I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

...or so said a text message I received this past weekend. The text directed me to call 323-982-7968 (it only works when dialed from my cellphone) where I was greeted by the following recorded message from David Bonior:

Hi, this is David Bonior. As the national campaign manager for John Edwards, I wanted to let you know about the exciting results of two national polls that were recently released.

In head to head matchups, John Edwards beats out Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson with a 9 to 11 point lead in both the latest Rasmussen and SurveyUSA polls. John is the only Democratic candidate that beats each Republican in these match-ups.

So if we want to take back The White House, John Edwards needs to be our nominee.

We need you to forward this message to a friend and let voters across the country know that John is the only candidate that can win in November.

I know Edwards has been touting his electability for much of this campaign, hoping lightning would strike twice and the electability argument would take center stage as it did in the early primaries 4 years ago. My guess, however, is that this will prove to be a less than compelling argument. First of all, doesn't electability only really work as an argument if you know who your opponent is? Against Bush, the tough-talking shoot first war president, war hero John Kerry was seen as the best choice to go up against him in 2004. Notice how the Republicans this year constantly raise the spectre of a Clinton nomination in order to then argue why each of them is best suited to go up against her. Without a Republican heir apparent waiting in the wings, it's much more difficult to tell which Democrat would in fact be "most electable" next year and as such, I suspect it will play less of a factor in determining the Democratic nominee.

Undeterred, Edwards here is using polls that suggest that he's best positioned to win against all three of the GOP front-runners based on national head-to-head match-ups. Putting aside for a moment the concern troll aspect of the voicemail, this idea that John Edwards is the only Democrat who can win next year (I'd wager that most Democrats think any of our candidates would likely beat the Republican,) this argument also smacks somewhat of desperation, since for much of the campaign, Edwards has been very much about making the policy argument for his candidacy; if he's resorting to citing polls, doesn't that mean the policy argument isn't working? Also, while I'm unaware of exactly to whom these text messages were sent, the Bonior voicemail seems a bit insider baseball to be effective on a mainstream level. But perhaps the biggest problem with it is that it's an inherently rational appeal. In poll after poll, respondents say that they see Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate best positioned to beat the Republican in 2008. This judgment isn't based on any polls or even policies as far as I can tell, but rather is based on the sense that she's beaten them before and she'll beat them again, something Clinton has made a peripheral emotional thread of her campaign. Like scissors going up against rock, Edwards is trying to trump an emotional judgment people have already made with a rational one.

I do think the strategy here is a good use of the technology, though. Once you get the text, you call the number and at the end of the message, you are instructed to press 4 to send the message to your friends. Very smart way of potentially expanding his list, I just don't know if this was the message to do it.

Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

44 Comments

Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

This is desperate. Even in SurveyUSA state polls, he lost FL and some big blue states such as CA and NY.

Based on the polls Edwards campaign touted, Hillary is actually the only candidate who won swing states such as FL and handily captured all blue states.

It's just laughable.

by areyouready 2007-10-09 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

I had to chuckle at this:

Putting aside for a moment the concern troll aspect of the voicemail...

Todd, that is harsh.

by iamready 2007-10-09 03:34PM | 0 recs
Some reality for you

Hate to intrude on your spin, but:

Survey USA - September 20 - October 4, 2007

Out of 51 match-ups...

Edwards outperforms Clinton 35 times. Clinton outperforms Edwards 15 times. They tie once.

Edwards outperforms Obama 46 times. Obama outperforms Edwards 4 times.They tie once.

http://esrc08.blogspot.com/

and while you are it, have a read:
Behind the Horse Race Numbers: Edwards Strongest Democrat in General Election Match-ups
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/behind_the_horse_race_nu mbers_edwards_strongest_democrat_in_gene ral_election_match_ups

by okamichan13 2007-10-09 03:54PM | 0 recs
Both of you are...DEAD WRONG

This first part goes to arseyouready

The only thing laughable around here is you ridiculous "No New York" theory.

Go here

http://esrc08.blogspot.com/

...read them and weap.

I directly address your theory by the way.

And actually read what is there.  Don't just skim through it and come back here with some new bullshit theory.  

And by the way, look at the TOTALITY, don't just cherry pick a couple examples.

And the truth is that you cannot except both national and statewide polling if you buy into your theory.

And as far as Todd Beeton goes, if you are not concerned about what the Wignuts have in store for Hillary (even Larry Flynt's investigator warned the WaPo that they had enough to bury her...it's BS but it is the political reality, this happens and the American people will collectively say "Not this shit again" and then the GOP nominee becomes the change agent)
maybe you should join Jonathan Singer in the Bob Shrum Terrible Advice For Democrats Hall of Shame.

Both of you can be right on at times, but you could not be more dead wrong about John Edwards.
If your candidate does not appeal to voters and isn't ready for prime time then public financing or not they aren't going to win.

And Kerry's "electability" and Edwards electability are entirely different.  Kerry's was pure perception, Edwards is backed up by overwhelming evidence.

Actually Karl Rove did all he could to take attention away from Edwards and put it on Kerry?

Why? Because he is scared of John Edwards.

And he's not the only one - Ben Ginsburg practically peed his pants when he was asked about Edwards in the general by Chris Mathews.

And yeah, we don't know who the GOP nominee will be, but if you had actually, you know... done some research, you would see that Edwards does best against ALL OF THEM!

And it's not just me saying this by the way.

Edwards is viewed as more moderate (I hate to admit that this is a good thing, but it is).  He usually has the best fav/unfav number, and even when he doesn't have it he still outperforms the others. And he does WAY better with Independents, especially when he is against Giuliani.  After natural closing happens and the Dems side with the Democrat and the Republicans side with the Reublicans it is the Independents that will decide this thing.

