# 2008 election: New poll puts John Edwards ahead of Obama, Clinton, & McCain **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147 "2006-12-14T16:29:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/101 "2006-12-16T07:15:32Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] Really? How much would someone have to pay you to let them disembowel your child? Something less than $25 million, I gather? [/QUOTE] You could not pay me enough to let someone disembowel my child. This does not mean that if this happened, I would deserve some portion of $25 million in compensation. This is not a large industrial polluter that poisoned a town. The fine is out of proportion to justice. I guess you are 100% in favor of the little notes on some plastics bags that say “this is not a toy” or the dozen warnings to not be an idiot on a ladder. BTW: what was on the pool drain cover already. I remain very skeptical of these cases. the Wiki author appeared to be slanting it very favorable to Edwards to start with and I still find it wrong. I love your argument though. You must use the same one on people against the death penalty. “Oh yeah, well what if it was your child that got murdered?” Jim ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/102 "2006-12-16T07:26:35Z")
Sorry, I think I’m behind you guys. You already discussed Lincoln. [QUOTE=spoke-] It’s not a question of “ugliness” or “attractiveness” _per se_. You can be ugly and still project strength. Kucinich just looks scrawny and geeky. [/QUOTE] Again, because a person _looks_ a certain way doesn’t mean he can’t project strength. Ones build has nothing to do with the content of ones character. I think you guys are confusing this with a seperate issue, and that is whether he is _electable_. His appearance may very well affect that, but not because it says anything about his character. People vote a particular way for any number of stupid reasons. Remember that people were saying they wouldn’t vote for Kerry because he “looks like Frankenstein”. Whether you thought Kerry would have been a good or bad president, “looking like Frankenstein” is a stupid thing to base your vote on. I have no doubt that there are people in this country who would base their vote on whether someone “looks like a nerd” is too tall, is too short, doesn’t have enough hair, is too black, or is too female. But those are not rational decisions. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/103 "2006-12-16T07:36:11Z")
And same goes to people who say “George W. Bush looks like a chimp”. I mean, is that the worst criticism you can come up with? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/104 "2006-12-16T14:58:13Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] And same goes to people who say “George W. Bush looks like a chimp”. I mean, is that the worst criticism you can come up with? [/QUOTE] Of course not. But it’s a handy thing to have in the quiver. I’m sure those who are calling Kucinich an “elf” or some such would never think of saying so if they did not find his politics objectionable. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/105 "2006-12-16T15:25:43Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] I have no doubt that there are people in this country who would base their vote on whether someone “looks like a nerd” is too tall, is too short, doesn’t have enough hair, is too black, or is too female. But those are not rational decisions. [/QUOTE] Not rational, perhaps, but still a factor in calculating electability. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/106 "2006-12-16T18:20:36Z")
MSNBC reports that Edwards will be announcing his candidacy this weekend. They also report that Evan Bayh has announced he will **not** run. I could get behind Edwards or Obama or Gore. I suppose would vote for Hillary if she were nominated, but it would be a forlorn vote, much like a vote for Kerry. I don’t think she has a prayer of winning in a general election. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/107 "2006-12-16T19:11:03Z")
[QUOTE=spoke-] I could get behind Edwards or Obama or Gore. I suppose would vote for Hillary if she were nominated, but it would be a forlorn vote, much like a vote for Kerry. I don’t think she has a prayer of winning in a general election. [/QUOTE] What if she took the bottom slot on the ticket? I rather expect we’ll get a woman VP before we get a woman POTUS; you have to break these barriers by stages. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/108 "2006-12-16T19:41:01Z")
[QUOTE=Happy Wanderer] Disgusted Republican here. While it would be unlikely that I could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat of any of the stripes they come in these days, I do offer this advice to my Democrat friends. For God’s sake, nominate someone LIKEABLE. You guys are so obsessed with all kinds of litmus tests and want someone who is ideologically pure, the kind of guy that can quote Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book” chapter and verse, but you need more than that to win elections. [/QUOTE] Because, after all, we can thank people like you for giving us “likeable” George W. Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/109 "2006-12-16T19:46:28Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Whether you thought Kerry would have been a good or bad president, “looking like Frankenstein” is a stupid thing to base your vote on. I have no doubt that there are people in this country who would base their vote on whether someone “looks like a nerd” is too tall, is too short, doesn’t have enough hair, is too black, or is too female. But those are not rational decisions. [/QUOTE] And your point is? We’ve just had proof from the world of science that people do NOT make ‘rational’ decisions. > [@](#): > > “Our study provides neurobiological evidence that an amygdala-based emotional system underpins this biasing of human decisions. Moreover, we found that people are rational, or irrational, to widely differing amounts.” [cite](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060803171138.htm) The wise politico knows this, which is why Bush was an easy sell. His backers studied the market and provided a tailor-made product. While it might stick in the craw of people who are able to exercise greater control over emotionality and therefore who can think rationally, in order to elect a good man to POTUS, it will be necessary to find a good man who is marketable to the extent that he will appeal to those (who seem to be the majority) who make decisions emotionally. It’s pointless arguing that life ought not be that way. It ought not, but it is and that can’t be repaired. So now the rational choice is to abandon hope of persuading people to elect someone despite his image and find someone whose image is appealing enough to get him elected. