I didn’t vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president…
Interestingly, he wasnt in the senate when the NAFTA vote was up.
As compared to Kerry:
*Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It’s either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it’s a policy of just telling people what they want to hear. *
and:
*We have to manage it more effectively. What we need is not to cancel NAFTA. We need trade. Fritz Hollings had a great article in the paper today with a number of things that would make sense to do. What’s missing is a president who is prepared to negotiate to keep it from being a rush to the bottom, to raise the standards for people. *
So your statement that To label Edwards as “anti free trade” (at least as compared with Kerry) is misleading and dishonest. is niether misleading nor dishonest in the least.
Anyone who comes to the southwest with an anti-NAFTA agenda or message is committing political suicide; at least if theyre running for pres.
I didn’t vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA. I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president…
Interestingly, he wasnt in the senate when the NAFTA vote was up.
As compared to Kerry:
*Yes, it is fair, because Gov. Dean has said very specifically that we should not trade with countries until they have labor and environment standards that are equal to the US. That means we would trade with no countries. It is a policy for shutting the door. It’s either a policy for shutting the door, if you believe it, or it’s a policy of just telling people what they want to hear. *
and:
*We have to manage it more effectively. What we need is not to cancel NAFTA. We need trade. Fritz Hollings had a great article in the paper today with a number of things that would make sense to do. What’s missing is a president who is prepared to negotiate to keep it from being a rush to the bottom, to raise the standards for people. *
So your statement that To label Edwards as “anti free trade” (at least as compared with Kerry) is misleading and dishonest., I think its clear that to do so is niether misleading nor dishonest in the least.
Anyone who comes to the southwest with an anti-NAFTA agenda or message is committing political suicide; at least if theyre running for pres.
I still find the argument that Edwards is more electable based on these exit poll numbers to be specious. The first problem is the one I already mentioned: casting a vote to support the challenger of your likely general election opponent during his primary is commonly regarded as a method to cause difficulties for that opponent. The second problem is that, simply because some voters chose, in some instances, Edwards over Kerry, this does not mean that they will choose Edwards over Bush.
The remainder of your problem lies in the data itself. First, it does not support your arguments, spoke, regarding independents (i.e.when you said: “Aside from that, your theory would not explain why Independent voters seemed to heavily favor Edwards over Kerry.”): Kerry won, and won handily among independents in New Hampshire (37% Kerry (K) vs. 13% Edwards (E)), Arizona (33 vs. 6), Delaware (42 vs. 12), Virginia (41 vs. 31) and Missouri (37 vs. 28). Edwards won among independents in Oklahoma, which overall went to Clark (34% E vs. 18% K), South Carolina, which went to Edwards (48% E vs. 22% K) and Wisconsin (40% to 28%).
Look at the numbers for Edwards “supporters” in Wisconsin in other categories and see how you think they will vote in the general election. Are these really disaffected conservatives and independents? Do they even agree with Edwards’
primary positions?
Feelings about the Bush administration: “satisfied” (50% E vs. 23% K); “enthusiastic” (36% E vs. 10% K).
US decision regarding the war in Iraq: “strongly approve” (39% E vs. 26% K); “some approve” (43% E vs. 37%K)
State of the Economy: “Good” (39%E vs. 27% K); “Not so Good” (34% E vs. 42% K).
Tax cuts: Should be left in place entirely (41% E vs. 18% K)
Even on his primary wedge issue vis a vis Kerry, here’s the breakdown:
Trade with other countries: No effect on jobs (32% E vs. 30% K), creates jobs (27% E vs 45% K) Takes jobs away: (36% E vs. 39% K).
It appears that the people who voted for Edwards like the economy, feel that they are better off financially than they were, are more likely to approve of the war in Iraq, like the Bush tax cuts, and don’t even agree with Edwards primary Wisconsin issue of NAFTA, trade and jobs. More to the point, they are more likely to be satisfied or enthusiastic about Bush!
If these are the people who support Edwards as the Democratic candidate, I’ll take my chances with Kerry.
Voodoochile, you are leaving out the reasons why Edwards opposed those trade agreements, making it sound as if he is opposed to the very idea of trade. That is dishonest.
As I mentioned earlier, both men are essentially in agreement now. Both agree that something must be done to “negotiate to keep it from being a rush to the bottom,” as Kerry put it.
The difference is that Kerry won’t admit his error in approving the trade agreements first and worrying about that problem later. Working environment and wage standards (including enforcement provisions) should have been an integral part of the trade agreements in the first place. That does not mean bringing the other countries up to US standards right away, which is unrealistic, but at least establishing some minimal standards to avoid the “race to the bottom.”
Kerry is talking about closing the barn door after the cow is out, and HE is among the people who let the cow out in the first place.
But the cow is out now, and either Edwards or Kerry, if elected, will have to try to repair the damage.
The reasons why he is opposed; labor and environmental standards; can be nothing but a smokescreen for being against free trade. Its just another tactic. Its just another excuse. ~Anyone~ who uses the enviromental and labor standards line of reason is either not using their brain, or is just trying a different tactic to force all of us to buy their crap.
