attacks, even if you felt justified by saying, "He started it."

(It also endangers the atmosphere at Open Left and threatens to turn this site into the sort of echo chamber that we've seen at other sites.  Belitting people who contribute to this site, because you disagree with their contributions, is a de facto quest for groupthink.  But I consider this to be a separate, and much broader issue.)

You've been here all of four days and you are issuing dire warnings about our impending doom?  Pardon me if I offer another explanation, since plenty of folks recently arrived here have remarked on how different we are from the highly polarized sites during the primary era.  My explanation is that you misread my tone--an easy thing to do in cyberspace, happens all the time.  I've done it myself on more than one occassion, and I've shrugged it off when others have done it to me.  It happens. Such is lfe.

But, instead of getting it, and moving on, you've decided to double down. Your choice.  But I don't think you'll enjoy it very much here if this is how you operate all the time.

People will just get bored with your shit.  A lot faster than you might imagine.

"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, um, . . . (0.00 / 0)
is this snark?  Just so we're clear.  

In fact, I said some things that upset you, and you attacked me for it.  In that comment attacking me, you ignored all my substantive arguments.

You say I "attacked (you) for it".  The record shows that the alleged attack, verbatim and in its entirety read:  

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

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

You then say,

Now, I may have hurt your feelings (how was I to know you were such a Michael Schwimmer-type sensitive guy?), but I didn't stop making a substantive argument.  You, OTOH, went into total finger-pointing mode, and the substantive points went unrefuted.  That means that you were the one making ad hominem attacks, even if you felt justified by saying, "He started it."

Unless you mean David Schwimmer, I don't get the reference.  In any case, you're using the words "sensitive guy" and "total finger-pointing mode" to continue to belittle me (I do consider the "sensitivity-as-weakness" insinuation to be offensive).  As for "the substantive points went unrefuted"; there were no substantive points.  There was a diversion into how "the press loves John McCain"; a point about how "there is a clear and compelling integration of the Obama message and the Edwards message" -- which is true but doesn't relate to SUSA's methodology; and a point-blank dismissal of my refutation of that methodology as a "huff".  

You close with:

You've been here all of four days and you are issuing dire warnings about our impending doom?  Pardon me if I offer another explanation, since plenty of folks recently arrived here have remarked on how different we are from the highly polarized sites during the primary era.  My explanation is that you misread my tone--an easy thing to do in cyberspace, happens all the time.  I've done it myself on more than one occassion, and I've shrugged it off when others have done it to me.  It happens. Such is lfe.

You've claimed before that I've "misread your tone".  But your comments continue to be hostile; you've cast aspersions on my reading ability, my "hurt" feelings, my sensitivity, my rationality, and the level of interest in "my shit".  You've criticized me for not responding to your "substantive" arguments, while leaving mine as "an exercise to the reader".  You've belittled other members of this site as well; for example, you just called another member "truly clueless".  

I've been on this planet for enough years to know that it's a lot harder to shrug off the truth.  You've seen that, too, with Larry Craig's "I'm really not gay" protests, or George Allen's "I was thinking of his mohawk!" defense.  The intensity and emotional escalation of your response testify that, rather than having misread your tone, I read it exactly right.  

I'd be more conciliatory on this point if I saw an effort on your part to meet me, rather than shout me down as an illiterate, emotional newbie.

But, instead of getting it, and moving on, you've decided to double down. Your choice.  But I don't think you'll enjoy it very much here if this is how you operate all the time.

So, if I submit to the will of the front-pager and meekly shut up, I'll "enjoy it very much here", but if I stand my ground that you've misused weak statistics and grew increasingly defensive about it, I won't?  Well, thanks for telling it like it is.

[ Parent ]
Bored Now! (0.00 / 0)
-- Vampire Willow, "The Wish," Buffy, The Vampire Slayer, Season 3, Episode 9.

People will just get bored with your shit.  A lot faster than you might imagine.

Wow! It's like I'm psychic!

"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 ]
A regular Miss Cleo, indeed. (0.00 / 0)
Well, since you're giving in, thanks for letting me get back to work.

</snark>

[ Parent ]
Upon further reflection I'm calling you out, Paul Rosenberg. (4.00 / 1)
On Saturday, when you thought you had the upper hand in this debate, you crowed in two different diaries that I didn't respond to your points.  

So today, now that I am responding, you've run away from the discussion by feigning boredom and leaving the refutation to others.  

