John Edwards can win anywhere in the country.

Discuss.

Said this in another thread... if he can win over juries for large settlements in rural North Carolina... he's set.

Needs to balance his ticket, of course. But he would fare really well in the South and maybe the midwest too.

the difference is that he can compete in the SOuth and some other areas that are not hard in either color.

Did someone say he could not? :shrug:

...because they aren't white Southerners. I don't know where that leaves Clark in that theory.

unless he wins NH why roll the dice ?

I was originally an Edwards supporter who moved to Clark because I felt that he was the most electable. Given his alleged flip-flops on the war, which are products of right-wing spin, his electability has seriously diminished. Meanwhile, Edwards has become a contender. I may switch to Edwards yet. I will decide soon.

Very charasmatic. Only self-made man in the race (excluding DK and Sharpton).

Can a relative newcomer convince people that he can be trusted on security issues in the post 9/11 world?

work, including Intelligence committee work.

...term. Lost his bid as a Senator. On the strenght of his lawyerly debating skills and his passion about democracy and his opposition to slavery, got elected president.

So, we have to go back to good ol Abe to find evidence for why he can win? It's time to get real about Edwards. Looks good, talks good, but does anyone really think he has the credentials to take on Bush in 2004? didn't he just get elected to the Senate in 1999? 20 years of real world experience? (who the hell doesn't?) the question is experience in what? being a trial lawyer...and that well, Clinton & Bush didn't have foriegn policy or military experience and *they* won arguement, just doesn't cut it, not this year, not this time. If he cannot get re-elected to the senate in NC, why should anyone believe he can beat Bush?

:crazy:

1. You say: "20 years of real world experience? (who the hell doesn't)?"

Uh, a lot of people. A WHOLE lot.

If you do not count Washington and military experience as "real world experience", SEVERAL of our candidates do not have it.

But the main point is: a poster claimed that John Edwards lacked experience as if he were fresh out of high school. That is simply not accurate, as I pointed out in my prior post.

I see no reason to dismiss years of (a) SUCCESSFUlLY fighting for children harmed by doctors, against much better resourced opponents, AND (b) successfully managing the business that resulted from it, nor to dismiss an excellent record in the Senate and service on the Intelligence committee.

Finally, Bush has more relevant experience than any of our candidates, i.e., serving 3 years in the White House already. Does that make him more qualified?

2. Excuse me, but by what means do you know that he would not have been re-elected had he sought it?

3. Let's assume that he would not have been re-elected. Is it possible that he is more liberal than many voters in NC but that he is well in tune with voters in more liberal parts of the country?

You cannot be serious.

Please, please, please tell me that you really don't believe this.

Edit: slight wording change

lived in south.

Clinton went to Oxford for two years and New Haven for three and it was enough to create the whiff of "Brie and cheese," as Bush says.

(Although I wish he had!)

He went to West Point, which is in New York. And from what I've heard, they don't serve much Brie to the cadets at West Point.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The real question is why one group of people in one region are not willing to vote for people from outside their region. Is this 2004 or 1864?

I think it might be a personality thing. This is a broad, broad, broad generalization but I think it fits overall.

Southerners (including me at times) like a pleasant, charming, personality. And we define that at home to some degree. Down here, people from New Jersey and New York sometimes get disparaged by natives for having a personality, a choppy accent, a cold style. That can be the perception at times. And the average New Yorker and the average North Carolinian probably would show this contrast, even though it's a stereotype.

And remember that most southern politicians are in their forties, fifties, sixties, or like Strom Thurmond, well... that's too easy of a joke. So they grew up in the South of the mid-1900's, where I think these divisions show up even more.

So I think the successful politicians in the South - the ones that rise to the Senate or a governorship - probably have these types of personalities, which then play better in the national elections. I don't think it's where you're born, so much as how you act, and being raised in the South produces that type of personality that Southerners like so much.

And some of it may be hearing the Southern accent. Would you vote for a politician with a French accent? You might think twice. And there are plenty of Southerners who would think twice about voting for someone with a thick New York accent.

Again, generalizations. But that's politics. :D

to put him over the top (in November). It might be harder to get him nominated, than elected later. I really would like to know which one the Dem establishent favors, because that is crucial.

The more I hear about JRE, the more I think of Clinton in 1992, only no Flowers and no "War Room." What could Rove do to him, bash him for looking good?

I heard that they referred to him as the "Breck GIrl".

I'm thinking I'll just stop responding to posters with Howard Dean avatars altogether.

I'd vote for him and think he can beat Bush but lets be realistic.

He'll be painted as oppurtunistic, young, and too unfamiliar with government.

He'll have trouble in the South just like Gore did (his home turf).

