John Edwards: the "Electable" Democrat

Great Debates
1

Much attention has been focused during the Democratic primaries on the issue of “electability.” John Kerry has been the presumptive “electable Democrat,” but I fear that Democrats are deluding themselves. John Kerry has a long liberal record which just will not play when the general election rolls around.

To win the general election, the Democratic candidate must be able to persuade “swing voters,” the Great Middle of American politics-- those who count themselves neither Democrat nor Republican. (If a Democratic candidate can pull in some disaffected Republican voters, even better.)

I think the evidence is now in that John Edwards, and not John Kerry, is the candidate who can persuade swing voters and disaffected Republicans. In the “Predictions” thread, I cited as evidence this article, from which are drawn the following data:

Naysayers demanded proof that Edwards received a larger absolute number of independent voters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is one of the few states that holds an “open” primary, meaning independents and Republicans are allowed to participate if they so desire.

While Kerry won handily among Democratic voters in Wisconsin, John Edwards out-performed Kerry among self-described “Independent” voters by more than 10 points. (40% to 28%). He performed even better among self-described Republicans. (44% to 18%).

Cite.

(Also interestingly, Kerry did not enjoy a significant advantage over Edwards among military veterans (Kerry’s supposed strength). Kerry did win that group, but only by a margin of 41% to 36%, hardly overwhelming.)

Democrats must win swing voters to be competitive in the general election. At the risk of sounding “curmudgeonly,” I must again voice my dissent to the nomination of Kerry. The Wisconsin results are more evidence that Edwards is the candidate most likely to swing the swing voters over to the Democratic side.

If Democrats want an “electable” candidate, John Edwards is the man.

2

(Should have added…)

I opened this thread to invite debate from Kerry supporters.

3

Well, if you are looking for Kerry supporters, I’m not one. I’ll just say I agree in general…Edwards is more ‘electable’ than Kerry vs Bush IMO. He’s closer to the center…and he also doesn’t have a strange shaped head either. :slight_smile: I’ll just say, fwiw, if Edwards is given the nomination thats who I’ll be voting for. If Kerry get is, I’ll vote 3rd party.

-XT

4

Edwards may well be more electable, when the southern factor and drawing power for independents and Republicans is considered. Either one gets my vote. Both are fine men, either would make a fine president.

However, if I am not mistaken, haven’t the national polls of Kerry vs. Bush have been more favorable than Edwards vs. Bush?

5

I’d happily and proudly vote for either, but it would be fun if the final decision went to the convention. Conventions have been too boring lately.

6

Except Edwards has problems of his own. He’s inexperienced; he’s just a first term senator. Plus, he’s a former personal injury lawyer, which is a profession ranked right up there with dirt on the prestige scale. I’m not particularly in love with Kerry, either, but that doesn’t mean that Edwards isn’t problematic.

7

I don’t see the “trial lawyer” epithet as a big problem. That little bit of demonization may work with the dittohead crowd, but that demographic won’t be voting for a Democrat anyway. I don’t think it will have much effect among swing voters.

As for the question of inexperience, I think this is the one area where a Vice Presidential choice can really help a candidate. Witness Bush/Cheney in 2000. Bush was a neophyte, but Cheney’s long resume allayed any voter concerns about that.

8

I wouldn’t say it’s been presumed Kerry is the electable Democrat. That’s what the greatest amount of voters have said thus far, I don’t think that counts as presuming.

Personally, I’m very excited about what happened in Wisconsin last night. This race will be alive for at least two more weeks, which is good for Edwards, good for Kerry, and good for the Democratic party. Wisconsin does have a reputation for being a flukey state, I think. And also, Edwards is again not competing in every state on Super Tuesday. He’s going for Georgia, California and New York (I think that’s it). So even if he wins more delegates, he’ll likely still lose a lot of ground to Kerry. I’m not sure how he can win, but the longer he sticks around the better. I suppose if he makes some noise, he can go on in the weeks after that. As I said, a win-win scenario whatever happens.

