Edwards support falls to lowest level recorded in four months.

John Edward’s support this week has fallen to 11%, the lowest level recorded since mid-June.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

Those who can't, teach. lol

An accurate description to be sure.

Are teachers some kind of losers?

For a guy who claims to be a teacher, the OP is actually quite ignorant and misinformed.

I feel sorry for anybody who has him as an instructor for their class. If it's a collegiate university, I'd demand a refund for inadequate instruction.

;)

Really sad that losing and loosing get confused so often everyplace, on DU.

You may want to consult a dictionary before you correct someone's correct spelling.

He/she corrected me pretty good with the "could of guest". But than I had to shake my head at the "looser" comment.

That double-error of yours is almost cute really. People will write "could of" "should of" etc. for "could have" and "should have" - but writing "could of guest" instead of "could have GUESSED" is kind of cool!

I can see how it might happen too - you might have been thinking of the way "t" sometimes can be an option for "ed" - dreamed or dreamt, burned or burnt, and that led you down the garden path... :)

I made a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out after I "could have" edited it. ;)

"Could have guessed," btw.

And I hope this Edwards basher isn't teaching my kids.

but I don't think the OP is out of line.

I would agree with you. But he does nothing but bash Edwards and Obama as much as he can. Just search his post.

It's a link to information. I understand you may not like seeing it, but that doesn't make it a bash.

Is GOLD! PURE GOLD!:rofl:



That one is a KEEPER!

I have to reason, some people aren't as sharp as you and Smalll.

not stupidity.

Spell (and syntax) Nazis (usually) annoy me. I am glad you have a good sense of humor. It can happen to any of us (and it's happened to me).:toast:

That's why editing is so difficult...

:hi:

I failed to read the OP in a timely fashion.:grr:

:toast: to you for catching it.

Corporations and the media have been campaigning for Sen. Clinton and trashing Edwards from day 1. I consider this country to not have legitimate elections. Who runs for office, is determined by the rich (corporations and the media). The rest is done by unfair laws. Really, is there any point at all in pretending this is a democratic country?

See this post for a graph of the daily trend:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3518385&mesg_id=3622556

It's clear that support for the top three candidates is meandering within a narrow range and simply not changing all that much.

I know I'm certainly glad that the candidate who tends to do the best in head-to-head match-ups with the Repugs is losing ground in the polls. The more uphill the battle for the Democrats the better, I say.

:sarcasm:

What a charming campaign with such charming supporters.

"Please, Edwards supporters! Switch your votes to Barack - it's the only way we'll stop Hillary!"

But it seems to go both ways from time to time. People need to understand the candidates are opponents and and the support groups don't have each other's interest at heart. AT ALL. Which is how it should be. Oooh, you go for my guy and I'll go for your guy! Riiiiiight. When I see that, I say, Jesus, how soft is that candidate's support? It's a bit unnerving.

...so that's who the OP has decided to support (this month).

and I'm considering voting for him again.

I think the main stream press, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, have been very unfair to him. However, the Post did run a question and answer session online today with Edwards providing the answers. I liked what he wrote.

I like John Edwards. He would probably be my second choice for primary. I think he would make a good president. Your post makes me think about donating to his campaign.

Do they fear the obvious...that Hillary Clinton has peaked at this point and they can see the writing on the wall?

I think so.

:rofl:

...bullshit..and never have...

Just another DC insider sucking off the corporate teat...

(If you think she's peaked, you're deluding yourself.)

which is proven by the fact that he is down 30% below Hillary in the polls. Now that we have learned that he is Dick Cheney's cousin it gives us more reason to shy away from him.

Should no one have voted for Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton either b/c of their "black sheep" brothers? Holding who people are related to against them when voting seems pretty silly IMHO.

Be gone. What a fucking ignorant statement.

He risks going into the group of single-digit also-rans like Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, etc.

when the others have saturated the cycle 24/7 and voter fatigue will have set in......then Edwards fresh message will resonate.

Given what he has spent....it is outstanding that he has not been knocked out....and it says something positive about his viability.

offsets any spending deficit Edwards may have. He just hasn't developed traction - and I don't know why.

causing people to react to the unique and first time ever, a woman and a person of color.

Think about the attention getting aspects of that dynamic.......yet at the end of the day.....Edwards is still around and now getting substantial endorsements.

Do not under estimate his strategies. I believe he has the leadership to pull this off.

Iowans liked the 2004 version better than they're liking the 2008 version; or it's at least confusing enough to them, they are holding back full acceptance.

Ooops: Sorry. You're talking about the nationals.

If he can't get back up in Iowa soon, no other reason exists to keep him in that tier. It doesn't mean he can't pull it out in the end, as he's shown he is capable of doing, but he's riding in a different pack.

and two people, Clinton and Obama, to overcome. That's a lot of ground to cover - probably not unprecedented for an ad campaign - but it's certainly unlikely.

Many people's minds have been made up.

it's too little, too late for Edwards to start his campaign in Iowa, IMO.

cast.

and held back his advertising, but that's ok - maybe/somehow the support for someone (Obama? Clinton?) will collapse and he won't need to spend it. I think you're not providing much of a case that Edwards' campaign has been well managed.

If he loses for any reason other than because he didn't have the 50 to 100 million dollars his oponents will have, then his campaign was not well managed.

And are you serioulsy saying his campaign is badly managed because they're not trying to spend all their money right now while running against two candidates with bottomless pockets?

Were you alive in 2004?

Don't you remember what happened in the waning days of each primary? Every serious candidate has a commerical on the air, and it doesn't matter if you spent millions three months before the election. Obama and and Clinton don't need to collapse for Edwards to win it. He just needs to be running ads and getting press and having people compare him to the other candidates in the last 3 days of the campaign. If he spends all his money now, he won't be able to run ads in the last three days.

What research suggests that people's minds were/are still open to candidates at that late date?

I think that's a fantasy, unless you've got some evidence that advertising now is not a powerful strategy.

Edwards has enormous resources, especially for small ad markets like Iowa and NH.

Iowa and New Hampshire voters are noted for going against the national frontrunner in their primaries. I have heard that around 80% of voters could change their candidate. Three months to go before the election is certainly not too late to change peoples minds.

I'm guessing Eddy's supporters didn't. Otherwise they'd notice the 11% is a seven day average for the past week and is the lowest point for Edwards since mid-June. With the Iowa Caucus less than three months away, these are numbers that Edwards absolutely cannot like. Treading water is something Edwards cannot afford to be doing right now.

It's sink or swim time, Ed.

the issue was cleverly sidestepped with name calling and insults. It's very interesting that despite all his targeted attacks against Clinton, his numbers have sunk. Maybe the union endorsements will bail him out a bit.

I can read a poll and I'll readily admit that it isn't looking good for Edwards, but why would Democratic primary polls change my personal preference for who receives the nomination? A film's box office gross doesn't influence whether I like a movie or not, so I'm not sure why poll numbers would suddenly make me start hating a candidate. The polls just tell me that most Democrats have a different opinion than me - fine, I can live with that. Hillary could be polling 90% in the primaries, but I'll still vote for Edwards - among other things, the 1994 midterm disaster and the impeachment debacle kind of prevent me from jumping on the "Bring Back the Clinton Years" bandwagon.

Of course, I will respect the judgment of the majority of Democrats and vote for Clinton in the general election if she is our nominee.