New poll: Only Edwards helps Kerry win.

Bush v. Kerry is 44-44.
Bush v. Kerry v. Nader is 43-42-3
Bush-Cheney v. Kerry-Edwards is 43-48 WE WIN!
Bush-Cheney v. Kerry-HRClinton is 47-42
Bush-Guiliani v. Kerry-Edwards is 45-44
Bush-Guiliani v. Kerry-HRClinton is 47-42
Three point margin of error. 900 Registered voters. Pollingreport.com - Fox News/Opinion Dynamics

Newsweek is Bush 45 Kerry 43 Nader 5
Without Nader, it is Bush 47 Kerry 48

and there's no mention of Clark . . .

I think they poll until they get the results they want. There is no way that Bush leads in any likely combination of running pairs.

The corporate media is cheer-leading for Edwards (even on a local level the push for Edwards is unbelievable by conservative talking heads). Therefore, I can believe that Edwards numbers may be falsely inflated. Of course, if Edwards was to become the VP nominee then the channeling of unborn children and voting for corporate interests (at the detriment of the little person who he swears to defend) would come to light and those numbers would plummet. It's really stupid to run on a populist message when the facts don't back it up.

If Edwards is the VP nominee I can hear the debate question now: Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported your ability to channel unborn children. In closing arguments you stated "She speaks to you through me. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1390885200&en=4fb97ac07a96f186&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Do you really have an ability to channel unborn children (like John Edwards of Crossing Over fame) or did you lie to the jury in making your closing arguments - which is reminiscent of a certain democratic president who lied under oath to the grand jury? In addition, doesn't either answer to this question really raise doubt about whether you are fit to be a heartbeat away from assuming the highest office in this land?

There is too much at stake in this election for Edwards to be the VP nominee. The corporate media (which is part of the Rove machine) will destroy him and the democratic ticket in the process.

until he is on the ticket then it will be:


"Trial lawyer. Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer.Trial lawyer."

Just wait and see.

Try personal injury attorney, channeler of unborn children, and phony populist.

So the chenneling part is clearly a joke, but the part about serving corporate interests is a complete joke, too. Wall Street REALLY doesn't want Edwards -- that's probably the biggest negative he'll have with Kerry.
And what in the world would make you suggest that he "lie(d) to the jury in making . . . closing arguments"? Evidence, please.

hae spoken, with Edwards, KErry wins, If Gore had been wise enough to have chosen Edwards, he would have won by numbers that Bush couldn't have stolen the election.

Kerry/? combos though..

Hillary is the only other VP choice they tested and she's not a good choice for many reasons, IMO.

That Giuliani's name is misspelled in the poll. Also funny that Fox won't ask the poll question with other VP choices that are actually likely, like say Clark or Vilsack, but insist on the GOP canard of all-Clinton-all-the-time.....

This is a FOX poll. They WANT Edwards on the ticket. So they only compare Kerry/Edwards to Kerry/Rodham Clinton.

Give me an f'ing break.

Edwards is not among my top choices but I don't have to say that "fox wants him". That's like the Dean-supporters back in the primary who called all the other candidates republicans every other post.

The poll is stupid, and so is the thread title of this post, but I also think it's stupid to say "fox wants Edwards"

Just one reason - besides they made those polls. By chosing Edwards, kerry cedes the Clarke/9.11 responsibility issue to Bush. This new Yorker would not take kindly to it.


9.11 justifies war in Iraq - WMD lies
Debate
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
comments MI:
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i2scdebate.htm
That was completely absurd and a huge moment in this debate.  Edwards, whose weakest point already is his lack of gravitas and foreign policy credentials, now said flat out that he is incapable of understanding that, despite the fact that 9/11 occurred, the President could still have lied and exaggerated.
What does one have to do with the other?  The answer is nothing.
To stand there and assert that you can't say, "there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives," is to buy into the most basic lies of the Bush administration.  It is the sort of thing the amoral puppets at FOX News assert.
9/11 occurring did not make Saddam have WMDs, and if the President exaggerated, as the Carnegie Report detailed him and his administration doing, then he exaggerated, regardless of what else happened.  There is no connection, and no useful presidential candidate would ever assert that allowing the slaughter of American people somehow means that it is impossible for lying to exist.  What is the connection?
Absolutely this was an horrific answer.

in Edwards' mouth that he did not say, because you obviously have your reasons for wanting to do so. I'm not going to waste my time dealing with it logically again.

You are also missing my point, which is that, obviously Faux wants Bush to win; if they are in the business of manufacturing results, they're going to do it to produce that outcome. Reporting that Edwards-Kerry will beat Bush does not achieve those desired results. They should have asked respondents about more than two combinations.

Later.

Kerry had cancer, if he should die we would have another republican in the office, and wouldn't that be stupid, when we all know Clark praised Bush and company.

because Edwards is so upbeat and Kerry is so serious.

I also like Clark and think Kerry should definitely name Clark to a high level position in his administration.

I do NOT understand why the public keeps giving Bush such high ratings for likability (higher than Kerry), but definitely Edwards is more likeable than Cheney.