9

First of all Saletan’s methodology is really dubious. If a candidate is doing really well with Democrats it should not be surprising that he might do worse with independents even if he is strong overall. Conversely a candidate who is doing poorly with Democrats may do better with independents without being particularly strong.

Note that even in Tennessee, a Southern state, Kerry beats Edwards among moderates and is only a little behind with conservatives.

The Wisconsin numbers are slightly more convincing but ultimately they don’t mean much. Perhaps the Republicans were voting for the candidate they thought would be weaker against George Bush. In any case the dynamics of a general election are very different from a primary. One advantage that Edwards had was that Dean was attacking Kerry not him. Also Edwards will be constrained by campaign finance limits in the general election but Kerry won’t.

As noted above Kerry does better than Edwards in national polls against Bush. While these aren’t perfect indicators either I think they are better than looking at primary votes in a few states.

Having said all that I am not 100% sure Kerry is more electable. Edwards is indeed a terrific public speaker with very effective populist message but he is inexperienced especially on foreign policy. Voters may like him but decide he is not seasoned enough to be commander in chief during a crisis. Kerry is less inspiring but also more solid overall. His war service will count for a lot. Overall I think he is the safer choice for the Democrats. Edwards would be great on the second slot.

10

That was in a pre-9/11 world. Surely you can’t think that the equation hasn’t changed since then…

As for your overall thesis, I think this is an interesting debate. Lost of good arguments on both sides. Edwards seems to be claiming that he can get every Dem vote that Edwards will get in the gen election, plus more of the undecided/Pub vote (especially in the South).

We’ll have to see how he does now that Dean is out, but Kerry just seems to have too much momentum. And Edwards’ argument can be turned around to support an Edwards for VP position. I think it’s too late for Edwards.

XT: Why do you favor Edwards over Kerry. I find Edwards anti-trade rhetoric really scary.

11

I find Kerry’s anti-trade retoric scary and business regulation stances too. Some of the stuff he’s been saying lately has definitely turned me off. Honestly, I’m less sure about Edwards. A friend of mine told me that a lot of the stuff Edwards has been saying is more for Democrat consumption to get votes, but that his actual positions are more middle of the road. I’m unsure to be honest, as I haven’t followed Edwards as closely. I figured I’d have plenty of time to make a decision when the dust settles on one of them (I’m registered Independant so can’t vote for a Democrat candidate anyway).

-XT

12

Edwards is not “anti-trade.” As I understand it, his opposition to NAFTA stems from the fact that the nations to which our factories are moving do not have worker protections (and certainly not wage-and-hour standards) comparable to ours. That gives them an unfair advantage. The failure to effectively tie free trade to improvement of working conditions has cause a classic “race to the bottom.” The country with the lowest standards for its workers wins. Is that a good situation? Edwards thinks not, and rightly so.

13

XT:

You might want to look more closely at who is panering for votes and who really is leading the charge in anti-trade rhetoric. Not that pandering for votes is a good thing, but all the pols do it and you need to filter it out to get at the guy’s true positions. At any rate, I think your analysis is exactly backwards (at least on the trade issue).

14

For those of you saying you wouldn’t vote for Kerry but rather a 3rd-party candidate, I’d like to encourage you all to give the guy a chance should he win the nomination. I was a little skeptical about him myself, but now he’s been front-runner and I think has been handling that status very, very well, much better than Dean did. Also, recent mud-slinging has utterly failed to faze him or affect his success. In addition, I think he has handled the controversy of Bush’s Guard duty (or lack thereof) quite well. He’s sticking to real issues, not just leaping onto ad hominem attacks to discredit the opposition. He’s no the most charismatic guy, but his credentials and personal integrity are quite solid.

Edwards is also a solid candidate and either Edwards or Kerry would make a very good president. Right now my preference leans toward Kerry.