Just click on the link and actually read what is there.

It's funny how people like you pay lip service to a 50 state strategy but you clearly only support it to a certain point.  When there is a candidate that gives a chance to compete all across the country while standing for something, you decide to just dismiss their electability without really knowing what the you are talking about.

Simply put, Edwards appeals to a wider group of people.  

Just because you are on the front page doesn't mean that you get to just fart out some "analysis" that is basically a half-truth, and an overexageration mixed with a lie, and then expect not to get called on it.  Why don't you go to the link as well, and then please explain to me why you think that this argument is not valid.

Seriously, what is the point of the netroots except to elect more and better Democrats?

When a candidate...

- leads on the issues

  • best communicates and represents our values
  • is the most electable and will actually give down-ballot candidates a hand up instead of dragging them down

What exactly are you waiting for?

Oh...and Edwards is ready for prime time and Clinton and Obama clearly aren't.  Whether it is Meet the Candidate or the MTV / MySpace thing...he answers questions while they either run from them or laugh them off.

Oh yeah, and then there is this.

IRAQ / IRAN

We all know where the candidates stood when the war started. But what have they tried to do to end it?

Kerry - Feingold Amendment (2006)
The Kerry - Feingold amendment was one of two amendments that that were voted in 2006. Kerry-Feingold set a timetable for withdrawal. The other amendment was Reed (RI) - Levin, which did not set a timetable for withdrawal. Clinton and Obama both voted no on Kerry-Feingold. When asked about this amendment and Reed-Levin, John Edwards said, "I support both amendments."

Clinton - Voted No.
Obama - Voted No.
Edwards - Supported.

Lieberman vs. Lamont Connecticut Senate Race (2006)
This was the a choice between a Conservative, Warmonger "Democrat", and a progressive Democrat who opposed the war.

Clinton - Endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Did not campaign for Lamont
Obama - Endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Did not campaign for Lamont.
Edwards - Did not endorse Lieberman in the primary. Was first major Democrat to campaign for Lamont.

The Gregg Amendment
This was seen by most as a pledge not to cut off funds to end the war in Iraq, no matter what.

Clinton - Voted yes.
Obama - Voted yes.

Cutting off Funds to Stop the Escalation of the War

Clinton - Stopped short of supporting it.
Obama- Stopped short of supporting it.
Edwards - Supported and vocally called for it.

Jim Webb's Iran legislation
This was the first attempt by Jim Webb to pass legislation that would be a roadblock to President Bush if he were to attempt to attack Iran.

Clinton- Not on the record.
Obama - Not on the record.
Edwards - Immediately released a statement supporting

Feingold - Reid (NV)

Clinton - Had to be prodded into supporting it.
Obama - Had to be prodded into supporting it.
Edwards - Supported it as a first step, but wanted to go further.

Capitulation Bill #1
This was the funding bill for the war that became known as the "capitulation" bill.

Clinton - Was silent about how she would vote until the vote. Was among the last to vote.
Obama - Was silent about how he would vote until the vote. Was among the last to vote.
Edwards - Clearly and repeatedly opposed the bill from the start.

Capitulation Bill #2
When reports surfaced that Senate Democrats were considering a compromise on another funding bill Edwards stepped up his already very vocal opposition to any timetable without withdrawal. He made "No timetable, funding. No excuses." a theme of his campaign. A few weeks later Obama said that he would also oppose a any bill without a timetable for withdrawal. Weeks later, Clinton also took that position.

Lieberman - Kyl
This was seen by many as something President Bush could someday use as the basis for one of his "Unitary executive"arguments that he had the authority to attack Iran. At the very least it was a significant step in the wrong direction.

Clinton - Voted Yes
Obama - Missed Vote
Edwards - Opposed

And then there is health care...

Edwards' plan is universal.  Came out months ago.

Obama's plan is not universal.  came out months after Edwards...

Clinton's plan is...Edwards'.  And it came out just recently.

What about global warming?

From Grist Magazine...

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/ 07/06/candidates/index.html

How Green Is Your Candidate? (Original Version)
Where the presidential candidates stand on climate and energy issues

All of the Democratic presidential candidates put energy independence and climate change among their top-tier issues. They all support carbon cap-and-trade systems of varying strengths. They all at least gesture at renewable energy and hybrid cars. Most support ethanol and "clean coal." The aggressiveness of their climate and energy plans rises inversely with their chances of winning -- the better the chances, the weaker the plan. Here's a quick and dirty rundown of some of the Democratic contenders' stances. These descriptions of candidates' positions are not and should not be perceived as endorsements. Grist does not endorse political candidates.

Hillary Clinton dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change and energy independence, seeing the former as a way to reach young people and the latter as a way to sound tough. She's been somewhat vague on the details. Her distinctive contribution is the notion of a "Strategic Energy Fund" financed by repealed tax breaks and royalties from oil companies. Where she mentions specific solutions, she tends to focus on "clean coal" and ethanol. She signed on to the Sanders-Boxer climate bill, the most ambitious climate bill in the Senate, but only in May, after Edwards had endorsed bold emissions targets. On these issues, Clinton is studious and solid, but not out front.

Barack Obama's take on energy and climate is, well, Obaman: the rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental. With the exception of showy gimmicks like his "Healthcare for Hybrids" bill, he's largely been a follower, signing on to multiple cap-and-trade bills and copping Schwarzenegger's low-carbon fuel standard. His main splash in the energy world happened when he came out cheerleading for liquified coal, which coal barons (especially in his home state of Illinois) loved but plenty of other folks hated; he later "clarified" his way back to safety. On these issues, Obama is largely platitudinous and reserved.

