Edwards Leads Dem List of Potential 2008 Presidential Candidates

Those who follow the Daily Kos regularly may recall on Thursday some posted a link to a Gallup Poll poll of most acceptable candidates. On the Kos Daily Kosdiary, written by Montana Maven, the headline read "Four in 10 Republicans Would Not Find McCain an Acceptable Candidate.", which is what Gallup used on its site.

What the link did not tell us until Argus Reid Consultants blog today (they must have paid to see the data) reported that it was a joint USA/Gallup poll (taken June 26-29), in which the thread is entitled:

Edwards Tops List of Likable Democrats for 2008

Opening paragraph:

- Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is regarded as a good presidential contender for Democratic Party supporters in the United States, according to a poll by Gallup released by USA Today. 71 per cent of respondents believe the 2004 vice-presidential nominee would be an acceptable candidate in the 2008 election.

Question: I'm going to read you a list of people who may run for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. For each, please tell me if you would find that person to be an acceptable nominee for president from the Democratic Party.

Here's the rundown:

John Edwards 71%

Hillary Rodham Clinton 69%

Al Gore 68%

John Kerry 59%

Joe Biden 44%

Wesley Clark 42%

Howard Dean 40%

Bill Richardson 36%

Tom Daschle 35%

Russ Feingold 29%

Mark Warner 29%

Dennis Kucinich 21%

Tom Vilsack 19%

Source: Gallup/USA error margin of 5+, read on Argus Reid Consultants site.

This data is similar to Netroots Survey(in terms of Edwards being on top of list, Vilsak on bottom), done by Chris Bowers at My DD, and posted at Kos.



This is un-biased information, and it seems that with the blessing of Elizabeth Edwards being well, there's a good chance Edwards will run.

In case you hadn't seen anything about Elizabeth Edwards recently, she was in the news today. Story was picked up by the AP and published in several places.

That's another journal in itself.

Edwards was stronger then John

Boy that's a surprise entry for me!!
How'd his name get on the list?

talked about running is on the list, plus at least one who says he has "no plans" to run.

Three excellent choices. And yes, it is fascinating that they used to poll to trash McCain instead of uplifting Edwards. They avoided good press for the Dems, as always, but they trashed a Repub--I wonder what that says. Looks like someone isn't happy with McCain.

Any doubt about Gore, check out his small venue appearances. He's working like a fire and brimstone preacher on a hot Sunday morning. In contract, his speech at DC's Constitution Hall was elegant and precise, but with a theme of anti tyranny. It was the single best speech I've ever heard when you combine all of the elements, an historic event. Edwards can light up a room like few have ever been able to do. He was used sparingly in 2004 but what experience. His current theme taking him to the top is fighting poverty.

It can't escape us that gore is at 68% AFTER he said no deal (which you will understand if/when you see "An Inconvenient Truth").

Given Edwards on top, without much media attention, Gore right there after seeming to bow out, Hillary has to be disappointed. This is her apogee, she's peaking two years out. It's all down hill for her. She's learned nothing other than the election process in Ohio sucks (for which I commend her).

I think we've got a front runner, Edwards. Wait until he gets more exposure.

Great post...fun stuff.

which asks who you support - She is still way out in front with nearly 3 times the support of Edwards.

The question here was acceptable/unacceptable - the results are good news for the Democrats in that they have many candidates who are acceptable to a large part of the party. (The 3 mentioned and Kerry at 59% - lower but not shabby) The Republicans are actually in worse shape - Guilliani and Rice and McCain are the only strong ones they have - and with more knowledge Guilliani will be unacceptable to more people.

This study is good news for Hillary - she slid from numbers commonly in the 40s into the 30s earlier this year. This seems to have stablized, when if the number were entirely due to her being ordained the leader they could have spiraled quickly once there was that fall.

The numbers are good for Edwards, as he is likely a second or third choice for people with other first choices and it says a lot of people are willing to accept him if he wins. He still needs to do something to become the first choice of more people.

