Well, one of the classic tactics used by the opposing party (in this case, Republicans) voting in an “open” state is to weaken the front-runner by voting for his main opposition (Edwards). So I wouldn’t take the Wisconsin results as proof of much.
Forgive me, but coming from Southerners, the term “electable” generally means “from the South”. Al Gore certainly didn’t provide the Democratic Party with much traction in the region. He couldn’t even carry his own state.
I do not view Edwards as a good alternative to Kerry. He strikes me as a slick, opportunistic weasel who has played the cards of regional division, as well as promoting his supposed appeal to the salt-of-the-earth working people. I distrust politicians who ballyhoo their humble origins, while they are sitting on a $25 million pile of loot from personal injury lawyering. Don’t think that the Republicans won’t successfully exploit that disparity if Edwards somehow becomes the nominee.
Well, as a registered republican, I disagree. While a portion of Republican votes may have been cast in an effort to weaken the front runner I think their number would be minimal. Most people probably identify Edwards as the more conservative of the two candidates. Therefore it makes sense that conservative voters would prefer the more conservative of the two options.
While you may distrust “politicians who ballyhoo their humble origins, while they are sitting on a $25 million pile of loot from personal injury lawyering” I distrust even less apparently life long politicians such as Kerry who have never been in the work force for any length of time and who doesn’t appear to be consistent in their views. Only 9% of the Wisconsin voters self identified as Republicans. In addition I don’t view Edwards’ $25 million much differently than Kerry’s privileged upbringing and Heinz family connections. If anything I find Edwards’ money making proficiency a plus as an indication that he’s a self-made man.
I would probably vote for Edwards over Bush. Unlikely that I would vote for Kerry.
This is the extreme to which the party machinery has begun to stoop. Arlen Specter as a liberal! I’m not really laughing…that’s a rictus grin of sheer madness triggered by this ultimate example of cognitive dissonance…
While of course, someone who marries for money, then drops his wife when she ages a bit for a new, younger, richer wife are simply living the American dream, right? At least Edwards earned his money, lawyering for it or not.
What are you talking about? Kerry separated from his first wife in 1983, and they divorced in 1988. Theresa Heinz was still married at that time. In fact, they hadn’t met (assuming they’re telling the truth about not having met until '90, which as far as I know there’s no reason to doubt). John Heinz died the next year, and Kerry married Theresa in 1995. So if you’re implying he ditched his wife for her, I don’t think you’ve got a leg to stand on.
I know; funny thing is, I should be the last person complaining about short-sighted voters- I’m an aide to a Florida state legislator now. I wasn’t talking about third-party candidates; I was talking about Democratic Party candidates.
If we have to put up with another four years of Bush, so be it; by the time his second term is up, America will be ready for as much liberal leadership as it can get its hands on.
Ironically, dutchboy208, Republicans said much the same thing about Clinton and his supposed liberal leaning. Personally I think Bush is as much of a conservative as Clinton was a liberal. Both cross the line in the opposite direction…though I have to admit, Clinton did it a lot better than Bush has.
Lets hope we don’t have to find…and hope Bush doesn’t get his second term. Personally, I seriously doubt America will EVER be ready for ‘as much liberal leadership as it can get its hands on’…but thats just my opinion.
I just wanted to re-emphasize Jackmannii’s point. If you were a Bush supporter in a state with open primaries, why wouldn’t you want to see Kerry have to expend more money during the primaries in a constest against another democrat? Why wouldn’t you want to see things remaining unsettled for as close to the convention as possible? Why wouldn’t you want some division among the democratic base?
I preferred Howard Dean. I like what I have heard from John Kerry. I like what I have heard from John Edwards. Perhaps Edwards would have more crossover appeal, perhaps not. But I think that staking this claim on the results from Wisconsin is erroneous, simply because there is a high degree of “monkey wrench in the machinery” benefits to be had by those who do not have the purest (i.e. Democratic) intentions.
This would be great! Imagine the debate over health care costs…Edwards has made a fortune out of suing doctors…and now, he will have to explain HIS role in making health care unaffordable!
Not to mention: the fact that malpractice insurance (in some medical specialties) is virtually unobtainable (thanks to the activities of Edwards and others of his kind)! I can see it now…he (Edwars) will propose that lawyers take over health care! have your LAWYER supervise your doctor!
Speaking as someone who lives in an “open primary” state, I don’t think it works that way.
I have experience in this situation from Election 2000. Gore was unopposed in the Democratic primary, so I crossed over and voted in the Republican primary. I voted for John McCain. Did I vote for him to throw a monkey wrench into the Republican primaries? No, I voted for him because, come November, I wanted to have two good candidates I could live with as President. (Better McCain than Bush, since McCain strikes me as a man of integrity even if I don’t agree with his conservatism.)
I know a lot of Democrats here who crossed over to vote Republican in that primary, and they all expressed the same sentiment.
I’m betting Wisconsin primary voters were similarly consciencious.
Aside from that, your theory would not explain why Independent voters seemed to heavily favor Edwards over Kerry.
I would take offense at that, but for the fact that it is at least partly true. I don’t think that way. I believe most Southerners don’t think that way. But there are certainly some Southerners who feel that way. (Maybe enough of them to make a difference in a close election.) There are some Southerners who want to vote for someone who they feel has a similar nbackground to their own, and thus a better understanding of their concerns. I don’t think that is a trait limited to southerners, though.