Respond, or don't respond, as you like.  But I claim that this diary is an abuse of statistics.  It relies on data from a single source whose methodology is questionable; and cherry-picks other data in an effort to fit data to the hypothesis and not the other way around.

[ Parent ]
Too Late (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, you've already shown your stripes.

Not interested.

There are much more productive things to do with my time.

"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 ]
Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)
I'll accept, then, that you're "not interested" in subjecting your statistical "research" to the scrutiny of peer review, and that you've chosen to let my original comments stand.  

My stripes aren't yellow.

[ Parent ]
Your Juvenile Antics Are Duly Noted (0.00 / 0)
I'm calling you out

How's life in third grade?

"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 ]
My third graders say that it's fine. (0.00 / 0)
...and that they're better at statistics than you are, neener neener.  

One of us is going to have to end this; we've reached an impasse with mutual hard feelings on both sides.  You've presented your research; I've challenged its validity.  I'm content to let it stand at that, so I'll close with this acknowledgement:  

On my end, my attitude toward you worsened with the sensitive/Schwimmer comment, which was a bit of macho, sexist stereotyping that stunned me coming from a front-pager of a progressive blog.  Looking back, I recognize and concede that from that point on, the tone of my own writing went downhill, and that my hands are no longer clean.  This is something I regret, although I can't honestly say I regret it deeply.

[ Parent ]
Correction: (0.00 / 0)
You've been here all of four days

I signed up on June 12.  Which four of the intervening days were you counting?

[ Parent ]
Your arguments are illogical (0.00 / 0)
My other post was for some reason was unable to post, and so, I will give a quick example:

You say Rosenberg is being illogical, but it's actually you.  You seem to argue that Rosenberg's method for determining whether the Gov of MN has strong name id in MN by observing that a governor who won his state in 2006 will have strong name id conflicts with (according to you) determining whether we can compare 2004 to 2008 with regard to VP nominations and Presidential strategies.  The evidence was used for completely different purposes. There is no conflict unless you don't understand the underlying logical construction of what the evidence is there to prove. If you don't understand that, then yo udon't understand the arugment. before you attack me for making an ad honinem- I am not. I am simply pointing out the construction of your argument lacks the ability appreciate the purpose for which premises are used, and therefore not categorizing the premises properly results i n illogical constructions.

[ Parent ]
sorry going back I realize I got it wrong (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Thanks. (0.00 / 0)
I feel like I'm being railroaded a bit, so I wanted to let you know how I appreciate your taking the time to "go back" and read what I wrote.  
[ Parent ]
compelling argument (4.00 / 2)
I'm sort of ambivalent on choosing Edwards, but this diary definitely makes a great case for his electoral value on the ticket. Speaking of which, I'd love to see some poll numbers for Obama/Gore (another politician with excellent brand recognition).  
Great Point. (4.00 / 1)
... so would I. As I consider him to be number 2 in line as a great candidate, with a fair drop to the next set of great candidates for VP.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Yes. Too bad SUSA did such a crappy job picking potential VEEPs to poll (4.00 / 1)
Among them, the only one with a national Brand (I like this distinction) was Edwards.

Who else should they have polled?
H Clinton,
Richardson
Biden
Dodd (pre mortgage)
Pelosi
Wes Clark

What other Dems have well-known brands?
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Robert Byrd
Jimmy Carter
Grey Davis (? but not in a + sense)
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
John Paul Stevens
(It helps to be old, or to have run for Prez.)

Even Kucinich has a national brand.  Extremely, vehemently antiwar and pro-impeachment--he has built this brand over two primary election cycles for President.

Sabelius, Hagel, and Rendell have no brand outside of their states.  That Edwards does at least as well at Rendell and Sabelius in their respective states certainly emphasizes his strength as a VP candidate, but it doesn't say how strong he is compared to other brand-known Democrats.

Rosenberg uses the numbers from SUSA as well as possible, but SUSA didn't do anyone any favors.  The numbers, with Paul's supporting analysis, certainly show that JRE would be a strong VP choice, but that's the limit of the useful conclusion that can be made, as far as I can tell

[ Parent ]
well that's better than (0.00 / 0)
it shows nothing at all but name recognition. which is what folks  like kos have argued each time the polls have shown edwards strength as a vp choice.
[ Parent ]
And one more (4.00 / 1)
with a national Brand, I'd say:

Howard Dean.