For Gore, the good news is the that more people accept him again - meaning that the smears thrown at him when he returned and the press called him "angry". The 16% number at this point is not high enough to suggest he can get the nomination without a huge primary fight, that he may be loathe to fight. One caveat - this study was done the first week in June. I would suspect that he may be doing better now with more people seeing his film.

For Kerry, the numbers are better than could be expected given the fact that the media has not given him a break in the last 2 years. Even the horrible Bob Dole, with his Britney Spears oogling commercials has been treated with more respect. His numbers in the primary poll are essentially equal to Edwards and his "acceptable" number is higher than McCain's and better than in earlier polls - all with no positive press coverage. (Like Gore, his numbers could have changed since the first week of June due to his and Feingold's Iraq plan. Unlike Gore, Kerry has still not received friendly press - which may not change.)

Which is makes Edwards #1 in two polls.

Screw McLaughlin Group (not that I get up in time). Thank you for the ace analysis. This is what I call "value added" politics.

Here's a ringer. If we have an eco catastrophe that is w/out any doubt tied to climate change, Gore's the nominee and President in a walk, who cares what machines they use. I know that sounds odd, and it is, but the unavoidable reality has to set in some time. How do we learn? So if that happens 60 days or so before the primary, it's all Gore all the time. It won't but that would be such an irony.

Hillary has a primary. Tasini has no money but he looks pretty engaging. What is the worst case scenario for her in terms of his share? If he gets 20% no money, just a couple of good debates, does that hurt her, 30%...any magic number.

I'm pulling for Gore. This time is is as though our life depends on it.

Was that the one where he said, "He played on our fears!"?

I have the recording of that, one the best speeches of any American politician in the last 40 years..

Very moving. He got about 8 standing ovatoins. My wife and I were sitting next to "Byron York of National Review. When it was apparent that he wouldn't stand at any point, I thought she was going to clock him.

He was in total command, teaching, exhorting, well you heard it...but in person, he just owned the place. You forgot about time...and now for your door prize,

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00122.htm

You say 40 years (and I agree) but check out how far back I go :rofl: (last section)

:hi:

Wow, it must have been electrifying to have been in that room as it happened.

The most important speech since the Civil war. You make a good case.

Thanks again.
:hi:

And I think Al Gore is a great patriot.

But...for those of you who are pulling for him...

It's my observation that he has to develop the "common man" touch. If you listen to his eloquent speech at Constitution Hall, it's not written for today's common man; the patriots in the Revolution certainly would have understood, but only they could vote at the time. Women, minorities, etc, were not allowed to vote, and to a certain extent, poor people weren't either.

The one true advantage Edwards has over any of the candidates is the ability to touch a common person and be accessible to his/her view. I can speak from personal experience. I am not a big wheel in the party, and I am solidly middle class, although I worry each day I could slide since I don't receive cost of living increases some years (depends on state budgets). Edwards understands this problem all too well when he speaks about poverty. If we don't lift up the poor and if our middle class continues to erode, our government cannot work best for all of us. We (the middle class) are the backbone of this country. And I love it when Edwards says he is tired of meely-mouth politicians who don't tell you what they really believe, and only talk at people, instead of having a conversation with them, which he feels strongly about.

I invite those of you who are skeptical or wish to become more familiar with Edwards' recent events to visit my blog, Benny's World or even better, the One America blog at http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com. Listen to his podcasts. Sign up to get a text message on your phone--yep you can do that. Do a search on Youtube under the term johnedwards and find videos of recent speeches.

He's out there folks, and that's why he's number one on two polls.

one. It all depends on where things are in a year. If there is something demonstrable going on with climate change, every man and woman, common or not, will be suddenly petrified and Gore will be immensely appealing. Having said that, after I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" I realized that what Gore is doing is actually more important than being President of the United States. He alone, of all major current and former world leaders, is taking on this issue, alone in that group. That's his great gift - being the resource for folks at that level, getting them on the same page, etc. Right now, the world leaders are a bit challenged and, amazingly, none of them are saying a peep, none of the heavy weights. They have probably talked more about *'s behavior at G* than they talked about climate change.