John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three front-runners. He's stumping for 80 percent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and fleshing that goal out with detailed proposals for a renewable portfolio standard, big boosts in fuel efficiency, changes to the energy grid and efficiency standards (the only front-runner to emphasize these), a green-jobs program, and more. On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails.

And from the League of Conservation Voters

http://www.heatison.org/content/blank/ca ndidate_chart

This is taken from the The League of Conservation Voters' chart that describes where the candidates currently stand.

CANDIDATE: Hillary Clinton
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 35 mpg fleetwide standard by 2020
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Suppors 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%

CANDIDATE: Barack Obama
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 45 mpg standard by 2020
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%

CANDIDATE: John Edwards
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports at least 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2016
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 25% standard by 2025%
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon emissions

There is WAY too much on the line to screw around with this election and listen to ridiculous advice.

Should we listen to areyouready and make Karl Rove's dream come true and nominate Hillary?

Or should we make Karl Rove's nightmare reality and nominate John Edwards?

We actually have a chance to win big and stand for something at the same time.

The candidate most committed to a progressive agenda is also the most electable.  This is our chance.  To blow it, based on the ill-informed musings of Todd Beeton or anyone else would be incredibly stupid.

Todd - some friendly advice - for the love of God please pull your head out of your...arseyouready!.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-09 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Both of you are...DEAD WRONG

No New York - ok i wont harp on that

But -- NO FLORIDA, NO MICHIGAN = NO 2008 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT ELECT

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-09 05:08PM | 0 recs
Thank you...

for proving my point.

First of all, the point is that he will win New York.  Trailing by 1 point to Giuliani in one poll is nothing, especially when you consider natural closing.

Why do you people open your mouths when you clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Why didn't you click the link instead of proving my point about ridiculous people like you are.

You are the king of all low-information voters.

And Michigan...did you just pull that out of your ass?

Click on the link next time, or come up with something new.  Didn't I say to look at the TOTALITY of evidence.

Do you even know what natural closing is?

What about a margin of error?

Can any Clintonista just declare themselves lord pollster?

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-09 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you...

Talk about spin - Are you dizzy yet becuase you are spinning around so hard.

Take a look at Florida - Do you think he can win Florida? If he is up against Rudy, FL will go red again.  People in Michigan are pissed off, even on the net roots, and the netroots are usually more blue than the general electorate.
http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary .do?diaryId=10332

PA is blue/purple, and Rudy is very popular there, there goes another swing state. PA/FL gone, so goes the General Election.

While i dont think Michigan will go Red in the end,  it will be very close, and will become competitive.  Every blue state that becomes competitive is more money that is being drained from battleground states.  Against Rudy, Edwards will have to waste a lot of money in PA, NJ, NY, CT, FL and now, Michigan

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-10 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you...

and you are another example of a high horse Edwards supporter who is so blinded, you drift off from the reality of politics.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-10 09:35AM | 0 recs
Spin...

Maybe your emotional connection to the Clintons forces you to buy any spin Hillbots spew.

But I for one am tired of your bullshit.  You have no interest in reality, or evidence, or anything that would wake you up for your DLC dream.

Face it...Hillary is the least electable Democratic candidate by far.

She probably can't win.  And even if she could, when they Wingnuts bring up Bill's affairs (if you think there aren't any more then you really need to lay off the Kool Aid) it will be all over.

They are going to, according to Flynt's investigator in WaPO..."bury her through Bill"

Bill might have some sort of problem.  And their personal life shouldn't be an issue, we can all agree on that.  But the GOP will MAKE it one.

Bill already admitted in his book that he was lying when he denied the Gennifer Flowers thing.

And he's already admitted that he lied about Lewinsky.  

Even if his previous special friends stay quiet (and according to books like The Way To Win...non hit job...there are A LOT of them, even as early as 88' there were A LOT of them), which is not going to happen, the Wingnuts will just produce somebody. How is Bill going to defend himself?

"Uh...yeah...I was lying twice before when I admitted to having affairs but this time I swear I am telling the truth."

Come on.  This would make the election about Hillary's personal life, and whatever small chance she has of winning (considering how far the GOP base will go to beat her) will disappear.

Why do you think, as long ago as a year and a half ago, she started saying..."You know, Bill and I started a converasation decades ago...and we haven't started talking since."

They already have their talking points down.  But any time Hillary says "conversation" that is code for "I am completely full of shit right now".

I've been hesitant to bring this up, but I can only deal with your constant spin for so long.

You people are worse than Republicans.

Mark Penn is your Karl Rove.

Maybe if you actually cared about the future of the Democratic Party, and actually standing for something, and actually winning, you would be different.

Instead, all you can think is...

"Bill Clinton Democratic President...Hillary his wife...Hillary Democrat...Me support Hillary...Hillary is 44...Ready to Lead And Ready for change!"

In fact, my-step brother needed to write a parody song for his music class.  So I helped him out. This next reply will be dedicated to you...

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-09 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin...

I am not a Hillary supporter, but this "Hillbot" spew, is totally unneccesary.  It really is.

by iamready 2007-10-09 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Spin...

Go cry somewhere else. It's true, deal with it.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-16 04:22PM | 0 recs
The DLC Hack Pack

The First Political Hotline Insider Wire Report Fix To Read

BREAKING NEWS:  Clinton Advisors Form Rap Group!

Washington D.C. - September 30, 2007

TFPHIWRFTR received an exclusive interview with Hillary Clinton's pollster / chief policy advisor Mark Penn and her communications director Howard Wolfson on the eve of the release of their first single as a rap group.