That is, in his accent and other cues that 'we' would pick up on. He is very much like people that I know personally, and that impression will be repeated over and over all through this region. I'm not talking ideology here at all; but to some cultural level that many Southerners will positively respond to.

On a more superficial level, NC has never had a president before, and that will make a difference to some voters; he can carry NC.

OTOH, Gore just seemed like someone from Washington, and quite 'distant'***. That should not matter, but to many it does. Edwards is the pleasant guy next door whom you have always felt well about.

*** Being thought 'distant' is NOT a good thing in the South.

like the "friendly" type. I think people from Minnesota, MI, Wisconsin are a bit more reserved and "distant" in their preferences.

I apologize if I seem to be stereotyping. Obviously there are many individual differences.

But he can definitely win in the Northeast, the Midwest, the Southwest, the Northwest and can at least get within striking distance in a few Southern states.

JRE would take places like WV and NC (believe it). And make it real competitive in SC (his ancestral home) and definitely FL. I also think he would appeal in Iowa and Missouri.

he'll have to work to win in NC. He'll activate Democrats here, but he'll energize Republicans as well. A lot of people are pissed at him in NC for running so soon.

But I think his chances are pretty good in states like maybe SC, Florida, West Virginia, and Louisiana. And with Clark or Kerry on the ticket, he could probably carry a state with a high military population like NC.

Even Clinton couldn't carry North Carolina. And Edwards has only won a single election in North Carolina. So I wouldn't count on him carrying his home state. But he could keep things close, and force Bush to work for every Southern red state. And Edwards could possibly carry states like Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, which were all close last time.

Look, if Edwards carries any Southern states against Bush, he'll win. Because if he's doing well enough to win in the South, he'll be doing at least as well in the North, Midwest, West, etc.

We have no chance on winning most of the mountain states out west, and the Great Plain states in the midwest. In the south, Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, and Kentucky are well out of range even for Edwards. But just the threat Edwards can play in the other states will put Bush in a very different position.

Clinton didn't win a ton of Southern states. I don't think he ever carried the Carolinas and I'd be surprised if he ever carried Mississippi or Alabama. And he only carried Georgia and Florida once.

I saw him get befuddled on a few hard questions from Tweety. I like him on the stump but theres something I can't put my finger on that makes me uneasy.

this?

He is as ready as he's gonna be.

but that's one for the expectations game.

Dubya won in part because he beat the increbible low expectations. If Edwards is perceived as "not ready for prime time" so be it... all the better when he mops the floor with Bush in the debates.

Edwards is a baby and a doofus. :-)

I won't support anyone unless they can win Wyoming.

I think Indiana is important as well.

chance than Kerry or Clark. He's also fine, and like it or not, shallow America loves a fine-looking man.

The biggest problem that Edwards has is that like Gore, he won't be able to carry his own state.

plus Ohio or Florida.

but the problem he has, which all the candidates will have, is that in order to beat Bush he will have to shatter that benevolent image of Bush that the public holds so dear. It is a false icon, and it should be exposed for what it is, but you cannot do that by being nice to Bush.

So many people seem to give Bush such a pass because they "like" him. They didn't "like" Gore as much. Edwards will turn off some people, but most people "like" him.

Edwards' "play nice" strategy has been designed for use in the primaries, that is, he does not want to bash fellow Democrats but will fight back if he thinks they are attacking him (as with Braun). But refraining from attacking opponents will not be necessary if he is the nominee for the general election. There, I think he will put his best courtroom skills to work demolishing the opposition. This does not mean an all out attack (which the "judge" might find over-the-top). They don't call him The Silk Assassin for nuthin'.

I do think he will try to keep the "hope and optimism" theme, because it resonates with a lot of voters who don't want to delve into the issues, and with some who do.

Just my opinion.

Edwards will destroy him by _not_ being condescending.

Do you think the guy knows how to do cross-examination? He will succeed where Gore didn't by not sighing, but rather not letting anything go by unanswered...

Clark is the only alternative where the ability to carry his own state is a positive.

I mean, Kerry would carry Massachusetts, and Dean would carry Vermont. But so would most Democrats.

particularly in those states with large populations of veterans and military retirees.

Gore took his home state for granted. Edwards won't make that mistake.

And I don't think you could say that about any other candidate. So while I agree that Edwards would probably lose North Carolina to Bush, he could still carry a few other states in the South -- states like Arkansas, Missouri and possibly Florida.

Look -- if Bush loses even a single Southern state to Edwards, he's in big trouble. I don't think there's a single state outside the South that Kerry or Dean could carry but Edwards couldn't. On the other hand, Edwards has a better shot at winning in the South than any other Dem, with the possible exception of Clark.

before.

Edwards has the same problem as Kerry - he has alienated the anti-war Left. Nobody really knows the size of the anti-war Left, a bloc of voters who are traditionally very strong for Democrats. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey thought he could write us off as a locked-in constituency. Late in the campaign, he realized his mistake and tried to make amends, but it was too late.