I like Edwards because he fought corporate America in the trenches and won. I also have a deep respect for the dignity he has shown around the tragedies in his life.

Edwards is clearly doing this to promote a humane political agenda. Who would think of "poverty" as a target at this point other than someone thoroughly committed. It's a great commentary on him as a person.

I'd prefer Gore, I'd be extremely happy with Edwards. In addition, he wouldn't have to balance the ticket. This guy will sell in the South, period. He did to juries and he will to enough of the white vote we always lose to make a difference.

I like the guy and your blog is excellent. It's on my list. Thanks.

No doubt about that but I really doubt he is going to run. We'll know soon enough, meanwhile, Gore is doing great work!

My number one choice is Edwards, in part for the reasons you noted. Edwards is all about supporting the working class and lifting up those in poverty. "Thoroughly committed" is spot on. America Works best when it works for all of us


Great post, autorank.

likable is the OP's word. This is not a slam on JE- there are people who are quite likable, but not acceptable as president. Likewise, there are people who are acceptable as president, I don't find likable. ( I don't find Hillary likable, but she is acceptable as President)

:loveya:

mostly positive reports from the media, who have been largely saying the democrats like them and (at least for Edwards) have been reporting very positively on him.

For Hillary (and I am not a big fan) to get this type of number is great, given the relentless negative press she has been given (saying that she is controversial, that she is not liked, ...). As for Kerry, if you were listening to the media, he is disliked by most democrats. When you look at this poll (that is assuming he means something), Kerry is 4th in this list, and Clinton is basically tied to Gore and Edwards. As for the more classical primary poll (which is meaningless at this point), Clinton is first and Edwards is tied to Kerry.

However, my take on this poll is that it is mainly name recognition.

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

step up from what we have now. I'm a little scared on his refusal to endorse single payer healthcare and his foreign policy establishment view. But again a huge step up, and very electable.

Of course I'd probably end up marching against him one day, because I know he's susceptible to the corporate politics I dislike. But his serious work on poverty and all else would only cause me to vote for him with reservations, not all out dislike.

Please 'splain...

Edwards supports strengthening unions among other anti corp work. He also supports Universal Healthcare. He mentions both in this recent speech to the National Press club: http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/speeches/20060622/

I like that he is using poverty as his signature issue, plus he is my home state boy, and his wife is wonderful.

It's a courageous stance to take. Poverty, and the increasing gap between the wealthy and everyone elses, is a vitally important issue. Edwards is at the top of my list.

Honestly, I would be for him even if he wasn't the candidate with the best positives and consistently the lowest negatives. But he has great compassion and charisma, add his brains and his good image, I think we have lift-off to a Dem WH in January 2009.

When you compare the Kerry-Heinz clan's daughters and John & Elizabeth's oldest daughter and then stand them all next to the Bush twins, well, you can pretty much take it from there.

He probably would but he's one term Senator from a state he didn't even help carry. Do we really want to take that chance??

We have to find someone we KNOW is electable.

I am not 100% sure that Edwards will be my favorite. It is a long time 'till 2008, with a really important mid-term to get through first. But for the primary, I am going to pick the candidate who best represents my vision for this country. Since poverty is really important issue for me, Edwards may be the one for me.

Don't worry, I will support and vote for whoever the dem candidate is in the General.

Gore and Hillary
Gore and Kerry
Gore and Edwards
Gore and Clarke

I would have guessed Gore or Clark for the leader, but good for Edwards.

Why not just really surrender the '08 election and nominate Dean?

short pants for the entire election, and then have Howard Dean not run.

Next we could have unusual endorsements. Maybe a few offshoots of coffee distributors. Has that been done?

I think also a few really good blues-based rockers could volunteer time, but let's keep your short pants motif, ok? They shold probably wear short pants too, and maybe football helmets with NASCAR lapel pins.

What do you think?

are a requirement for all elections.

And that it's against the law to not wear them.

Even worse if you try to burn a pair.

Or as one tech person who confronted JRE not long ago about Dem politicans to grow some balls and take the Re-thugs to mat?