As far as the “free trade” debate goes, if you listen carefully, Kerry and Edwards are saying very similar things these days. Kerry says he voted for NAFTA but that now we need to pressure other countries to raise their working standards so that the playing field is more level. Edwards says the same thing, but goes further to say that he would not have voted for NAFTA in the first place without some minimal working condition standards being built into the agreement in such a way as to make them enforceable. That is of course a moot point now. To label Edwards as “anti free trade” (at least as compared with Kerry) is misleading and dishonest.
And of course, negligent doctors and grasping insurance companies had no role in this.
But that’s a separate thread. If you want to open a thread on that topic, I would be more than happy to debate it with you. I’m quite certain that Edwards would feel comfortable debating the point with George Bush.
One small correction to this statement - based on your OP it was “While Kerry won handily among Democratic voters in Wisconsin, John Edwards out-performed Kerry among self-described “Independent” voters by more than 10 points.” (bolding added).
Would Republican cross-over voters describe themselves to pollsters as independents? Nah…
I’ve never heard of any significant trend among voters in northern states to back away from supporting southern candidates based on considerations of regional pride/identification. I’ve voted for Democratic candidates from southern states and it never crossed my mind to be suspicious of them because they “didn’t understand my concerns”, my being from north of the Mason-Dixon line. I don’t have any objection to the Dems “balancing” the ticket with a veep candidate from a southern or western state.
It is mind-boggling to think that any southern voters would cast ballots for GWB because he is a good 'ol southern boy from a good 'ol southern family with deep roots in the South (southern Maine, that is).
Funny. A lot of the Northeastern media seem to be deeply in love with John Kerry. The Atlantic (to cite but one example) had a worshipful cover story on Kerry, which appeared at a time when Kerry was not the front-runner (and in fact had fallen far back in the pack). I haven’t seen any front page articles in the Atlantic on Edwards. Why not, I wonder?
Regional preference is not just a Southern phenomenon. Don’t pretend otherwise. I think of 1992. Why did Tom Harkin win the Iowa primary, while Paul Tsongas won the New England primary? Why did the tide turn in favor of Clinton when the primaries moved South?
You are familiar with the term “favorite son,” no? Was that term coined with only Southerners in mind?
I really don’t care where a politician is from. I do care if that politician seems dismissive of the region where I live, as Kerry has seemed.
“Favorite son” is a national phenomenon that has nothing to do with residual, illogical resentment of one region of the country towards another.
And speaking of favorite sons, it is curious to speak of Edwards as being more electable when he has won a grand total of 1 out of something like 17 primaries - (South Carolina being a “favorite son” primary if ever there was one), and, I believe, Kerry has won more southern primaries than Edwards overall.
The awesome thing is, Bush probably WOULD try to use this line of attack. That’d open Edwards up for some speechifying about the lawsuits he did. I’ve yet to see any specific suit he brought that wasn’t thoroughly justified, and if Bush decides to have a conversation about it, it’ll bite him in the ass.
It’d be about on par with him attacking Kerry on military issues :).
Jackmannii, I started this thread to discuss the apparent appeal of John Edwards to moderate and conservative swing voters nationwide.
I provided supporting statistics from the Wisconsin primary, as well as the earlier primaries in Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia.
I noted that Kerry’s liberalism would hurt him with moderate-to-conservative swing voters. When challenged, I provided statistical evidence of Kerry’s liberalism and the moderate record of Edwards (at least relative to Kerry).
I said not one word about regionalism. You were the one who brought Edwards’s Southern background up (and in a vaguely insulting way). Are you sure you harbor no “illogical resentment” of the South?
And remember that Edwards has not received nearly the media exposure that Kerry has to date.
Here are some questions to consider:
How many states could Kerry win in a general election that Edwards could not?
How many states could Edwards win in a general election that Kerry could not?
I believe the second number is much larger than the first. (And I’m not just talking about Southern states. I’m talking about swing states where independent voters make the difference.)
The problem with forecasting the election is obviously that what is true today cannot necessarily be extrapolated down the road to November.
That said, however, John Edwards would appear, based on the statistics from the Wisconsin and various other exit polls posters have cited, to have better prospects at garnering more overall votes in November than John Kerry.
Reason 1: Exit polling suggests out of the same pool of “independent” and “Republican” self-identified voters in the open primaries, Edwards got more votes than Kerry.
Reason 2: If John Edwards were to become the front-runner or nominee (here’s the real kicker), every last John Kerry supporter on the face of the Earth would immediately switch their vote over to John Edwards. Rank-and-file Democrats (the demographic in which Kerry has the current statistical advantage) are not voting on specific issues. All they want is Dubya to hit the bricks. If Josef Stalin were leading Bush in the polls by double-digits, Democrats would vote for him.
So it’s just simple math, albeit entirely based on the assumption that the stats from the open primaries are equally applicable to the general election (which they are not).
Most of what I responded to (including reasons for the breakdown of Edwards’ showing in Wisconsin and why I do not support him) has nothing to do with regionalism. I noted that the issue of “electability” when raised by Southerners (at least in this campaign) seems to translate to whether or not a candidate is from the South.
It’s interesting, then, that you would have thrown this unsupported allegation into the mix: “I really don’t care where a politician is from. I do care if that politician seems dismissive of the region where I live, as Kerry has seemed.”
You appear to be proving my point.
I’m sure. I’ve lived in the South and voted for Presidential candidates from the South.
I do not like regionally divisive politics (in which Edwards has indulged) and think they will only hurt the party’s chances of unseating Bush.