With their cagey "Yes" votes on the IWR, Edwards and Kerry decided not to take the anti-war Left as seriously as they took the centrists and the hawks. Too bad for them and for Hillary and a few others. If the party nominates a candidate with a big question mark hanging over them, it will be 1968 all over again.

Don't want a repeat of 1968? Don't nominate Edwards.

concern himself with the large number of voters in the middle. I disagree with Edwards on his stance partially, but I think he did what he thought was right at the time, and I like what he has done since then (voting against the $87B). He's not ignoring the anti-war left or failing to take them seriously. He just disagrees with them on this issue.

I agree with most of his other positions, and he is a zillion times better than Bush.

If he is the nominee, the anti-war left needs to realize that THEY will be responsible for four more years of disaster if they don't get behind him or whoever the Democratic nominee is.

The Democrats have been moving to the right so long the party would be indistinguishable from the Republicans, if the Republicans themselves had not also moved to the right. The entire spectrum has moved so far to the right that it's becoming intolerable.

In 1968, after a similar rightward drift through the preceding decade, the Democrats, who'd started the Vietnam war, nominated war-supporter Hubert Humphrey. This was a turning point. We in the anti-war Left announced that we'd had enough. We weren't taken seriously at first, but eventually Humphrey came around, too late to save his candidacy. Our efforts cost him the election, but none of us regretted it.

Similarly, if we get four more years of George Bush because Democrats nominate Kerry or Edwards, the responsibility will be on the party as a whole, not on the anti-war Left who refused to go along with it. Some events of history are bigger than the people involved in them.

Don't want 1968 again? Don't nominate Kerry.

They are not black and white. The question is at what point on a complex continuum you feel you are being compromised too much, and when you are ready to live with the consequences of those principles. For me, there is a HUGE difference between the candidates, and I can't live with the consequences of * for 4 more years. I agree that the Repugs have moved themselves to the right, but do not agree that the Dems in this year's group of candidates are intolerably too far right for me. I DO hold the anti-war left responsible for electing Bush if they do not back the Democratic candidate, but I understand and accept that you disagree with this.

I've gotten many lectures about compromising to get on in life. In 1968, when we were young and idealistic, our whole generation decided to bear whatever consequences might come from resisting politics as usual. I'm proud of what we accomplished, even though we didn't get it all done in one shot.

I disagree that there's a huge difference between a president who picks fights with small nations, and senators who approve such behavior. America regained its values after the Nixon years, but I'm not sure what this country would have turned into had we not taken a stand against Humphrey.

I agree that the risk of four more years of Bush is unpleasant to contemplate. But we can't really know the consequence of voting decisions until after the election. There is a worse outcome than a Bush victory - it's a Bush victory after we've surrendered the principles that define us as Democrats. Think about Jean Carnahan, who voted for the war and lost her seat anyhow.

I don't want to do 1968 over again. But if the Democrats take the anti-war Left for granted as they did in 1968, we're headed back there. Want to avoid all this grief? Don't nominate Kerry.

..in NC. He's burnt way too many bridges here.

(BTW, I've met him and he is utterly charming)

people want a certain level of maturity in their president, and although Edwards has a lot of strengths, he just appears too young . . . Bush will play the daddy running against the kid . . .

"People want a certain level of maturity in their president"

Are you insane?

The last three Presidential elections went like this:

46-year-old, inexperienced bumpkin from Arkansas with a "bimbo-eruption" problem gets 370 electoral votes.

50-year-old, draft-dodging womanizer from previous election defeats a 70-yr-old war veteran who literally gave his right arm for his country

50-yr-old, inexperienced, silver-spoon-fed, empty suit defeats a distinguished Vice President and former senator (albeit only in the electoral college).


People vote for anything BUT maturity in their president!!!

ps. Edwards is older than Bush was in 2000 and Clinton was in 1992. He just looks younger (WHICH IS AN EXTREME ADVANTAGE! The gender-gap with Edwards will be 70-30. Edwards will get the women out in full force...)

If women voted on the basis of looks you would have a much better looking Congress.

Those women who support Edwards do so because his views are consistent with theirs on many issues and because they believe his priorities are right and trust him. Cuteness is simply icing on the cake, and from the posts here, seems to work against him more than for him. Are some men jealous of him? :-)

he is far behind in money of Kerry & Dean & Clark.
With so many primaries aprroaching so fast, he may
run short of being able to buy a lot of TV time.

my second choice because of the deal he and Dennis made.

he always trails bush whenever the newspapers here do polls (and he's our senator). If people don't get anything out of that, then I don't know what to say.

It's gone Repub in the last 7 elections.

There are lots of good Democrats there, but not enough of them.