Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Beyond Bad Taste
With the caveat that this seems to be a very thinly sourced story (relying on random Daily Kos commenters? For serious?), I still feel comfortable saying that anyone who attacks Elizabeth Edwards for not "handling" her husband's affair correctly from a political standpoint (that is, not going public with it) is a seriously twisted individual.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Guess Who's Back?
With John Edwards' withdrawal today, progressives today ran a serious risk of having to vote for a non-White male. Fortunately, Ralph Nader appears ready to step in and save us from that eventuality. Nader specifically cited the absence of two other White men formerly in the race -- Edwards and pixie-stick Dennis Kucinich -- as motivating his exploration of yet another bid.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Democratic Primary in Less Than 50 Words
Courtesy of Atrios:
Any quarrel?
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
Any quarrel?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Fall Out Boy
Neil links to a chart showing head-to-head Missouri polling numbers for a few Presidential candidates: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama for the D's, and Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney for the Elephant. Klein picks up on how Edwards beats all three by wider margins than either of the other two candidates.
But what intrigues me is how far behind Romney is compared to Thompson. Against Clinton and Obama, he's a eight points further behind compared to Thompson, against Edwards that jumps to 14.
I had always assumed that Romney's weakness compared to Giuliani (and perhaps McCain) in early head-to-head match-ups was name recognition: he was essentially "generic Republican," and generic Republicans are not doing so hot right now. But I can't think that Thompson has that much greater name ID (even with Law & Order), and yet he's got far better match-up numbers than Romney does. This would imply that there are some voters who do know Romney and are simply less likely to vote for him than they are other Republican candidates (rather than a simple name ID problem). This, to put it mildly, is not good news for either the Romney campaign or the Republican Party for whom he still strikes me as the most likely nominee.
But what intrigues me is how far behind Romney is compared to Thompson. Against Clinton and Obama, he's a eight points further behind compared to Thompson, against Edwards that jumps to 14.
I had always assumed that Romney's weakness compared to Giuliani (and perhaps McCain) in early head-to-head match-ups was name recognition: he was essentially "generic Republican," and generic Republicans are not doing so hot right now. But I can't think that Thompson has that much greater name ID (even with Law & Order), and yet he's got far better match-up numbers than Romney does. This would imply that there are some voters who do know Romney and are simply less likely to vote for him than they are other Republican candidates (rather than a simple name ID problem). This, to put it mildly, is not good news for either the Romney campaign or the Republican Party for whom he still strikes me as the most likely nominee.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Mirror, Mirror
Enik Rising (h/t: Voir Dire) links to a PEW survey ranking votes' perceptions of the ideological position of various candidate. They came up with this chart
(click to enlarge)
What's fascinating (to me anyways) is that voters rate the Democratic candidates in the exact opposite order that I'd put them, liberal-to-conservative. The polls has the ordering (from most to least liberal) as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Edwards. I'm not trying to be snide here--I genuinely would rank the exact opposite: Edwards as the most liberal, then Obama, Gore, Hillary, and finally Bill as the most conservative.
The Republican ordering, by contrast, strikes me as about right: their order (from most to least conservative) is George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani.
Why is the Democratic field perceived in a mirror-image to how I view them? I think a great deal of it is that John Edwards is a southern Democrat, and thus is kind of assumed to represent the more moderate wing of the party. I hear his accent, and even I have difficulty imagining him as a lefty. But of all the candidates, Edwards is the one most likely to be found breathing some progressive fire. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was the patron saint of the DLC and the king of triangulation, so it's tough to call him the most liberal Democrat out there today (and Hillary has specifically gained accolades for being a pretty middle-of-the-road Senator). But him and Hillary both have faced a long, long effort by the right-wing media to tar them as pseudo-communists. Clearly, some of it stuck.
In any event, this raises interesting questions. Folks have worried about whether Hillary Clinton can ever shake the "liberal" label, no matter how centrist she runs. But what about Edwards? The same (but opposite) logic would seem to apply--he can apparently take relatively progressive positions while still being perceived as a moderate candidate. That could be of great use in the general. Of course, whether or not he will be able to avoid the liberal-brush of right-wing attack that is sure to befall the Democratic candidate remains to be seen. But still, it's worth considering.
(click to enlarge)
What's fascinating (to me anyways) is that voters rate the Democratic candidates in the exact opposite order that I'd put them, liberal-to-conservative. The polls has the ordering (from most to least liberal) as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Edwards. I'm not trying to be snide here--I genuinely would rank the exact opposite: Edwards as the most liberal, then Obama, Gore, Hillary, and finally Bill as the most conservative.
The Republican ordering, by contrast, strikes me as about right: their order (from most to least conservative) is George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani.
Why is the Democratic field perceived in a mirror-image to how I view them? I think a great deal of it is that John Edwards is a southern Democrat, and thus is kind of assumed to represent the more moderate wing of the party. I hear his accent, and even I have difficulty imagining him as a lefty. But of all the candidates, Edwards is the one most likely to be found breathing some progressive fire. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton was the patron saint of the DLC and the king of triangulation, so it's tough to call him the most liberal Democrat out there today (and Hillary has specifically gained accolades for being a pretty middle-of-the-road Senator). But him and Hillary both have faced a long, long effort by the right-wing media to tar them as pseudo-communists. Clearly, some of it stuck.
In any event, this raises interesting questions. Folks have worried about whether Hillary Clinton can ever shake the "liberal" label, no matter how centrist she runs. But what about Edwards? The same (but opposite) logic would seem to apply--he can apparently take relatively progressive positions while still being perceived as a moderate candidate. That could be of great use in the general. Of course, whether or not he will be able to avoid the liberal-brush of right-wing attack that is sure to befall the Democratic candidate remains to be seen. But still, it's worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