Penn, who now goes by the name "Union Busta", and Wolfson, who calls himself "Howie Wolf" are members of the DLC Hack Pack.  Their legions of affectionate fans (most live in the DC area), refer to them as "Marky Mark and the Slimy Bunch".  We obtained lyrics to two songs from their upcoming debut album, The Finest Of The Spineless.  Their first single "Ayo Methodology" features "Fresh Dougy" (who is also known as Doug Schoen), and the song is already turning heads.

Lyrics to a part of a "freestyle" featuring a mysterious female rapper named "H-bomb" have also been leaked.  We sat down with the duo at their recording studio in Washington D.C. The behavior of the two advisors seemed to confirm rumors that they had been taking "rapper lessons" from some of Senator Clinton's star studded supporters.

TFPHIWRFTR: So, what is the DLC Hack Pack all about?

Howie Wolf:  Senator Clinton is ready to change and she is ready to lead.  She is in to win.  She'll probably lose if she makes it to the general election, but that is not the point. The point is that she is in to win, and isn't that all that matters?  You know, she is the only candidate who is ready to go into the White House and start capitulating on day one.  Can you say that about Senator Edwards or Senator Obama?  I don't think so.

Union Busta:  (whispers) Wrong talking points dawg, remember the rapper lessons.

Howie Wolf:  Oh...yeah.  The DLC Hack Pack is banana man.  

Union Busta:  It's "bananas" man.  Remember the song, "It's Bananas...B-A-N-A-S!"

Howie Wolf:  That should have been Hillary's campaign theme song! (sings) Hillary is bananas...B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

TFPHIWRFTR:  Actually, some would say that Hillary has a lot in common with bananas.  They both are yellow... they both have an outer layer that is easy to peel away... they are both mushy...

Howie Wolf:  I still think it works, dawg.

Union Busta:  Nah man, I don't think it would have played well with chess playing high school dropouts or Midwestern gerbil owners.

Howie Wolf:  Yeah...you probably right.  Celine Dion was the right choice.  It was ultra-cautious....just the way we like it.

TFPHIWRFTR:  So why form a rap group?

Howie Wolf:  Because we are...(checks note cards)...dope ryhmers.

Union Busta:  Yeah, you should listen to the Wolfman over here, he really knows what he is talking about.

Howie Wolf: The Wolfman?  You're trippin' homie.  I be Howie Wolf.  Howie Wolf raise da roof!  At least my name is cool.  It's much better than "Union Busta".

Union Busta:  Yo man, they told me to rap about what I know, and I know union bustin'.  I bust 3 unions before breakfast and that's on a Sunday, yo.

Howie Wolf:  I told you to keep that on the DL.  I know you addicted to union bustin and all that but go to UBA or something man.  
TFPHWFRTR:  What is UBA?

Howie Wolf: Union Busters Anonymous.  It's for people who are addicted to bustin' unions.  And Marky Mark is a straight up addict.  He's probably feignin`...planning on how to bust a union right now.

Union  Busta:  How did you know man?  You psychic or something?

FPHWFRTR:  Union Busta, I noticed that Howie Wolf called you "Marky  Mark".  How do you feel that even your fans call you guys "Marky Mark and the Slimy Bunch...and why do all of your fans live in DC?

Union  Busta:  Hells yeah we slimy!  If there is one thing I stand for man, it is  out-of-touch advisors to being slimy as hell...and being able to tell politicians to do things that hurt the country,  Without the Democratic Party putting up with that right man...(starts to tear up)...I wouldn't be where I am today.  I just wanna say big ups to my homies at the DLC, all my homies at FOX News...Mista Murdoch, all my dogs, ya'll know who you are.

TFPHIWRFTR:  Upon listening to the rough cut of "Ayo Methodology" I noticed that it sounds extremely similar to 50 Cent's "Ayo Technology".  And  "Da Beltway Freestyle" sounds a lot like Jay - Z's "Public Service Announcement".  Are you ripping of other rappers?

Union Busta:  How do you know so much about hip hop?

TFPHWFRTR:  Well, I have a teenage daughter who...

Howie Wolf: Ah man, you wack man, you wack.  I am hip hop!  And I say you are wrong.

TFPHWFRTR:  You are hip hop?  How can a middle aged ...

Howie Wolf:  Man, don't you know, it's like we tell our client all  the time.  If you don't want to stand up for anybody, and trust me dawg, she ain't standin' up for no one unless you got the paper, you dig?

Union Busta:  Yeah boy, tryin' to make hedge funds pay their fair share is wack dawg.  Big ups to my homies at the hedgies!

Howie Wolf:  For real man.  Like I was sayin', If you don't want to stand up for anybody, just act like you are everything to everybody and it'll be all good.

TFPHWFRTR:  I see.  Back to my question...why do your songs sound so much like rip offs of...

Howie Wolf:  Look man, we got the media on lock.  Compared to those cats WE got backbone. We ripped off John Edwards' health care plan 7 months after he put his out and the media didn't call us on it.  What makes you think that this is going to be any different?

TFPHWRFTR:  So what is the premise behind "Ayo Methadology"?

Union Busta:  It's a hypothetical situation...

TFPHWRFTR:  Senator Clinton won't talk about "hypothetical" situations, why do you?

Union Busta: (laughs nervously)...Ah...ha ha haaaaa

Howie Wolf:  (Whispers to Union Busta) What you doing man, when I said, "Laugh away all the hard questions" I meant Hillary, not you!

Union Busta:  Okay...The premise of the song is that there's this pollster right, and he has this client right, and he is also their chief policy advisor... because the client decides what policies they support based on polling, right.  Well she... I mean they, become so poll-driven that even I think it is out of control.  So this is my message to them.  It's like I say in the song, "Lay off the numbers boo."

Howie Wolf: Yeah man, she is obsessed with those polls dawg.

