OMG - If we pick HRC or Barak over Edwards WE LOSE KY, MO, WI, VA

By the time election '08 hits - world & national events will dent the hell out of these numbers.

That, of course, is the logical extension of your arguement. Since you are saying the reason this doesn't matter NOW is because it is not THEN. So, OK, we can wait for THEN!

It would really be stupid to nominate someone who won't win in November. I mean....how dumb could we be?

Democrats selected Ned Lamont but he couldn't beat Lieberman in the general...
so, clearly people often select in their primary someone who can't win in November.
Still - I like Edwards and he certainly has a shot at both the nomination and he would be a credible candidate going into the fall of '08.
My point is that evolving world/national events may make it difficult for ANY repub to get elected President - or (hopefully) any other elected office!

We can't afford a close race.

heart. (of those who have a realistic chance). I think people (not us, of course)want a moderate (although he's anything but). Especially sane Republicans ! (yes, there are some). I think most sane people know the pendulum has swung too far toward big biz - Edwards fills that void. Plus, he talks from his heart and people can tell that too.

He as far more experience than Obama or Edwards. He's not as well known but I believe he will be by election time. True, he's not as pretty as Edwards but he doesn't have that twang that grates everytime he speaks.

consider voting for BR. I also agree about the twang. I love what he has to say - but I wish he would take speech lessons. I cringe when he says "NAY'TOE" Thank God that was back when everyone was calling for NATO to take over in Iraq and no one saying that anymore.

Maybe Edwards/Richardson?

They've been doing it all along. I think they're trying to get people to stay home from the polls, to be honest with you.

looking for the BIG story - the Clintons (illicit sex and marital strife) and the first woman to have a chance. Ratings.

to get the best candidate and one who can also win in red states?

And don't say Al Gore.

WHich of the candidates running would fair better than these three?

She never made any contention that anyone outside of the top three would be any better.She said Edwards would be the best out of those three.

numbers stayed constant and Rudy won the nomination, could win!

my bad

It could be Clark, but he may not run.

If the media had fawned on Biden and announced him the obvious front runner from the start like they did for Hillary, he could be a front runner. Heck, for that matter, so could Kucinich. The media, if they chose to could make him...ears and all...into a folk hero! But they won't. Richardson, also, could be portrayed as a contender. But he is not. Sorry, but Dodd and Gravel would be challenges even the media could not resurrect into contenders.

Face it, it is the media who have selected the top three for us. First they chose Hillary. Then Obama became the splash. Edwards was the obvious third man.

I don't think they anticipated Edwards winning, nor Obama. I hope the Democratic primary voters prove them wrong.

Al Gore.

www.draftgore.com

thanks for posting what I was thinking.

and (B) as groovedaddy said, it is far too early.

http://surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

And before you jump on me too much, there ARE states that HRC or Obama can beat Rudy. But I look at it like why lose these when we could win them???

in Tennessee? Where the ads implied he dated "white women", as though that was some crime. Well, unfortunately to many of these "so-called" "christians" from the south, and some in the north, it is a crime

I am pretty sure it will be Hillary and Gulliani, but unlike 2000 and 2004, I think we may actually win in Ohio and Florida which might just turn the election in our favor

research they did. And it was in the blue states people were more likely to vote for a black candidate than a woman. Sorry no link - it was on C-span one morning.

It doesn't help our cause when we keep repeating the lies. The voting was rigged. There was election fraud. People have gone to jail because of it.

that we didn't win by enough so that people wouldn't believe it when we "lost"

was still too close. Every poll indicated that

Even today, the polls for whatever reason indicate a very split country

That in itself says volumes about us as Americans, especially after what this administration has dragged this country through

I expect it'll look quite different a year from now no matter who gets the nomination.

Thes polls mean nothing. Nothing at all.

I like and the ones I don't like always mean something. Why can't we analyze the meaning of this? Surely, it means SOMETHING. To me, it means it's very possible we could win some red states, with the right candidate.

Florida, Ohio, Virgina, MIssouri, Iowa West Virgina and Colorado.


I happen to think that whoever plays the best in the south is our best bet this election cycle....We do not have to win a single state in the SOuth just make them competive enough for the Republicans to use more money there in defending their base than going after some troop rallying effort in a swing state.


Fo my money That is an Obama-Richardson Ticket.

equation and shake things up a lot from what we have known in the past. If he gets it that is. You can see it in these polls and in others I saw - he's taking the moderate dems away from us. This plays out in the newly purple (more moderate former red states). So where does that leave us? Winning the strong blues, losing the strong reds, and without Edwards or Richardson - splitting or losing the purples. Just MHO

Some medical organization should declare it an official disease.

believe we are headed toward picking a candidate who can't win. And I have waited too damn long for someone to get us out of the war, provide health care, and start cleaning up the poisoned water, air, and food that Bush has left us.