Most of these countries dont have the capital to upgrade much of their equipment to environmental standards, or the resources to subsidize money-losing labor standards for the years it would take before they show a profit. Being against free trade for the reasons of environmental and labor standards is the same as being against free trade; the result is the same. No matter how perceivedly noble his reasons for being in favor of third world countries being made to continue to starve, the result is the same amount of poverty. Environmental and labor standards dont start rising until ~after~ free trade is a fact. They cant, there is no money.
This is just so self evident that I can only assume he is aware of it, but he is using this particular politically acceptable form of cultural bigotry to keep the worlds poor just as poor, and the american xenophobes just as fat. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that free trade is a prerequisite to environmental and labor progress, not the other way around. No, its not going to happen in the space of months or even a couple of years, but happen it does and happen it will.
Yes, free trade agreements need to be watched, but not yet for those things; more for govt granted monopolies along the lines of “If you sign an exclusive contract with Bechtel to upgrade all your plants, we’ll let you sell 50% more bananas in the US”. Thats the kind of crap that needs to be stopped; free trade as a callsign for rigged trade.
If GM moves a plant to Mexico, GM can damn well afford to pay workers there a decent wage, and to maintain environmental standards. We are talking about the activities of multi-national corporations here.
Kerry has no real intention of challenging Republicans in the South. Nor could he.
As I said (and have said elsewhere) I have no problem with New England politicians. I like Howard Dean, for example. It’s a shame that he got himself tarred as a wild-eyed liberal, when in fact his record is quite moderate, and even fiscally conservative. I think Howard Dean could have actually played well down here, if he hadn’t made the mistake of posing as too much of a lefty.
It’s not New Englanders that Southerners (and swing voters elsewhere) have a problem with. It’s far-left liberal New Englanders. The stereotypical “Massachusetts liberals.” Hell the South voted in droves for moderate John F. Kennedy. It’s far-lefty Ted Kennedy that has an image problem here.
But again, I had no intention of discussing regionalism in this thread. You brought it up. (Which still makes me wonder if you dan’t have some unvoiced regional prejudices of your own.)
My goal as a Democrat, who wants the Democratic nominee to win in November, is to help my party nominate a moderate politician (be that John edwards or Howard Dean). A lifelong politician with a 95% liberal rating (like Kerry’s) stands little chance of prevailing against Bush, IMO.
I am a Wisconsinite. Registered Independent, though to be fair I’ve only voted for a non-Democrat twice in the last eight presidential elections.
I started out as a Gephardt supporter, but switched over to Kerry when he dropped out of the race. As the Wisconsin primary got closer I started to examine the candidates a little closer too. Idealologically, even though Kerry is a slightly better match to my own opinions, I could accept either Kerry or Edwards. As I was trying to decide who to cast my vote for, I came down to two things:
I think Edwards is more likeable, and therefore perhaps more electable
I was worried about “annointing” Kerry too early (I’ve liked what I’ve seen in Edwards and I wanted to give him a chance so that people could see more of him).
So I voted for Edwards.
I have some reservations about his strident stance on trade, but I can tell you that Edwards resonated strongly in this state because of the problem we have with job losses. He also appealed to the moderate Democrats and other middle-of-the-roaders. In the Milwaukee area, Kerry won in the heavily urban areas but Edwards won in all of the suburbs.
So, any thoughts, spoke-, about why Edwards supporters in Wisconsin, given their exit polling data (which says that they largely like Bush, like the economy, like the tax cuts, like the war in Iraq) would vote against Bush in November? What does this do to his status as the “electable” Democrat? Any thoughts as to the results among independents in most states (who favor Kerry) versus the three or so that independents have actually favored Edwards over Kerry?
You are twisting the data. To say that “Most of the crossover voters who like Bush prefer Edwards” is not the same thing as saying “Most Edwards supporters like Bush.” I am disappointed in you, oh fellow Democrat. Let us take the path of intellectual honesty, so foreign to our Republican foes.
The polling shows that Edwards has more appeal in the center and on the right than Kerry has. I will grant you that the voters on the far right may well go to Bush in November. It’s the voters in the middle with whom we are concerned. (Are you ignoring the several testimonials in this thread from those very voters, by the way?)
You cite New Hampshire, where Kerry essentially the local boy. (a la Paul Tsongas in '92.)
You cite Delaware and Arizona, where Edwards did not campaign due to strategic and financial considerations.
Moreover (and more significantly), most (all?) of the states you cite held their primaries while Clark was still in the race, and while Clark and Edwards were dividing the moderate vote.
Wisconsin was the first true test: The first state outside the South where Edwards ran a serious campaign, where Clark was no longer in the race and where voting by independents was allowed.
I am a moderate Democrat. I live in Wisconsin. I voted for Edwards. I despise Bush. I am not happy with Bush’s economic policies which are leaving us with record deficits. I think the tax cuts were a big mistake. I am vehemently against the war in Iraq.