TFPHWRFTR:  Who are you talking about?

Union Busta:  Nobody...I told you it was hypothetical.

TFPHWRFTR:  Why does the guest rapper on, "Da Beltway Freestyle"...she goes by the name H-Bomb, why does she sound so much like Senator Clinton?

Howie Wolf:  Lay off it man. Maybe she goes by "H-Bomb" because we all know that she would bomb in a general election.

Union Busta:  What are you doin' man?

Howie Wolf:  Man, you know it is true...the polls showing that she is the least electable Democrat in the race are the only polls she ignores.

TFPHWRFTR:  So pretty much, you are telling me that Senator Clinton caves in easily and probably can't win the general election?

Union Busta:  (starts laughing nervously)...ah ha ha ha ha ha (looks at Howie Wolf in desperation) ha ha haaaaa

Howie Wolf: (pauses)  Ahhhhhhhhh ha ha ha....that is a great question...ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa...

(End of Interview)

Group:  DLC Hack Pack featuring Fresh Dougy
Song: Ayo Methadology
Album:  The Finest Of The Spineless

(note:  This is a paraody of this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFbfxOdb9 zk)

Most of this was my step-brother, but I helped with the interview and with the things I wanted to bring up...just as a tribute to Hilary)

Intro/ First Verse (Union Busta Raps):

Something special
Unforgetable
Mark Penn (Penn)
Wolfson (son)
D Schoen (Schoen),
hot damn (damn)

She she, she want polls, we have to give em to her
Big Business, is betting on her
We tell her, "You gotta keep it down,
When you thrown' their money around"

She's "your girl", she loves the polls
Pant suits are her favorite clothes
She in to win, she ready for change
Long as those in power stay the same
We stack our dough, from union bustin`,
A fan of NAFTA,  like her husband
Crooked donors, she got about a dozen
Labor unions, she even says she loves em''
But that don't stop her from havin' fun
When she at cover shoots for Fortune
Think she a ballerina from the way she spun  
Want to end the game?  Well it has just begun
Poll-driven even more than we're used to
We tell her, "Lay off the numbers boo"
She gone say the right thing, make sure she panders
Laughs away hard questions, no straight answers

(Union Busta and Howie Wolf Sing):

She always tells us, "I want you calculatin'  
Study da info, let me know, if da peeps be formin'
a consensus, against us, we flip floppin'
If I stand for something, there's a chance that I could fall"

Chorus (Howie Wolf sings):

Let me talk to ya...

Why you be so old school, thinking' they all fools
Still pretending that you don't know what lobbyists do
Stop drivin' your pollster crazy, trend lines don't do you justice HC
Why don't you stand up for once?

You got us saying...

Ayo
We tired of using methodology
Where's your war vote apology?

Ayo
We tired of using methodology
We the hack pack from the DLC

Ooh, she wants em', uh uh, she wants em'
Ooh, she wants polls`, uh uh (so), we gotta give em' to her

Ooh, she wants em', uh uh, she wants em
Ooh, she wants polls`, uh uh (so), we gotta give em' to her

(Fresh Dougy raps):

In the wind, 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind. 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind, 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind, 24/7 (let me tell you)

Second Verse (Union Busta Raps):

She love the corporate cash she got
Always plays both sides, like a dirty cop
She make it rain for us, it'll never stop
Ain't afraid to flip, ain't afraid to flop
In reality, it's plain to see
Just how we be, slimy
Backpeddlin', side steppin
All up in our press release
"If you're ready for change, she ready to lead"
Cheesy slogans be what campaigns need
She always will, attack men of straw
Like "flag burning should be against the law"
From time to time, we take the press,  and break em down (down down)
You know we like, playin' hardball, and we the best around
It'll be different party, different prez, rich peeps still asleep on Lincoln's bed
Insiders still in control, despite what our campaign says
The new poll says we should switch our position  
We must make sure that corporate ass is what we're kissin

Chorus (Howie Wolf sings):

Let me talk to ya

Why you be so old school,  thinking' they all fools
Still pretending that you don't know what lobbyists do
Stop drivin' your pollster crazy, trend lines don't do you justice HC
Why don't you stand up for once?

You got us saying...

Ayo
We tired of using methodology
Where's your war vote apology?

Ayo
We tired of using methodology
We the hack pack from the DLC

Ooh, she wants em', uh uh, she wants em
Ooh, she wants polls`, uh uh (so), we gotta give em' to her

Ooh, she wants em', uh uh, she wants em
Ooh, she wants polls`, uh uh (so), we gotta give em' to her

(Fresh Dougy Schoen raps):

In the wind, 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind. 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind, 24/7 (her finger is)
In the wind, 24/7 (her finger is)

Group:  DLC Hack Pack featuring H-Bomb and Jiggity James Carville
Song: Da Beltway Freestyle (Partial)
Album:  The Finest Of The Spineless

(note: This is a parody of...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAbxCTABf is

From me to Hillary...)

(H-Bomb raps):

Allow me to re-invent myself
My name is Hill, H to the ILL-ARY,
Lobbyists represent real people to me
I guess even way back you could call me
Queen Bee of the DLC
From a lying elephant to a donkey liar
We be the Mark Rich pardon number one suppliers
Flimsier than the rally signs bearin' my name
I got the hottest dude in the game, sayin' she ready for change
We bout change,  rhetorically
But corporate interests will still take priority
Got the backbone of a jellyish
My homey Penn told me, "Hill finish your polling'"
So that's what I'm a do, take you back to the past
With the sell out "Democrats" that made sure NAFTA passed
Let me tell you dudes what I do to impress them...
I get endorsements from movie directors

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-09 05:41PM | 0 recs
Dude, you sound like you

Really need a vacation.

Seriously, take a break.

by Wonk 2007-10-09 09:13PM | 0 recs
Really

Time will tell won't it.

Todd - are you still supporting a particular candidate?

by dk2 2007-10-09 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Really

Todd's diary reminds me of Rush Limbaugh's tactics. Initiate a discussion about an issue or object - could be an apple or a cat or whatever - to inject nonsensical and bashing comments about Democrats.

by annefrank 2007-10-09 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

Todd's words: "Putting aside for a moment the concern troll aspect of the voicemail, this idea that John Edwards is the only Democrat who can win next year (I'd wager that most Democrats think any of our candidates would likely beat the Republican,) this argument also smacks somewhat of desperation, since for much of the campaign, Edwards has been very much about making the policy argument for his candidacy; if he's resorting to citing polls, doesn't that mean the policy argument isn't working? "

There's another even more important reason this smacks of desperation.  Unless something drastic happens, ANY COMPETENT DEMOCRAT is going to have the upper hand going into the general campaign.  Democrats currently have a structural advantage with OH, NH, IA, and CO turning sharp left since 04 and a huge financial advantage.  For any Democrat to proclaim in this politcal atmosphere this far out that they are the ONLY Democrat that can win the general election is definitely borne of their own desperation only.

by NJIndependent 2007-10-09 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards
Bonior is correct.
It's gonna be nasty with Hillary - and winning is less assured.
by annefrank 2007-10-09 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

Edwards = loss in Florida, Loss in Michigan = LOSER of the 2008 election if he is the nominee

by sepulvedaj3 2007-10-09 05:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

1. National head-to-heads show Edwards at 2.3% over Giuliani while Clinton is showing 5.5% against him.  

Edwards:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_giuli ani_vs_edwards-229.html

Clinton:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/general_election_giuli ani_vs_clinton-227.html

2. Then you have the thorough and painstaking job Chris Bowers did putting all state head-to-head polls together and creating a General Election map.  As of today, Edwards would lose in an electoral college landslide to Giuliani:

Giuliani 327-211 Edwards

In contrast, Clinton beats Giuliani handily.  

by georgep 2007-10-09 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

That research that even Bowers agreed should be "taken with a grain of salt or three."  He also offered this caveat:

I should note that polling on Clinton vs. Republicans is far more comprehensive, as Rasmussen has done a substantial amount of surveying in states without including Obama and Edwards.

by Junior Bug 2007-10-09 03:56PM | 0 recs
With Clinton - its gong to be a long night

in Ohio and probably a lot of other states - if we are lucky.

by okamichan13 2007-10-09 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: With Clinton - its gong to be a long night

Bleh.  SurveyUSA just today released head-to-heads for Florida.  Looks pretty bad for Edwards.

by georgep 2007-10-09 04:24PM | 0 recs
This was last week.

I diaried it at the time.

I disagree that it looks "pretty bad" for Edwards.  Yes, he loses to Rudy while Hillary beats him.  But Edwards does lead Thompson, and beats Romney by an even larger margin than Hillary does.

Assuming that Romney is more or less "generic Republican" at this point in Florida, why does Edwards have a larger lead than Hillary against him then?

If he were consistently trailing, or even losing, then I'd say you'd have a valid point.

by BruinKid 2007-10-09 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: This was last week.

Come on, seriously now.  

(R/D)        Clinton Obama Edwards
Giuliani      43/49   50/41  48/43
Thompson 42/50   48/42  43/46
Romney    41/51    46/44  37/50

So, in Florida Clinton BEATS Giuliani by 6% while at the same time Edwards LOSES by 5%.  That is an 11% gap.  

Against Thompson Edwards wins by a scant 3% (a tie within the MoE) while Clinton wins by 8%.  

Then Clinton beats Romney by 10% while Edwards beats Romney by 13%, and based on that insignificant "noise" you are contending that there should be nothing to worry about in Florida vis-a-vis Edwards and the top-2 GOPers?  That Clinton does not have indeed an advantage over Edwards when it comes to this absolutely crucial state?    I would say that is a bit of spin that you would certainly reject yourself if you were impartial.  

by georgep 2007-10-09 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

That research is to be taken for what it is:  Every recent head-to-head result available to us.  Cold, hard, unemotional data.   That is a whole lot more meaningful as a current show of state-of-affairs than an Edwards fan's "feelings," which of course go counter to the data we have currently available.  If we are going to dismiss it as "too early" or such stuff, then things could actually be worse instead of better.

Don't forget also that in the latest ABC/Wapo poll Edwards shows as the most polarizing candidate, the Democrat with the highest "would definitely not vote for" number.  

by georgep 2007-10-09 04:28PM | 0 recs
Funny how Edwards supporters will use polls

to argue that Edwards is most electable and yet when they're presented with a map that plots where Edwards currently stands against a GOP candidate against which Edwards does not do well, they suggest such polls have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Which is it, guys? Do current polls support Bonior's claim Edwards is the most electable Democrat or should all polls be discounted at this point and Bonior's voicemail is just bullshit?

by John Campanelli 2007-10-09 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny how Edwards supporters will use polls

Whether the person who originally said it should be taken with a grain of salt is an Edwards supporter is unclear.  (It's clear that Bowers, who agreed, isn't, though.)

Myself, I don't follow polls or electability arguments.  

by Junior Bug 2007-10-09 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

And what is the map if Clinton is the nominee?  Rudy winning NY and NJ over Edwards?  I call that whole map bull shit.  Rudy isn't gonna win that big.  No way no how.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-10-09 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

Perhaps not.  The map is ONLY a snapshot of CURRENT polling data we have available.  It could well change in Edwards' favor.  But that's the thing.  It has not YET.  To make the bold claims that are being made here is bogus, considering how dismal the GENERAL ELECTION map  vs. Giuliani looks at the moment for Edwards.  Remember, what Chris Bowers assembled was just the raw data, the polls themselves, without any weighting or "snipping here-to-make things fit there."   Just the actual polling data.    I am not disputing that Edwards COULD recover and look a lot better down the road.  But so far that has not happened.   Why then are things being argued AS IF they already have?  A rosy picture as if Edwards really looks good against all GOPers (when he in fact does not?)    

Since you asked, the same assembling of state head-to-heads against Giuliani resulted in the following map for Clinton:

Clinton 261-235 Giuliani

Don't forget that Clinton also beats Edwards when it comes to aggregated national head-to-head data.

  Plus, the latest "would definitely not vote for" metric as shown by the ABC/WaPo poll showed Edwards as the most polarizing Democratic candidate (with the highest "would definitely not vote for" number of all Democratic candidates at 43%.)  

by georgep 2007-10-09 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

This sentence:

Don't forget that Clinton also beats Edwards when it comes to aggregated national head-to-head data."

should have read:

Don't forget that Clinton also beats Edwards when it comes to aggregated national head-to-head data against GOP frontrunner Giuliani.

by georgep 2007-10-09 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

Here is the link to Chris Bowers' diary on this subject:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =1667

by georgep 2007-10-09 09:47PM | 0 recs
Received the text message as well

and thought it was pretty good. Of course I already knew he was the most electable and knew of the polls Boniior mentioned.

But most people wouldn't if they weren't paying close attention. And if they want the democrats to win in 2008, I can see how this sort of thing would be effective for some.

It gets the message out, its cheap and easy messaging and offers a way to move the message further out to build support. Seems like some pretty smart new media usage with no downside.

by okamichan13 2007-10-09 03:57PM | 0 recs
It's A Matter Of Fact, Not Emotion.

This judgment isn't based on any polls or even policies as far as I can tell, but rather is based on the sense that she's beaten them before and she'll beat them again..."

You're joking, right?

Front page diaries cross-posted here on MyDD, OpenLeft, and Kos have demonstrated that Clinton indeed beats the GOP by a larger margin than either Edwards or Obama.

It's not a matter of emotion, it's a matter of fact.  

Further, it's an assessment endorsed by Chris Bowers, no great fan of Hillary's by any stretch of imagination.

by BigBoyBlue 2007-10-09 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: It's A Matter Of Fact, Not Emotion.

What polls were they, and you looking at?  I have seen plenty that have Edwards winning by wider margins.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-10-09 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

The only thing national head to head polls show at this point is that the democrats are doing well.

by leewesley 2007-10-09 04:16PM | 0 recs
Did Bonier's voicemail

Did Bonier's voicemail explain how John Edwards is going to win the electoral college after pissing off every Democratic Party voter in Michigan and Florida?

by hwc 2007-10-09 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Bonier's voicemail

And Democrats are going to vote for a Republican in '08?  Please!!

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-10-09 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Bonier's voicemail

If they're still pouting in a year, hopefully they'll have taken their tantrum to its logical conclusion and seceded.  Then they can break all the rules they want and no one'll be a great big bully and call them on it.

by Junior Bug 2007-10-09 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

An argument based on "electablity" is as poorly fashioned for this election as it turned out to be in 2004 (just think how much more "electable" Kerry was than Dean).

Poorly done by Edwards, true, but poorly done by the rest of us for getting into a discussion that focuses on electability.  When you focus on electability, you automatically assume a negative outcome.  It's a cowards argument designed to strike fear into those who would otherwise vote for a candidate that takes a stronger stand on issues in favor of one that's more "palatable" to that magical 6-7% of undecided voters that exist somewhere between here and Never-Never Land.

If you ask people what they don't want from 2008 they will tell you its a choice of the lesser of two evils, and that's exactly what they will get from campaigns based on "electability."

ANY Dem we nominate this cycle is going to stomp ANY Republican going into the national election (well, maybe not Gravel), so lets focus on the issues and then see who best represents us.

by jlars 2007-10-09 04:59PM | 0 recs
Hillary must convert

If Hillary is going to win the Presidency, she needs to convince Independents and Moderate Republicans to vote for her. Yes this includes republicans in rural areas. She needs to convert those voters who voted for Bush last time to vote for her. It is the only way we are going to turn the red states to blue states. The problem some Hillary supporters are having is that they are focusing on Florida, Ohio, California and New York.  They are focusing on Kerry's states. They need to be focused on NC, VA, WV, TN, OK, LA, MT, AZ, NM among others.  Louisiana, Montana and Oklahoma have democratic governors so there is no execuse why a democratic presidental canidate can not win these states. Lets not forget about the whole Dean 50 state strategy. Whoever the democratic nominee is means they have to compete in all 50 states. I have asked this question so many times and have yet one Hillary supporter to answer it. What qualities does Hillary have that will attract republicans to vote for her? What policies does Hillary have that will attract them to vote for her? How can Hillary convert Republicans to vote for her? Remember some of them see Hillary as we see Bush.

by harmony94 2007-10-09 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary must convert

The problem some Hillary supporters are having is that they are focusing on Florida, Ohio, California and New York.  

Not the Hillary supporters here. Most of us have studied the Electoral College maps quite closely. We are focused on Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, W. Virginia, Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico and potentially Colorado, Arizona, Kentucky, and Virginia.

As you know, the Kerry states plus either Florida or Ohio means a Democratic win. Clinton has shown considerable strength in Florida.

It's all about 270.

by hwc 2007-10-09 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary must convert
  1. Hillary did convert voters in Republican areas of New York State were she won by 55% in 2000 and by 67% in 2006, a higher percentage of the vote than even Franklin Roosevelt ever won there.
  2. Florida and Ohio went for Bush in 2004. Remember?
She's beating all the GOP candidates in both states by wider margins than Obama or Edwards.  She is also running head of the all the GOP candidates in VA and in NM.
  1. OK and MT have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, so I suspect there are some excuses why Democrats can't win there.
  2. You do not need to compete in all 50 states, you need to get 271 electoral votes. If a Democrat holds all the Kerry states (highly likely) all we need to win is to add Iowa (7 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and West Virgina (5 electoral votes). Or Missouri and Colorado. Or Virginia and Nevada. Or just Ohio or only Florida.  The fact is there are any number of ways we can build an electoral majority this time. It's the Republicans who are facing major difficulties in creating an electoral majority in 2008.
  3. What qualities does Hillary have that might attract Republicans to her?  Well she must have something, given some of Bush's former fund raisers are already supporting her. Well, lets consider, high intelligence, discipline, a moderate sensible view on the issues, a stated willingness to listen and create policy through engagement and deliberation, intimate knowledge of presidential and congressional workings, and the reasonable assumption that her administration will be staffed by exceedingly competent people.  After Iraq and Katrina this might matter to some folks.
  4. The core GOP vote may be no more than 35% of the electorate now--about the percentage of the population who think Bush is doing a heckuva job. The actual GOP share of the vote naturally will be  higher, but not by too much; I'd guess between 38%  if there's a strong right wing third party candidate running to 45% in a two person race. What needs to be realized is that the Republican Party is disintegrating, just like the Democrats did in 1980. Right now the GOP is just talking to itself, to its hard core supporters, a poor way of assembling a majority.
  5. Finally, how the devil is Edwards going to attract independents and moderate Republicans to vote for him by running to left in the Democratic primaries? They'll discount his ideology because he's a Southern White Male? Nonsense. Jimmy Carter lost every state in the South except Georgia when he ran for re-election in 1980, Al Gore lost every  southern state (except Florida really) and the only reason Bill Clinton carried any southern state besides Arkansas in '92 and'96 was because Ross Perot split the center right vote. Edwards would certainly do no better. He is very politically inept, has the least experience in public service and elected office of any our candidates  (even Dennis Kunich beats him there) and his supporters zeal is only exceeded by their ignorance.  For the record here are six recent Survey USA head to head polls. Draw your own conclusions:
Current Survey USA head to head ratings selected states:
Purple Red States
Florida 10/04/2007 Margin of error +-4.4%
Clinton 49%    Giuliani 43%
Clinton 50%    Thompson 42%
Clinton 51%    Romney  41%
Obama 41%    Giuliani 50%
Obama 42%    Thompson 48%
Obama 44%    Romney 46%
Edwards 43%    Giuliani  48%
Edwards 46%    Thompson  43%
Edwards 50%    Romney  37%
Virginia 9/25/2007 Margin of error +
-4.4%
Clinton  50%    Giuliani  44%
Clinton 50%    Thompson 43%
Clinton 53%    Romney  38%
Obama 46%    Giuliani  46%
Obama  45%    Thompson 47%
Obama  55%    Romney 36%
Edwards  48%    Giuliani  43%
Edwards 54%    Thompson  37%
Edwards 52%    Romney  33%
New Mexico 9/24/07  Margin of error +-4.4%
Clinton  51%    Giuliani  43%
Clinton 53%    Thompson 42%
Clinton 54%    Romney  39%
Obama 46%    Giuliani  46%
Obama  52%    Thompson 41%
Obama  55%    Romney 36%
Edwards  48%    Giuliani  44%
Edwards 52%    Thompson  37%
Edwards 54%    Romney  34%
Bright Blue States 10/02/07  Margin of error  +
-4 .3%
Massachusetts
Clinton  59%    Giuliani   34%
Clinton  61%    Thompson  32%
Clinton 65%    Romney  31%
Obama  48%    Giuliani  43%
Obama  53%    Thompson 36%
Obama  57%    Romney 35%
Edwards  48%    Giuliani  40%
Edwards 56%    Thompson  31%
Edwards 57%    Romney  32%
New York 10/01/07  Margin of error +-4.3%
Clinton  59%    Giuliani   35%
Clinton  64%    Thompson  30%
Clinton 67%    Romney  27%
Obama  49%    Giuliani  44%
Obama  53%    Thompson 38%
Obama  58%    Romney  30%
Edwards  45%    Giuliani  46%
Edwards 54%    Thompson 32%
Edwards 58%    Romney  24%
California 9/30/07 Margin of error +
-4.4%
Clinton  57%    Giuliani   37%
Clinton 60%    Thompson  34%
Clinton 63%    Romney  30%
Obama  48%    Giuliani   44%
Obama  53%    Thompson 37%
Obama  51%    Romney  36%
Edwards  46%    Giuliani  44%
Edwards 53%    Thompson 32%
Edwards  58%    Romney  27%
by Reference Librarian 2007-10-10 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

Edwards is spinning and is a liar. Every pool Rudy beats them much more then he does.  His name is well  known. He was the VP nominee.  He talks about winning a red state. Yes Johnny you did win as a conservative democrat how ever you did not run a second time because you know you would have lost.

by dobied 2007-10-09 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I Got A Voicemail From John Edwards

While tough on Edwards, this comment is certainly not ZERO-RATINGS worthy.  A clear example of ratings abuse.  And again it is McSnatherson.  

CANDIDATES are fair game.  This comments was not beyond the pale.

Uprated due to ratings abuse.

by georgep 2007-10-09 09:34PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------