72 million Democrats.

55 million Republicans.

42 million independents.

If we vote the choice of the majority of our fellow Democrats, if we democratically support the primary vote, no matter what it is, WE WIN.

If we behave like petulant spoiled babies because our choice is not the majority choice, we may lose.

So go to your primary and VOTE YOUR CHOICE. Then show up to vote for the majority choice, the party's candidate.

THEN WE WIN.

Wisconsin hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1984.

This thread is useless.

Kerry
1,489,504 50% 10
Bush
(Incumbent)
1,478,120

And who said Kentucky was a swing state? We've got a candidate who can win a red state - 3 in fact - count em.

:shrug:

discussion, without just having to defend ourselves. It always seems it's all about the OP or the person quoted in an article - and never an intellectual debate about the subject - looking at it deeper - looking at it from all angles.

.... But I will scamper to Al if he takes the plunge.

who've told me they would vote for Edwards.

I do believe he has the best chance of winning.

Didn't Elizabeth complain that her husband couldn't win because he wasn't a woman or black? :eyes:

If I don't vote for HRC in the primary (and I'm planning on Edwards) it will NOT be because of these stupid polls.

!!!!!!!!!

As soon as it's widely known how much Johnny flip-flops and apologizes, that is.

I think Edwards is the most electable. I hope Iowa catapults him to the front, if I'm correct.

CLINTON IN IOWA VS RUDY




EDWARDS VS RUDY IN IOWA: 54-40 !!!

nt

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Wisconsin has cast its Electoral College Votes for the Democrat in five straight Presidential Election. However, in the last four elections no candidate has won a majority of Wisconsin’s popular vote and the last two elections were decided by less than half a percentage point. Al Gore edged George W. Bush by about 5,000 votes (out of 2.5 million) in Election 2000. John Kerry defeated Bush by 11,000 votes in Election 2004.

Early indications are that Election 2008 may provide another cliffhanger in the great state of Wisconsin. A match-up of the current frontrunners shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton with a statistically insignificant one-point lead over former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey show Clinton at 45% with Giuliani at 44%. Clinton leads by six points among women while Giuliani leads by five among men. Giuliani has a seven-point lead among voters not affiliated with either major political party.

Clinton holds slightly larger single-digit leads over other Republican hopefuls. She has a four-point edge over Fred Thompson (45% to 41%); a six-point advantage over John McCain (44% to 39%); and an eight point lead over Mitt Romney (46% to 38%). It is interesting to note how little Clinton’s support varies when matched against any of these Republicans.

more -

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/wisconsin_clinton_45_giuliani_44

(albeit barely Dem) inspires no confidence in me ! If we have a candidate leading in a red state - no THAT inspires me.

It hardly strikes me as a conclusive reason to reject the other candidates.

candidates are beating Rudy in red states and I might change my mind.

interesting, sure, but hardly enough to convince me to vote Edwards, seeing as how the general election is still 14+ months away, we don't even know whether Rudy will be the nominee, and the speculative nature of the polls makes them unreliable anyway.

I think whoever the Dems nominate should easily be competitive against anyone the repubs throw up, so the fact that, with a full year before the Democratic Convention kicks off, Edwards fares a few points better against a single republican candidate in a handful of states means pretty much nothing.

on helping Katrina victims get their life back (wants a cabinet level position dedicated to reconstruction), helping the poor, getting health care, protecting unions, etc. etc.

strikes me as a much more persuasive tactic.

that now the Bushies think Obama has a chance - Everyone can laugh at me for looking at these polls - but I bet THEY have - and they want the ones who they can bet front and center !

Yummy, yummy pie!

These polls don't consider the impact of an inevitable 3RD Party challenge from an AnitWar/ProLABOR Populist if Hillary is the Dem nominee.

Edwards won't lose near as many votes (if any) to a Populist 3RD Party as ProWar/ProFreeTrade Hillary will.

it. I worry that she takes every opportunity to talk about how hard it will be (logistically) to get out and how long it will take. I know, sure, you don't want to make people think we will be out on Jan 21st 09 - but it is secondary to showing, with passion, that you want to get out. Makes me wonder.

owned press keeps showing Hillary as the front runner and why she keeps getting big money from corporations. They want her to be the democratic nominee and the sad thing is, the dems will fall for this scam.

I don't know what I'd do without my sex lube, my second Stooge, my wii and my veteran's benefits!