Keep in mind, my friend, that while I may generally favor Kerry at this point, I very much like Edwards too, so I have no desire to twist the data in any way, so please drop the charge of intellectual dishonesty. In fact, I do believe that you are far too quick to discount the possibility that Edwards’ results among independent and republican voters may be because these are the folks who want to muddy things up, not because they are likely to elect Edwards in the fall. If they were likely to elect Edwards, why do they appear so much to line up with Bush on almost all issues?
Nor did I say that “Most Edwards supporters like Bush." I did point to the exit poll results from Wisconsin that say that these particular Edwards supporters seem in particular to like Bush, his actions and policies. Why would they vote against him in the fall? If you look at the responses to the same sets of questions from other states, which I have perused, you simply don’t see the crossed over nature that is evident in the Wisconsin data (i.e. the winner of other states tended to win in all categories, rather than winning those that are disinclined to Bush and to conservative opinions but losing those who were). It is far more of a fit with the theory that Bush supporting republicans and independents sabotaged the Wisconsin results by being overrepresented relative to republicans and independents who honestly are swayed by Edwards.
This is just not consistent with the actual data. National polls and the results of exit polls from most of the primaries (your off-hand dismissal notwithstanding) do not support this. I am sorry, and I would be fine if it were so, but it just isn’t. I think you may be, no offense, but the first rabid Edwards supporter I have encountered. I do wish you well in that.
No, I am not ignoring them. That would be relevant if I were saying that there are no republican and independent supporters of Edwards. I am quite sure there are. But I am arguing that there is no groundswell of support among these voters for Edwards, and that the Wisconsin results are more consistent with people who like neither Edwards nor Kerry casting votes for Edwards.
Please refrain from the accusations that I am manipulating anything. I simply think that you are incorrect in your conclusions, that there is a better explanation for the phenomenon in Wisconsin than you and Saletan are subscribing to, and that the data is more consistent with that alternate explanation than yours.
Perhaps, although you made a blanket statement that independents favor Edwards, which is not borne out across the polls. Further, you have not provided support for your assertion that more independents who voted for Clark are voting for Kerry. Clark, in fact, gave his support to Kerry, not that this means that those following Clark would do the same. You would apparently hope that all the conservative Clark supporters would go to Kerry, but this is different from a fact. And I would suggest that the whittling of the field would also support the argument that a clearer target for sabotage emerged in the form of Kerry.
Perhaps we can test this with the next closed primaries, which I think will be on March 2nd, in Connecticut, Maryland and New York.
Your testimonial is again noted. Was there someone to whom this was unclear? The plural of anecdote is not data. You are a datum, and an apparently valid datum. No one disputes this. However, among those who are satisfied or enthusiastic with Bush, Edwards won these votes in Wisconsin handily. Unless you cast all of these votes, you cannot clarify the exit poll data any more than it is. The fact is that, among people who are apparently most like George W. Bush, in Wisconsin, Edwards won more of these voters. My point continues to be that these people are in fact not Edwards supporters. They are decidedly unlike you and your valid datum. They suggest shenanigans on the part of your Wisconsin brethren who would like to have Bush’s war chest go up against an even further depleted opponents meager spare change.
Mr. Barbarian, I apologize for my snippy post. It was directed at you, but I was reacting to what I thought was an accusation that I like Bush and his policies. Not bloody likely.
I cannot dispute your theories about why my brethren in Wisconsin voted the way they did, but I think it would be just as large a mistake to read too much into the “crossover” voters.
I do know one person (I know, I know, it’s just one data point) who generally votes Republican and believes that we should be in Iraq and thinks the country is generally on the right track, but is uncomfortable with Bush himself. He voted for Edwards and is not likely to vote for Bush even though his tendencies would normally lead him to do so.
I think we can all agree that this will be interesting to watch.
Apology gladly accepted, and not really necessary. I myself am wont to sound a barbaric yawp around here, perhaps too often. I would also consider it a base accusation for someone to suggest I like Bush and his policies, too.
I agree that the “monkey wrench” theory is not at all indisputable. However, it is, I think, a possibility not to be dismissed lightly. Again, I like Edwards. I think a Kerry/Edwards ticket would be strong. I think an Edwards/Kerry ticket would be strong. I think a Kerry/Clark ticket would be strong. How about a Kerry/McCain ticket…
Well, given I voted for Bush because Gore sucked and I wanted a guy who could beat him… I don’t think voting for whom you consider the lesser of two evils is an invalid approach for deciding who to vote for, no matter which party you belong to.
For this election, I’m not thrilled about Bush, but if Kerry gets the nom I will definitely be voting Bush again (familiarity breeds contempt, I wouldn’t for him or former Maine gov Angus King for anything) If it’s Edwards, there’s a chance I’d consider voting for him.
Out of curousity, does the fact that he’s -generally- more appealing to Republicans than Kerry is make him more or less appealing to Democrats?
I don’t think it hurts him with Democrats. In fact some Dean supporters are beginning to back Edwards, with the idea that he is less a part of the Democratic establishment than Kerry.
And by the way, is anyone rabid in their support of John Kerry? Maybe there are some rabid Kerry fans I haven’t met, but most people seem to backing him out of a (misguided) sense of expediency.