Thanks! :toast:

:kick:

on his last wife and it was very public. He's got too much baggage.
He's an adulterer, ya know.

when he separated from his wife, a gay couple allowed him to live in their home while he got his life back in order and got another place to live. this could get some right wing extremist to take votes away from bush. even with giuliani on the ticket, bush will not win new york. so it's not really worth it for bush to put giuliani on the ticket. and if those numbers above are right it only shows the race is close so far. the difference between cheney and giuliani on the ticket isn't much. the numbers look good for hillary though, it shows she isn't hated by most people, the only ones who hate her that much are those who will not vote for any democratic candidate.

hell, robertson backed the gropinator. their rules on candidate positions only exist when its convenient with guys who fund pander to their financial empires

robertson and falwell would go out of their way to toe the party line and justify giuliani on a conservative ticket

misleading. Doncha think? Anyone with half a brain knows Hillary would be an aweful choice.

You don't provide a link so I can't see if they did offer other choices.

But national polls wouldn't even paint an acurate picture anyway of what a vp could do. Particularly among different swingstates. And you never know how a relative unknown(to the non news-fans) such as Landrieu or Graham would do with the public at large once they became at least as well known as Edwards is

Ta Da!!! :toast: :bounce:

:kick:

Didn't Clark praise Bush and Cheney and their administration, however he would be fine in a cabinet spot.

Nothing the R's like better than using our own words against us (Kerry on the 87B, I voted for it before I voted against it, went from his lips to a Bush TV ad.)
So you know what they'll do if Clark is the VP choice: redux of all the videos of Clark praising Bush and Co.
Think about it.
(You Clarkies never answer this.)

Whenever the Dean supporters didn't like a poll or a comment, they assumed the poll had been manufactured or the comment was a right wing plant or a Kerry conspiracy.
Sometimes, folks, the results are the results.
They polled Hillary and Edwards because they are the top two polling candidates nationally for the VP race (Edwards beats Hillary but she is his closest competition.) -- For cite, see pollingreport.com's polls on VP

:)

have been included, can't have an accurate poll without Clark. :argh:

Guilani is a national hero after 9-11 and deservedly so.

He is also anathema to the Republican base, a socially liberal (he wouldn't have become Mayor of New York if he hadn't been) politically moderate politician a reputation for outrageous conduct. This is a guy who once appeared at a press conference in a bathrobe with his girlfriend (he was not quite divorced at the time) also in bathrobe, to promote nooners at NYCs many fine hotels.

Besides, I couldn't see Rudy playing second fiddle to a lesser man.

to prevent a kerry/Clark ticket - because it would blow their "tough guy image"
Hmmmm, would Faux polling exclusively for Edwards play into this?
But then again, what does Conason know about the VRWC anyway? he only wrote the book on it ;-)

I like Edwards and think he would make a fine VP or president. But he doesn't really bring any unique strengths to the Kerry ticket. He's seen as good on issues like jobs, health care and the like, but Kerry already has Bush beat in those areas. The only place that Bush has Kerry beat is national security (arrghh, stupid public), and Clark on the ticket trumps that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=484035#484194
Just a cautionary tale about polls used to manufacture realities, opinion.

You can't tell me that Clarkes testimony did not move the numbers. Or Bush's 20 million in negative ads didnt move the numbers.

Damn Newsweek and Faux news. :grr: How convenient that they didn't poll on a Kerry/Clark ticket. :eyes:

that Clark is a Republican? Don't you know that no decent right thinking Democrat would ever lower themselves to voting for a Dem with a Republican on the ticket, unless it was John McCain in which case they would be tripping over themselves to vote for it.

After all, Clark said some nice things about the Bush administration back in early 2001, and again in the aftermath of 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan. The fact that many, probably most Democrats did the same thing is immaterial, as is the fact that Edwards has steadfastly defended Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

I tell you, the people won't stand for a Republican on the ticket unless it's John McCain, and they won't vote for someone who said nice things about the Bush administration unless it's John Edwards.

Now get your facts straight.:silly: :crazy:

If you are upset that only Edwards and H Clinton were used in this poll as comparison, write to Fox. Ask them to include Wes Clark next time. For that matter, write to all the polling groups.

Personally, I'd like to see the comparison as well.

One thing that was interesting about this poll is the comparison of Kerry/Edwards vs Bush/Chaney went up compared to the prior poll.

It could be a reflection of the Richard Clarke deal.

...when shown are only Edwards and Clinton as VP.

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

John Edwards 27
Hillary Clinton 5
John McCain 3
Howard Dean 2
Richard Gephardt 2
Wesley Clark 1
Joseph Lieberman 1
Al Sharpton 1
Bob Graham 1
Bill Richardson 1
Other 5
Don't know 52
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm#misc

...vs. Bush. It is a completely different question and a sampling just a short while after Edwards dropped out when he had a monopoly of news coverage.

Polls are not a predictor of the future. They are a snapshot of a moment in time. Remember, Dean was winning the nomination by a large margin at the beginning of January, and that moment passed.

Edwards' moment passed, too. Change is on the horizon...

But you have to wonder just how good a Graham and Cheney debate would be. Graham can't stand the guy