"Edwards has consistently outperformed all other Democrats in general election match-ups."

One very salient point of the most recent Rasmussen Report is that "Edwards has consistently outperformed all other Democrats in general election match-ups."

Another valuable data point is the fact that Edwards's lead over Thompson is twice as big as Hillary's and four times as big as Obama's: "Edwards still leads Thompson, 50% to 41%. ... In other general election match-ups, Thompson trails New York Senator Hillary Clinton by five points and Illinois Senator Barack Obama by two."

But here is the most critical point of the whole report:

Twenty-eight percent (28%) say they will definitely vote for Edwards if he is on the ballot in 2008. Thirty-two percent (32%) will definitely vote against him. That net deficit of four points (28% for minus 32% against) is the best for any candidate seeking the White House at this time. Thompson and Giuliani rank second and third by that measure.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/giuliani_and_thompson_gain_ground_on_edwards

a lot of people recognize that he's a pretty appealing candidate.

He's tapping into a lot of the things people really care about (class, opportunity, poverty) and he does it in a very genuine and effective way, and these are the issues that separate democrats from republicans. No Republican can talk about these issues, and no Democrat can do it better than Edwards.

does he poll so low in the dem primaries?
:banghead:

Down here in Georgia there was some kind of poll showing HRC in the lead. I can say from talking to people here (Savannah) that I have yet to find anyone who supports HRC as a first choice. A few Obama supporters, and the only car stickers I have seen are for Edwards, who seems genuinely popular here. Something seems fishy. Maybe things are different up in Atlanta, I don't know.

Clinton is a Clinton.

Obama feels like something new.


The Democratic voters are not looking past the msm and the fact that Edwards is the candidate most true to traditional democratic ideals. He also is a great campaigner. and his populist message appeals across the board.

I pray the msm levels the playing field, in which case we will see Edwards with the nomination, and the democrats with the WH.

They are being marketed heavily now to vote Clinton or Obama in the primaries...

1. So you have a huge chunk that put Hillary or Obama ahead in the primaries...

2. Then these same folk just "vote for the Democrat" in the general election.

Then you have the other people who *THINK*... being polled.

1. They either are voting for Edwards, or others like Al Gore, Dennis Kucinich, etc. in the primaries...

2. In the general election, just about all of them would fully support someone like John Edwards. But if the nominee were someone like Clinton or Obama, they might look at the Green Party rep or someone else to vote for. This gains support for Edwards and loses support for Clinton or Obama.

Then you have the independents and Republicans not voting in the Dem primaries...

1. Many would just vote against the Democrat now matter who it is.

2. Some independents and even some moderate Republicans are looking for a "non-corporate" candidate to vote for. They see the Republicans as a lost cause. They're hoping for that to come out of the Democrats. Hillary Clinton, and even to some extent the "bipartisan" (translated bipartisan between what the people want and what the corporate donors want) Barak Obama are also perhaps what they feel too corporate to be any different than the Republican they are against. They might stay third party too (Libertarian or Green, etc.)

3. There are some Republican or Independents that aren't ready for a woman or a minority person like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to be elected yet. A white southerner like John Edwards doesn't have that negative though. I'd like to think this group of people is becoming a shrinking minority, but I think they still can affect a sizable number of votes that could make a difference.

I think the corporatists are counting on their first choice of a Republican being affected strongly by the Dem nominee being pushed aside from people in category three here... And are hoping that the Dems are ATTRACTED to these two candidates BECAUSE they are either a woman or a black man, and not to someone like a John Edwards or an Al Gore that would perhaps be more of a threat to them, which is another reason I think why they are pushing the choices of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama amongst Dems.

The corporatists also try to posit the *myth* that Hillary being more "centrist" will appeal to those in the middle to make her sound as a more "practical" choice to some. I think that's a load of bull-hockey! When you have someone like her against the Republicans, the supposed group looking for "centrist" views will see no difference between her and the Republican. They will stick with the Republican if they were going to vote for the Republican against someone like Hilary Clinton. I don't think there are many Republicans/independents that would vote for Hillary Clinton but who would vote for a Republican against Edwards. I think it's a myth that these people exist in any sizable numbers!

The bottom line for me is that I really think it should be Al Gore or John Edwards if we want to win the presidency and get some REAL change to reverse the coporatocracy!

One big reason I support Gore now more than Edwards if he gets in the race, is that I think he could get a lot more of those voters that "do as they are told", since he has pretty high name recognition and these same people in the past have been told to "vote for him". You couple that with him having the same positives that Edwards has too, and I think it's a winning combination all the way around.

Polls where the candidates aren't campaigning are meaningless (that includes all national polls and all polls other than Iowa, New Hampshire, and -- not yet but soon -- South Carolina and Nevada) because the poll participants aren't yet responding to the campaigns or the campaign messages.

In ALL states where the candidates are actually meeting the voters and educating the voters on their campaign platforms, Edwards rises a lot, Obama rises a fair amount, and Hillary falls.

Just compare the Iowa and New Hampshire polls to the national polls or the polls in states where the candidates aren't seriously campaigning yet.

Hillary does best in states where voters have the least exposure to her and her campaign platform while she does worst where voters know her best and have the most knowledge about her platform. The exact opposite is true with Edwards who does best in states where voters have the greatest exposure to him and his campaign platform while he does least well where voters know him less well and have less knowledge about his platform.

have their heads in the sand. A surefire way to lose is to nominate Hilary or Obama. I remember when Harold Ford was running in Tennessee for Bill Frist's seat. Nine percent of the populus said they would never vote for an African American. That means that Ford had to get about 56% of the rest of the vote. That is not going to happen. I also stated that Tennessee is probably not much different than the rest of the country. Sure enough the last poll said that 92% would vote for an African American. That means 8% won't vote for Obama. This is too much to overcome. Hilary is just too hated and I don't think the percentages are much different for a wommen. Demo's please look outside you personal prejudice and please understand the makeup of how people vote.

Kucinich is my first choice, but I have to face reality, he's polling very poorly, so Edwards is my 2nd choice.

An Edwards/Kucinich ticket in '08 would be nice I think.