I agree with the analyses offered by other posters which rebut the idea that Edwards necessarily appeals more to moderates/Republicans.

I disagree that a president with a somewhat liberal record cannot be elected. You do all remember that Clinton won solidly twice? The main record which hurts a so-called liberal as a presidential candidate is if he (or she, someday hopefully) appears weak on international relations and willingness to use the military when needed. Support of reasonable environmental protection, labor, the right to abortion, and fiscal responsibility all play to the the issues supported by most Americans. It’s funny that the last point is now a Democratic characteristic, but after Clinton and Bush, jr. it sure is.

Kerry in any other major democracy worldwide and in most previous U.S. elections would be considered a solidly centrist (or even moderately conservative) candidate. It is only by comparison to the far right-wing G.W.Bush that he seems to have a “liberal” record. Kerry will not be losing any points on military and international issues.

15

Though I prefer Kerry, I agree with the OP that Edwards is more electable. Edwards is both more optimistic and more charismatic than Kerry, on the order of Reagan or Clinton. He polls better among swing voters, and though he is more liberal than Kerry, his message is presented as a populist one which makes him seem the less liberal of the two. While he certainly is less experienced in foreign policy, he may be able to allay most of those concerns by picking a strong foreign policy VP candidate (such as Bob Graham, who was my choice for Dem nominee anyway), and implicitly argue that Bush had even less forein policy experience when he ran in 2000. The Southern thing makes a big difference too. Ultimately, Kerry comes across as a snooty intellectual, while Edwards comes across as a real man of the people. It is that, and not necessarily centrism, that makes a candidate electable.

16

John:

Well, as I said, I haven’t really looked that deeply into Edwards, as I honestly didn’t think he had much of a chance to win. I was more focused on Dean earlier, and I’ve been paying a bit more attention to Kerry recently, and some of the things I’ve seen him say are a bit disconcerting from my own positions. You are right about the vote pandering thing…they all do it, and the Democrats are definitely playing to the left atm to sew up the nomination.

I generally trust your insites though, so I’ll look a bit closer at Edwards in future. To me its academic until a final candidate steps forward from the dust though. As I said, I can’t vote in the primary anyway.

-XT

17

The problem with Kerry’s voting record (as I see it) is that he seems to have no principles of his own, but votes strictly along Democratic party lines. And when the Democratic party consensus moves against his vote on a particular subject, he moves with it.

Whether or not that affects his electability, I don’t know. It does bother me, although that in and of itself wouldn’t prevent me from voting for him. It would be a big negative, but not a show-stopper.

Anyone with a 20 yr history in the Senate is going to have a voting record that can be twisted to seem as conservative or liberal as is needed by his opponent. (To the Dems he’s too conservative, to the Pubs he’s too liberal.)

18

I`m a conservative and I probably would vote for Edwards.
He seems more honest, personable, more presidential, than Kerry.
Something about Kerry just rubs me the wrong way. I got the same feeling about Clinton during those years.
I think Edwards will give Bush just as much of a run or more so than Kerry in the General election.
He would certainly be a refreshing change.

19

Until lately.

I’m the kind of guy some of you are talking about. Southern, conservative, long time Republican. I’m not particularly thrilled about some of Bush’s decisions lately and am seriously considering The Lesser Of Two Evils. I see Edwards more to the center than Kerry and his positive message is very appealing. It doesn’t hurt that he was born here and lived in the next state over.

20

The Bush camp will undoubtedly try to label any Democratic nominee as “liberal.”

It will be much easier to make that label stick with Kerry than with Edwards.

Over the years, Kerry has been pretty consistently on the left wing of the Democratic party. (I believe he comes up as more liberal than Ted kennedy in some assessments.) Sample Republican cite, for a taste of what’s to come in the general election.

Edwards has steered a more moderate course, though as a Democrat he will still be succeptible to being labeled a “liberal.” Cite.

(How sad that “liberal” has become an epithet. But that’s for another thread.)