Why don't people talk about him as a VP candidate?  
Too insider-y as the DNC chair?

[ Parent ]
You Have A Good Point, But (0.00 / 0)
since almost all of them clearly aren't going to be the nominees, I think SUSA would have been doing an acceptable job with Clinton, Clark and Richardson, plus some favorite son/daughter matchups, like Sebelius, Rendell, Hagel, etc.

Also, I think I've established more than just that Edwards would be a strong VP choice.  I've established that he would be a winning VP choice, so far as we can tell today.  That is a more precise description of the degree of strength he shows.

This is particularly highlighted by the emergence of the South Atlantic seaboard as a potential battleground area.  If that's the battleground, then it's pretty fricken obvious that Obama is going to win, the only question is "by how much"?  And Edwards is clearly capable of taking that opening that exists today, and making sure it stays open.

"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 ]
Lemonade (0.00 / 0)
Hey Paul, I totally agree that you have established JRE as a winning VP choice.  SUSA made your case harder by their lack of comparable "branded" choices.  Given SUSA's polling lemon, you've made about the best lemonade imaginable.  Everyone knows that a tall glass of cold lemonade really hits the spot on these hot summer days, especially in the South.

Hey Skeptics:  Insert snarky "kool-aid" comment in next reply.

[ Parent ]
Looking forward to the Case for Edwards (0.00 / 0)
Paul: Somehow or another I've gotten myself tangled up in discussion here.  I've been trying to say (and explain) the non-polling reasons why I'm not convinced even the best numbers will put Edwards on the ballot, but that said, if the case is good enough (and the numbers do make a good argument, as does the fact that Edwards survived a VEEP-vetting once already), Obama may have to make an executive (rather than a personal) decision.  (And before anyone jumps all over me... I've already acknowledged that the media reports I've based my opinion on may be flawed entirely.).  SO - I'm very much looking forward to your Edwards case.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



I agree Obama might go elsewhere (0.00 / 0)
Human beings do not always choose what makes the most sense and we are not always pragmatic. Obama might have a gut instinct that tells him to pick Tim Kaine, for example, and he might choose to listen to that inner voice.  Since he's the nominee, all we can do is live with it and hope it works out.

Paul's continuing argument (and this has been a great series to read) is about showing the electoral case for Edwards. If the Obama Camp is placing a priority on this (and they might not be), then it would seem likely Obama would pick Edwards.  But if the Obama Camp (or Obama himself) has different concerns, we could see another pick.  Personally, I would be disappointed in Obama if he let personal feelings make this decision for him.  I believe his top concern should be winning in November.  

[ Parent ]
Personal vs Electoral (0.00 / 0)
I hear you, but what if good enough is good enough?

It appears, from the SUSA polling that there's a slam dunk with Edwards.  But what if you get a bankshot with someone else?  What if you get a candidate that doesn't hurt you any, nor help you any, and you believe you can win on your own merits?

My point here is that it needn't be such a sharp divide, and I am of the mindset that one should think beyond November in choosing a Vice President - once chosen, you're stuck with him/her!  I actually like that Obama is thinking in terms of governance.  "Who do I turn to for a 2nd opinion? Who's going to disagree with me AND still follow through on the direction I sent?  Where is my "cabinet of rivals"?"  With that sense, prioritizing who he'll work best with seems at least as important as chosing who will get him on the ballot.  And, if, as has been said, Obama discounts Kerry's blame the VP candidate theories, it is possible that he views getting elected his responsibility, and not the job of the Vice President.

Just offering that contrasting viewpoint, and thanking you again for being understanding of what I was trying to say. :)

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Why would you want a bank shot? (0.00 / 0)
This where it turns personal with regard to your views. I asked above, and I will repeat- who do you think Edwards is? some fly by night cowboy?  
[ Parent ]
This is the Sebelius/Kaine argument (0.00 / 0)
They are close to Obama but don't do much for votes. I think Queen is saying that Obama might strongly prefer working with someone who trusts completely (like Sebelius or Kaine) over someone else. George Bush choose a personal friend in Cheney and didn't care that Wyoming would have gone red anyway. So there is precedent of this.  I do think though that Obama would be taking a very unwise risk in doing so. Another "Reverend Wright" type scandal or some gaffe involving Michelle could turn some of those polls numbers.  It's better for Obama to assume the race will be close and tough rather than a sure thing.  
[ Parent ]
I guess I am thinking less of gaffes and more about (0.00 / 0)
how can he build a landslide to give him the ability to govern through the mandate he will receive with such an outcome.  
[ Parent ]
Me, Too (0.00 / 0)
But the same logic applies in either case, interestingly enough.  And that's actually a pretty good sign.  It's like the worst-case logic and the best-case logic both argue for the same thing.