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/110 "2006-12-16T21:22:01Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Of course not. But it’s a handy thing to have in the quiver. I’m sure those who are calling Kucinich an “elf” or some such would never think of saying so if they did not find his politics objectionable. [/QUOTE] No, I don’t agree that irrationality is a “handy thing to have in the quiver”. Your second point might be correct: I can imagine closet conservatives who are a little ashamed of the Republicans right now might not want to admit their rightward leanings, but still are annoyed by liberal politicians like Kucinich, so they’re gonna make up some bullshit like “He looks nerdy” rather than just admit “I’m a right winger so I don’t like him”. > [@spoke](#): > > Not rational, perhaps, but still a factor in calculating electability. That’s pretty much exactly what I already said. > [@Quiddity](#): > > And your point is? Apparently blowing by a couple of you. > [@](#): > > We’ve just had proof from the world of science that people do NOT make ‘rational’ decisions. I already pointed out that people are conflating true character with electability. Your response seems to be to continue to do so. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/111 "2006-12-16T23:50:59Z")
[QUOTE=Quiddity Glomfuster] In the meantime, you need product. Let’s dispense with the silly little imagining that politics is about electing the best man. It’s about marketing the best product. Edwards has it; he’s cute as a puppy, he’s got exactly the right accent, he’s got the right politics (anti-war, pro social justice), and he’s not at all a slime-sucking scumball. [/quote] This is the kind of focus-group thinking that I’ve been complaining about. In a discussion of why Edwards is a good candidate, you have to ignore his performance in the last Presidential election (and the primaries) AND you don’t say much about his politics. I’m not sure that being anti-war is a major asset at this point, and he not only voted for the war, he co-sponsored the resolution that gave Bush the power to invade. And, again, he’s done nothing for the last two years. > [@](#): > > He made his name fighting for compensation for people who’d been badly injured through medical malpractice or negligence. Guy might as well be wearing a knight costume and riding a white horse. The fact that he was a lawyer was well-publicized in '04. It didn’t help him, in fact it did the opposite. > [@](#): > > he says, quite rightly, and as Clinton does, that one can accomplish more out of office than in these days Clinton doesn’t say that at all. At least, not in anything I’ve read. ---
**Author:** ![Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/c4cdca/32.png) [@Quiddity\_Glomfuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quiddity_Glomfuster)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/112 "2006-12-17T02:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] I already pointed out that people are conflating true character with electability. Your response seems to be to continue to do so. 😕 [/QUOTE] Um. No. Did I not point out why I think he has ‘true character’? What I’m saying is that the two are not diametrically opposed and that the Dems need a candidate who offers the whole package. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/113 "2006-12-17T02:26:04Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] This is the kind of focus-group thinking that I’ve been complaining about. [/QUOTE] So you think we should nominate Kucinich? If not, why not? (I’m _sure_ it’s principled opposition to his positions, and not any unworthy concerns about electability.) Let’s face facts. Electability is a valid consideration when deciding whom to nominate. The problem is that we Democratic primary voters don’t seem to have the vaguest notion of what constitutes “electability” in a general election. Hence we nominate a Kerry, or a Dukakis. The problem isn’t “focus group thinking.” The problem is that Democratic primary voters have historically been a crappy focus group. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/114 "2006-12-17T02:49:53Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Manner yes; appearance, no. You said: You said he _looks like_… You didn’t say “his manner is like…” What a person looks like has nothing to do with how strong he is. Abraham Lincoln was ugly as sin. [/QUOTE] We’re not talking about whether a person \*\*is \*\*strong or not, we’re talking about whether he \*\*appears \*\*strong. All those characteristics together: looks, voice, manner leave an impression on people. Kucinich looks and acts like a nerdy guy, and a lot of people get turned off because of that. It’s not much different than how Dukakis sank his campaign with that one picture of him in the tank with the helmet. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/115 "2006-12-17T03:34:02Z")
I agree with whoever it was back there who said Gore would probably lay back and wait until Hillary & Obama punch each other to exhaustion, then step into the ring and say, “Here I am!” It’s how Nixon, another VP defeated in a tight, disputed election got himself in: George Romney, the early frontrunner for the Reps in 1968, said one too many stupid things, and Nixon stepped up and grabbed the nomination. (That Romney’s not related to Mitt, far as I know, but he was a Mormon as well.) Also, don’t underestimate Gore: he’s got the [green vote](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/survey_al_gore.php#1166036284-38794) because of his movie, and he’s been making pretty [strong statements](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html) against our current Prez’s liking of torture, revoking of habeas corpus, and general claiming of unlimited Executive powers, which gets him the more traditional liberal voter. Going against this theory is that Nixon laid the groundwork for his return by raising money and campaigning for Republican candidates in 1966, an election in which the Reps trounced the Dems in the House, in a manner reminiscent of this just-passed 2006 election where the Dems did that to the Reps, as a result of which by 1968 he had a good piece of the party owing him favors. Gore doesn’t have this to back him up; Hillary seems to have the establishment pretty sewn up from what I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2006, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147/116 "2006-12-17T05:56:53Z")
[QUOTE=pantom] I agree with whoever it was back there who said Gore would probably lay back and wait until Hillary & Obama punch each other to exhaustion, then step into the ring and say, “Here I am!” [/QUOTE] People said Hillary was going to do the same thing throughout 2004. I don’t think it’s possible, these days, to get into the primaries without setting up the necessary organization way ahead of time. Even aside from the steps that (I think) you are legally required to take, it’s just too complicated. And if you take the required steps and the normal steps, people know you’re running and you can’t step in at the last minute. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2008-election-new-poll-puts-john-edwards-ahead-of-obama-clinton-mccain/384147.md?page=5)