JRE has backbone; courage; doesn't paint himself in any corner, other than government should work best for all of us, and not for Cheney's/ W's corporate buds. He's his own man.

his final chances are for the nomination, but the early readings seem favorable.

I catch his appearances and addresses sometimes on C-Span. I can see him making quite an impact on voters in about a year and a half when the first caucuses and primaries are held.

serve in the military.

Or, short pants for PNAC and the Bush administration's War Machine. No matter what. Red short pants with
"GOP" emblazoned in white in large letters.

The Democrats can just wear their regular clothes.

I don't see it myself, perhaps if you explained your reasoning?

"in short pants" Greenhorn, snotty, unfledged, not yet breeched, lacking gravitas.

"Dukakis" Nice guy, smarty-pants, defenseless, easily negatively defined by his opposition.

skews toward a pro-Democratic Party viewpoint.

reward the guy who was "misled" for 3 years on the Iraq War with the presidency!

Hell, these days the qualifications for Commander in Chief is to get the one that doesn't know what he doing!

Hey....Could work for Dems too!

1-term Congressman. No foreign policy experience to speak of. Shrill voice. Not even the first choice within his own party. Led in no polls. A trial lawyer to boot.

His ghost would stare at you and ask you what the hell you're talkin' about.

I can understand if Edwards isn't your pick, I can even understand if you believe that electing him would be a mistake, but I CANNOT understand being nasty about it. There has been far too much of that here at DU already; it's time to return to something resembling civil discourse I think.

eom

Hillary & Bayh were out of it.

Gore, and I got to go with my 'homeboy' Russ Feingold, for a VP shot.

Please, no Hillary, not now anyway. I personally think she will be seen as too divisive of a candidate. I think she is a smart, strong woman, but I don't think she is electible at this time. IMHO, she should step out of the running SOON.

Edwards has been on my favorites list since 2004, and Fiengold, also. Between the two polls there's a big difference on Fiengold's standings, so you have to wonder. But I understand Edwards results due to his understanding of the common working man. Plus he has always kept from being the personal attack type candidate, which makes him likable.

But if you look at the question again, it reads who is the most acceptable.

That counts more than likable.

...and that means swing voters! :hi:

Hey Catchawave. There you are again, making sense and representing the pro-Democratic line beautifully.

Hope you're doin' great.

Always great to see you posting on matters of the political hearts and minds of all the fine Dem candidates :hi:

a huge blue tidal wave.

It's a great year to be a Democrat.

Hope you'll get over to OAC and say hello. :hi:

:kick:

Virginia's second district is trying to get rid of a Bushbot, Thelma Drake and we have the Webb-Allen smackdown for the Senate. Whew!

I miss my JRE friends :hi:

and thanks for the comment. :hi:

John Edwards is who this country needs to return it to what it can and should be. Thanks Benny.

:hi:

Appreciate you stopping by for your first post! :hi:

Edwards is the one who will rise above his opponents' slings and arrows, and point the way to a brighter future for us all.

Edwards do seem to have their priorities lined up better than a lot of folks, especially a lot of folks in the Republican Party.

Nice post, machka, and a warm welcome to these boards.

Thanks for posting. Do come back. :hi:

To those of you who are making fun of Edwards, I say wait until it gets closer.... THEN go to one of his rallies and meet him in person, THEN meet Elizabeth and YOU WILL SEE!!

I would like Gore/Edwards but Gore says No. I put Gore first because he's been there and it would be a fantastic set-up for Edwards. What many don't seem to understand about Edwards is that he HAS done the "hard work" and made himself what he is today!

I have a lot of respect for him and so so much for Elizabeth!!!

Haven't WE all made some mistakes, and I have yet to hear Hillary denounce the WAR!!

Mostly, he'd get ripped to shreds on his "inexperience" factor, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

Edwards was a great orator during the 2004 primaries, but when push came to shove, he wasn't nearly as effective as the actual VP candidate as he was when he was a candidate during the primaries.

I think the Republicans and Hillary both are more afraid of him because he is independent-minded and he doesn't mind taking on tough causes. He has far more solutions than I've seen from any of the ones who are considering a run. Hillary is supposed to say a few things today from what I understand at the DLC meeting in Denver, but all I've seen is mimicks of JRE's ideas from the other candidates.

It came after 6 years of Bush corporatism -- make that hyper-corporatism -- culminating in a nearly bankrupt government, highly preferential tax cuts, a costly war (costly in all respects), Enron chiefs convicted and dying of heart attacks, class polarization widening visibly, and pension funds being threatened, reduced, or wiped out.

If Clinton's campaign mantra still holds to any extent ("It's the economy, stupid") and if one major reason voters distrust Bush is those cozy deals with upper-crust corporate types, Edwards' emphasis on "the Two Americas" and the moral urgency to make them One America might have a resounding effect.

Edwards has shored up on international issues quite a bit. His traveling symposium with Jack Kemp recently made him a much more visible observer and analyst of foreign affairs. Many U.S. presidents have limited or no experience in foreign affairs when they take office. They're bulked up by squads of veteran analysts and policy is forged accordingly.

He hits a nerve among many core Democratic constituencies. Labor. Afro-Americans. Women. Young folks. Suburb moderates. Many small business owners. Cross-over Republicans who supported Carter & Clinton. Many more Southern voters. Anyone weary of Bush's mangled speech and incoherent policies. Anyone appalled by too many Bush Republicans in government since 1988.

Elizabeth Edwards would prove to be a very potent draw as well. When she showed up in Iowa in 04 for events people left those halls duly mezmerized. John and Elizabeth connect with folks in a way Dubya and Laura just never have. Iowa Democrats gave 32% of their support to John and Elizabeth. They like these people.

I think he could be very competitive in a national race in 08.

Shortly after the election in 2004, he was asked by the media "what was your biggest mistake?" His reply was "listen to Mary Beth Cahill".

I think we can all agree, his talent was wasted on that campaign. IMHO, I think they under utilized him for fear of upstaging Kerry's drone.

Really, do you not think Edwards is a strong enough choice that you can't promote him without throwing in disparaging and untrue remarks about John Kerry?

Kerry's DNC speech was a thousand times more compelling than Edwards' was, and everyone I watched the convention with agreed. After all the hype about what an amazing, electrifying speaker Edwards was, his speech was a letdown. Then, after hearing all the spin about what a dull speaker Kerry was, to see his speech was like a slap in the face. I was lukewarm about the election until I saw John Kerry's speech at the DNC. That speech turned me from an "anybody but Bush" voter into a full-fledged John Kerry supporter. That speech fueled three trips to swing states where I campaigned for Kerry. That speech made me realize how completely, utterly, and hopelessly wrong all of the media's spin and lies about him are.

If Edwards inspires you, fine. I like the man, and I love his wife. But really, let's leave the cheap shots to the Republicans, shall we? I have no idea why some supporters of other candidates can't seem to support their guy without tearing down other people.

Kerry lost the 2004, not Edwards .... geesh, get a grip :) And 'drone' was meant as a nod to JK's voice inflection, not him personally.

I like him and his wife. No need to bash other Dems just to promote him.

We need to stop living in the past and focus on the future. 06 is now. Hindsight is 20-20.

As a liberal, several years ago I got stuck to Edwards and he hasn't disappointed me yet!

Go, JOHNNY, Go!

rating in NC is currently 48%!

Dems have to find a candidate who can carry southern states. If Al had carried TN, FL would have been irrelevant.

As things stand right he Is looking to be the alternative to Hilary. Out of all those In the senate
who voted for the war In Iraq he has come up most renouncing his vote. He Isn't my first choice for the nomination but far better than Hillary,Bayh,Biden,and Warner. Polls before suggest he would do best against Mccain(while he doesn't lead Mccain he does better than Kerry or Hilary) If his support
In Iowa holds up he Is in good shape. And caucus In Nevada and primary In South Carolina moved up could also help him.