And then, of course, you realized that what they argue for is winning as many votes as possible, and it's "Well, Duh!" time in the big city.

"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 ]
Great point (0.00 / 0)
And then there all those congressional races - 538 of them and those senate races. No Democrat is as popular as Obama (that's why he's our nominee) but Edwards is the next big thing for acting as a surrogate and campaigning for other politicians. As Paul pointed out, Edwards was the only person suggested by both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus.  They would know better than us who could actually help them in their contests.  
[ Parent ]
Um.... no clue at all what you mean by this... (0.00 / 0)
and I'm about to give up trying.

The only "personal" in my view is one that agrees with the idea that Obama should choose someone he's comfortable with, if it doesn't cause him harm electorally - and that is based only on Obama's statements.  Blue November stated that he hopes Obama does what's best practically, and doesn't put personal considerations over practical ones.  I agreed, in the main, but asked (hypothetically) whether he still held to that opinion if he could do both - ie., have a VP candidate that's "good enough" electorally, even if not as great as Edwards, while ALSO choosing someone he personally trust.

Once again - I don't KNOW if Edwards is or isn't someone who fits Obama's "personal" criteria - but I've expressed the concern that the press on the two suggests maybe (MAYBE!) not.  IF (IF!) not, then yes, it is my personal preference, that Obama has a choice that works for him personally AND electorally, even if his personal choice is second best to his electoral choice.

Finally - trying to make heads or tails of this fly-by-night cowboy thing - Edwards was my second choice candidate behind Obama.  I like him.  I like his wife, and hold her in high regard.  I don't have a clue what cowboys have to do with anything.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
But If He Wants A "Cabinet Of Rivals" Then Why IGNORE Edwards? (0.00 / 0)
And look to people who weren't even in the running?

See, this is where I start getting confused again, as to (a) what you're saying in your own voice, vs. describing and (b) how this is supposed to relate to the argument of the diary.

The whole "cabinet of rivals" thing is silly on the face of it anyway, not just intellectually pretentious but wildly inappropriate as well.  But that's a topic for another time.

"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 don't think Obama would ignore Edwards (0.00 / 0)
I seem to have this argument all over the place.  I am constantly arguing against Hillary supporters who want her in the #2 spot (anyone know why SUSA isn't polling on that? I actually wrote to suggest that they do so, along with polling Schweitzer, and it seems they went with Schwietzer and ignored Hillary again...).  My opinion on the Hillary thing is that it's a complete waste of her talent to put her in VP.  I'd like to see her in a different cabinet position.  Most people who don't see Edwards as VP see him as Attorney General - which is a view that makes lots of sense for me - especially if there is truth to the argument that the FISA immunity thing is only regarding civil suits, and not criminal ones.  

I'll say this again.  I'm NOT against Edwards for VP.  I like him for the role, and have (as I've said before) vacillated between him, Richardson, and Clark as favorites, with a flirtation for Schweitzer based on some of the enthusiasm for him here and at 538.  I'm not ideological about this, other than this one thing - I LIKE Obama's interest in creating a working government team around him, and if he says he wants someone he trusts for VP, I want him to have that.  

BTW (and thanks again to Blue November!), I'm actually anti-Sebellius.  I think it looks like pandering to put a woman on the ticket after Hillary.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that Hillary made the feminism thing such a huge issue that every other woman considered in this cycle is diminished, unfairly.  Whereas she successfully ran as a convincing candidate, every other woman (on both sides of the fence) this cycle will seem like "the woman candidate."  That's a shame, but that's how it seems, at least right now.  I'm of the opinion that Obama has to choose someone he CAN trust, which is different from someone he already trusts.  In that respect - Edwards has a chance, even if all my concerns are 100% true.

Now... it's 11:45 in my neck of the woods, and I'm heading to bed.  Be well, all! In spite of apparently being a poor communicator, I've enjoyed spending the day with you all.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
The Case For Edwards-Refuting the "Name Recognition" Canard | 129 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox