Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

This is interesting. John Edwards's latest fundraising ask claims that he, of all the Democratic candidates, can best "expand the electoral map" for Democrats beyond what are typically considered blue states. As evidence, the e-mail cites Edwards's recent decisive "e-primary" win among Texas Democrats and is signed by and written from the perspective of 8 prominent state representatives from red or purple states. The point here is more than his usual boasting that he's best equipped to run nationally (which has always struck me as code for "this country elects white southern men to be president and I'm the only white southern man here.") This e-mail takes that claim to another level by stating unequivocally that whom we choose to be the Democratic nominee will determine more than merely who the next president will be, it will directly impact downticket races as well.

The e-mail reads:

As leaders of our respective legislative chambers, no one knows the effect of the top-of-the-ticket candidate on state legislative races better than us, no one. The difference between winning or losing control of legislative chambers in many states will be greatly influenced by who is the nominee for the general election. We believe that we have the best chance, in some areas, the only chance, of ensuring Democratic control throughout this country with John Edwards leading the charge for Democrats next fall.

This is a clear shot at Hillary Clinton who, many fear, will be a drag on downticket races, both because the far left will see her as yet another establishment Democrat and maybe stay home while  the far right will be motivated to actually go out and vote. And the shots at Hillary don't end there.

Expanding the map will mean we don't have to triangulate. Some candidates argue that they're the best candidate because they know the system in Washington, D.C.--but that's not good enough.

But ultimately, this new strategy seems more of a shot across Obama's bow to the extent that it re-writes the script of how one attracts support in swing districts and states around the country. Whereas Obama uses a non-partisan "unity" message to appeal to independents, conservative Democrats and even Republicans, this e-mail is a decidedly partisan exercise, using some form of the word "Democrat" 26 times by my count. Take this paragraph for example.

We can expand the map and build on John's record of fighting for Democrats in all 50 states. We can continue to build the infrastructure for Democratic victories across the nation in 2008. But it will only happen if we put a true fighter at the top of the ticket--one who will strengthen the hands of Democrats running in red states as well as blue.

Edwards here is turning the conventional wisdom of partisanship as a divisive force on its head and instead argues that his brand of partisanship will actually unite the country behind him. This is more than just red meat to the base to raise money, this is really good messaging. If it works as a fundraising ask, hopefully it will be replicated by other candidates, both on the presidential level and downticket as well.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic Primary, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

63 Comments

Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

The last three Democratic presidents have been Southerners, yet our electoral fortunes in the South have only diminished during that time.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

by fwiffo 2007-09-12 11:01AM | 0 recs
And when was the last non-Southern Democratic Pres

????????

I'll give you a hint, he was elected in 1960.

by DrFrankLives 2007-09-12 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

How many northerners have we nominated - Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, McGovern and Kerry?  Did they win?  Gore was a southerner but the election was stolen.  

It isn't that Democrats don't nominate northerners, they just don't win with them.  

We have a great candidate who is a progressive and is a southerner.  Why the prejudice or envy?

by pioneer111 2007-09-12 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Don't know why, but for some reason I can only post in reply to others's comments, rather than posting my own comment.

Anyway, here's my comment: in a perfect world, the editors of this blog would fire anyone, and everyone, who uses "ask" as a noun.

To not-quite-paraphrase Calvin & Hobbes, Nouning verbs weird language.

Oh, yeah: As much as I want Edwards to win, I've got no faith at all that this current line of attack--that's he's the most likely candidate to bring the Dems some down-ticket success--is going to get him much more money. I WANT it to succeed, but will it really succeed enough to get him the cash he needs to compete w/ Clinton or Obama? I fear that he's being eclipsed, despite his best efforts.

by cedemaagd 2007-09-12 01:40PM | 0 recs
The truth is the truth is the truth

I want to WIN. I have more confidence in Edwards ability to do so than anyone else.  His economic message resonates with everyone, his universal healthcare plan, the same, and he comes across as strong & determined.

by cosbo 2007-09-12 11:04AM | 0 recs
His message is resonating w/ 15% of the Democrats

It's wishful thinking on the part of his campaign and supporters that he is somehow more electable because he is a white southerner. He had his chance to demostrate his "broad-based" appeal in 2004 and we all know how that ended up.

by PhillyGuy 2007-09-12 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: His message is resonating w/ 15% of the Democr

No, he certainly didn't.  We nominated the "experienced" Northeastern career politician, remember?

by Junior Bug 2007-09-12 05:35PM | 0 recs
Edwards

Yeah right. Whether it's fair or not, Edwards comes across like a prissy young boy.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 11:27AM | 0 recs
This is sad. It's just not happening

for John.  I like him, but it's after Labor Day.  And he's still at 16 percent.  A friend of mine who knows Gore (yeah, I know, lol), said the rumor around Al was that he was itching to endorse Edwards and wanted to do it between Labor day and October 1.  However, he won't endorse with these numbers.  

by jgarcia 2007-09-12 11:16AM | 0 recs
Interesting...

So you're saying that Al Gore doesn't have the balls to endorse Edwards because of low polls numbers? Hmmm, strangely I never thought of Al as a wimp or too politically stupid to know these polls are meaningless and media driven. The same media that screwed him over good.

Doesn't sound like the Gore I know & love.

by cosbo 2007-09-12 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting...

Well, me neither.  But he did feel burned about Dean's crash last time out.  This buddy of mine worked for the DNC chair when Gore was the nominee.  He saw Gore recently, but this stuff didn't come up.  But others who know Gore well say that he does prefer Edwards.  

by jgarcia 2007-09-12 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting...

I think you're absolutely right. If Al Gore decides to make a move, it's going to be Edwards.

Some clueless Obama supporters believe Gore will endorse him, for what? I have a feeling Gore is turned off by Obama's candidacy consisting mainly of media fawning...

by areyouready 2007-09-12 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting...

once again you and I see eye to eye.

but he's NOT going to endorse an increasingly desperate campaign at 16%.  but obama's pipe-dreamin if he thinks Al's gonna go for him.  I'd be willing to say that he'd more likely actually endorse HRC than Barack.

by jgarcia 2007-09-12 12:58PM | 0 recs
Edwards

Why would Gore endorse the guy who is running the worst campaign and hasn't attracted any supporters? He can't raise money, no one is excited by his campaing, and he's made huge gaffes that have made him look silly. Outside of a couple of large blogs, Edwards is not even part of the conversation.

Gore will side with Clinton or Obama - whoever looks likely to win the nomination. Gore is an insider.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has no support??? Oh really?
Just a few unions with several million members.
Texas Democratic activists.  etc.
He's in the lead in Iowa.  
Right, Edwards just isn't a factor in this primary.
Just keep believing that.  LOL.
by pioneer111 2007-09-12 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards has no support??? Oh really?

ehhh - when people start paying attention (and realize that it's a two person race) he'll fall in Iowa.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Very smart use of language on his part. The way to win is to not play by conventional wisdom. By challenging assumptions about how to grow you often achieve more of a pay off.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

By the way- people have talked here of tranformative politics. This is the messaging by which it happens. Not by thinking you must trick the electorate, but by providing a compelling case. I've seen it on a personal level with people.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 11:19AM | 0 recs
Edwards fundraising

Yeah...good messaging. Let's see if Edwards raises more than $3 million this quarter.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards fundraising

Define quality by the dollar, do ya? Big Jim Carrey fan, then?

by Junior Bug 2007-09-12 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards fundraising

I thought the whole lesson of Dean/Clark in 2003 was that fundraising quite often means activist/and/or netroots support. And if someone isn't getting money, then they're not exciting anyone.

Edwards has excited some liberal bloggers by running a really wonky lefty campaign. And I have to say, I like most of his issues. But the low fundraising (and it's beyond low - it's pathetic) has to mean something, right?

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 06:37PM | 0 recs
Which Red States?

Edwards is a passionate advocate who is raising important issues in the campaign, representing those in poverty. However, I have having difficulty understanding the argument of red-state electability he is offering.

Could some of the Edwards supporters please discuss which red states he could win, which voters in those states would propel him to victory, and provide any polling evidence that shows him being competitive against the Democrats or the Republicans in red states.

Thanks!

by hwc 2007-09-12 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

I don't agree with the reasoning, but the general argument is that Edwards' populist message will appeal to red staters. In other words - if someone rants against corporations and the rich and proposes a bunch of government programs to deal with these folks, red staters can be won.

I'm a bit skeptical. Edwards' potential red state strength is superficial things - like his southern accent and his charisma. Unfortunately, those are no longer the dominant traits that people associate with Edwards. Now they think of him as a pampered rich guy.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

if you want to see why he's right, check out Huckabee who equally appeals with his populist positions from the right. It's not theory. It's a long Southern tradition, that has a lot of traction. The only real question in fact for the Democrats is whether we will be the populist, or allow a revitalized GOP usurp the message. In which case we get nativism and other issues rather than simply elimination of entrenched intrest.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 11:40AM | 0 recs
Mark Warner

Mark Warner won rural aress on economic development. He's a rich guy - so he didn't condescend rural folks by telling them that the rich were to blame for their lives. He told them he'd bring job training programs and spent time listening to them. He spent years doing economic development in SW VA.

Many of the folks on Mark Warner's team are now on Edwards' team, but they're not having the same luck...

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Warner

Probably b/c Edwards isn't Warner.  Warner spent years in the political trenches b/f running for anything.  Prior to going into business, Warner worked on Capitol Hill.  He served as VA Party Chair when Doug Wilder was Gov and ran a very strong race for Senate against a popular John Warner.  Warner's political experience showed when he ran for Gov in 2001.

Edwards is a relative late comer to politics for a guy running for President and I think it shows.  Also, I like my Presidents to have a little more experience than 1 term in the Senate with little accomplishments.  

My biggest problem with Edwards isn't his message - I like a lot of what he has to say.  My problem is that his Senate record of a moderate Southern Dem doesn't jive with his 2008 populist message.  People have a right to change their minds but I am skeptical that this is anything more than an election conversion.  I suspect he is in the teens in the polls b/c I am not the only one who feels this way.

FYI - I am not supporting any candidate right now.

by John Mills 2007-09-12 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Warner

uhm- thats all three of the top 3 choices for the  most part. unless being someone's wife counts as the trenches or being a state senator. how that prepares one to be president i dont see it, but i am assuming you have some way of making it work out that it does.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Warner

Actually I think people poo poo state legislative experience at their own risk.  You learn a lot about how govt works and how it serves people on the local level.  

Frankly, I prefer Govs for President b/c they have exec/admin experience.  I don't think Bill Richardson has got it so I am going to have to choose amongst people with Senate experience.  

Incidentally, the vast majority of Presidents have been either Govs or Generals prior to election so obviously I am not alone in the feeling that the Senate is not a good training ground for the Presidency.

by John Mills 2007-09-12 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Warner

i dont think of what you mention prepares you to be president. and some of our best presidents didn't follow a formula. i dontkno what it takes to be president experience wise other th an being int eh job and doing it well.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

OK, I'll help the Edwards supporters discuss his potential for winning specific red states. Here is the list of red states in the 2004 Presidential Election along with the percentage of the vote Bush won in each state. Which of these would Edwards likely carry and what basis do you have (poll data, African American vote, etc.):

Alabama    63%
Alaska    61%
Arizona    55%
Arkansas    54%
Colorado    52%
Florida    52%
Georgia    58%
Idaho    68%
Indiana    60%
Iowa    50%
Kansas    62%
Kentucky    60%
Louisiana    57%
Mississippi    59%
Missouri    53%
Montana    59%
Nebraska    66%
Nevada    51%
New Mexico    50%
North Carolina    56%
North Dakota    63%
Ohio    51%
Oklahoma    66%
South Carolina    58%
South Dakota    60%
Tennessee    57%
Texas    61%
Utah    73%
Virginia    54%
West Virginia    56%
Wyoming    69%

by hwc 2007-09-12 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

Sure locks in the GE:
Arkansas    54%
Colorado    52%
Florida    52%
Iowa    50%
Missouri    53%
Nevada    51%
New Mexico    50%
North Carolina    56%
Ohio    51%
Virginia    54% (With Mark Warner, its demographical shift, and Edwards' strength, yes)
West Virginia    56% (With his populist, labour appeal, definietely)
Maybe will carry (50-50):
Arizona    55%
Louisiana    57%
Kentucky    60%
Tennessee    57%
And if we win very handily (by 7%+):
Indiana    60%
Kansas    62%
Texas    61%

We'll also not have to worry about defense in Wisconsin and Minnesota, which will be up for grabs with a Rudy candidacy. And yes, it's true, Hillary and Obama can carry some of these states too. Hillary is the strongest in Arkansas, because of her past, but Edwards will still carry the 2nd most Democratic state in the country this time. I think both Hillary and Obama will also carry Florida, but I don't think they'll carry, for instance, Missouri, West Virginia, and will have a difficult time carrying Ohio against Rudy.

I think both Hillary and Obama can win 50%+1 and be elected president, but I think Edwards can win with 54% or 56% of the vote and be a complete sweep. That's the underlying difference between the strength of each candidate IMO.

by KainIIIC 2007-09-12 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

And those differences are the differences between ecking a victory and having a mandate to govern with a democratic Congress thats often ignored here.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Which Red States?

I am in total disbelief that you would put Virginia and Colorado in the "sure bet" category for any Democrat, including John Edwards. Just breathtaking.

by hwc 2007-09-12 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Edwards needs to read some real 'polls' in swing states such as OH, PA and FL instead of touting an internet poll(and democratic primary)...

Sad.

by areyouready 2007-09-12 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Yeah. Edwards' poll numbers against GOP candidates are basically generic dem with a southern accent VS GOP. The general election would have an entirely different dynamic. It's pretty much CW that Obama's charisma would shoot him upwards, while Hillary's personality and lack of charisma would kill her support.

Personally, I think Edwards would be a decent candidate, but it's not a homerun that he's way better than the others...

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:07PM | 0 recs
50 state fundraising

The 50 state message will probably work well in an email fund-raising message. Democratic donors like the concept.

by souvarine 2007-09-12 11:39AM | 0 recs
then why is he running a distant 3rd in S.C.

...behind two northern democrats?

and why did he abandon his N.C. senate seat to dole for fear of getting bounced and spoiling his presidential run?

i don't have much confidence in his ability to compete in the south.

by jethropalerobber 2007-09-12 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: then why is he running a distant 3rd in S.C.

Er... Edwards only had 9 percent in SC in January of 2004. He won with 45% of the vote later that same month.

He didn't abandon his seat for fear of getting trounced, and he certainly didn't abandon it to Dole. Exit polls showed that he would have won had he actually ran for the seat, despite the fact that he didn't campaign much in the state and Kerry got his butt kicked. And Dole was already in the Senate in 2004 - Erskine Bowles lost to Richard Burr.

by clarkent 2007-09-12 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: then why is he running a distant 3rd in S.C.

The best argument against Edwards' electability is his performance in North Carolina in 2004 as VP.

Honestly - I think the guy would win the election by 60-70 electoral votes, because this is a Democratic year. But...I'd bet you $100 he wouldn't even win his home state.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: then why is he running a distant 3rd in S.C.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Results from NC in 2004

From Fox News exit polls (and they were not likely to favor Edwards)

In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards (search). If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr, it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent -- 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.

Where is your data from?

If Edwards had been the top of the ticket he would have won the presidency for Democrats.

Edwards won his senate seat from an incumbant Republican in a red state.  He knows how to win in a red state as a Democrat.

by pioneer111 2007-09-12 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

I prefer to think Edwards is the best candidate because he's the most progressive, and the electorate is much more progressive than many people think. Having a progressive candidate will bring out people who gave up on voting long ago because no candidate spoke to their beliefs. If he were a woman or a black man he'd have the same appeal to that electorate. He just happens to be a white Southern man. I know, I'm naive...

by larryjthorson 2007-09-12 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

yeah- regionalism is a factor in american publics

by bruh21 2007-09-12 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

I'm sorry. Did you just claim that a democrat would win a federal election in Texas? Are you taking crazy pills???

According to Cook, I believe Texas is +15 for the Republicans...do you think we're going to win this election by 15 points?

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

I could beat Giuliani or Romney here in Texas.  And I'm a vegetarian who likes musicals and ducks when a football is thrown at him.

by Junior Bug 2007-09-12 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Ahh, the theory of the hidden progressive majority.

It's just not out there...

There's a hidden populist majority (culturally conservative, economically liberal). But I'm not sure how Edwards fits into that group...

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

If John Edwards is a true fighter who will expand the Democratic base why wasn't he the most requested speaker on behalf of candidates during the 2006 elections?   His appeal in 2004 was overblown and his appeal now is overblown by people who think it is important to count how many times one utters the word democrat.  

Perhaps he does so to remind himself which Party he represents.  Because the new darling of unthinking Progressives who value words over action, was sounding very unProgressive and very unDemocratic on this day 5 years ago.  And so on this Anniversary of our march to War, perhaps it is good to look once again at the words of John Edwards on September 12, 2002:


"The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein."...

"The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."...

"The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed."

by Piuma 2007-09-12 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

"Because the new darling of unthinking Progressives"

essentially your entire post is about how much smarter you are than the rest of us. if you are so much smarter, you probably shouldn't be around us great unwashed.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Okay, let me change it to the new darling of the what-the-hell-are-they thinking Progressives.  Because really, you have a guy who mixed 9/11 fear-mongering with Iraq and blurred the essential difference of defending an Ally who had been invaded with a preemptive strike, how the hell does he become the champion of the Progressive movement by uttering an apology and the word Democrat two dozen times?

by Piuma 2007-09-12 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

I zero rated you because the point of your post is to put others here down rather than engage in discussion. I won't be talking to you further. Good luck.

by bruh21 2007-09-12 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

And I zero rate you for your refusal to discuss the points raised and instead try to take the discussion to the personal.  Is that how it works here?  It is a very apt subject of discussion to question a candidates Progressive credentials when they are little much more than words.  On the anniversary of his extremely hawkish comments which completely embraced the War on Terror meme, it is certainly proper to discuss whether we should demand a bio of Progressivism to go along with new-founded rhetoric.  This discussion can be had without parsing sentences.  

Last week I heard Brad Parker on KPFK represent himself as a speaker for the Progressive Caucus in Los Angeles say we should back John Edwards because he is a white, southern male.  I find such comments and the thought behind them to be regressive, not progressive.  To buy into that, just as to buy into the idea that biography is not important, is to me glossy portrayal of the Progressive movement, where Progressive truly does become the new Mainstream.  Is being a Progressive anything more than simply identifying yourself as one?  People can change, but when they do they start over again.  To me, to think a person can be speaking in the Senate as he did 5 years ago, and then suddenly be considered the savior of the Progressive movement is not very well thought out.

by Piuma 2007-09-12 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

John Edwards is the only one even proposing a boldly progressive agenda.  The supposedly more authentic progressives are promising moderation.

It really simplifies things.

by Junior Bug 2007-09-12 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Ha!

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Basically, here's the explanation for Edwards' popularity on the blogs:

1. He's anti-free trade (ahem...lately). And that's an issue that's been ignored by the Dems in washington (deservedly so).

2. He's got a network of fans who email each other and recommend mundane DK diaries. Trust me, this works. We did it with Webb in 2006 with the most boring, idiotic, and pointless diaries. we'd email folks and then recommend some diary that was like:

"Webb endorsed by assistant treasurer from Richmond city!"

And it would make the rec list.

Edwards' campaign has focused on getting their diaries recommended instead of raising money or not marking down $400 hair cuts as campaign expenses.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

If you can prove your conspiracy theory allegations of coordinated dKos recommend-stuffing on the part of Edwards supporters, I'll apologize for this zero.  

by Junior Bug 2007-09-12 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

More Edwards, 9/12/02:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."


by Piuma 2007-09-12 12:17PM | 0 recs
The Candidate with Red State Appeal is Richardson

Despite being the immediate past Democratic VP candidate and having tremendous name recognition as a result, Edwards is a distant third among Dems in South Carolina.  What made Edwards 1.0 attractive to Dems in the South in 2004 has been deleted from Edwards 2.0.  Edwards has become an ultra liberal in the eyes of many in the South and that won't get any Red states to turn Blue.

Plus, Edwards has no appeal in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain states.  With his Western values (economic growth policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues) and Latino heritage, Richardson can sweep NM, NV, CO and AZ into the Democratic column.  TX and FL too could swing Blue.

I wrote a diary on this topic last week:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/7/24012 /31132

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-12 12:20PM | 0 recs
RE:

Hmmm...Some people called John Edwards "Bill Clinton without the zipper problem". Maybe we should nominate Bill Richardson, or "Bill Richardson WITH the zipper problem"

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: RE:

I thought only Republicans spread rumors. Congratulations you now belong to the politics of personal destruction club.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-09-12 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

"has always struck me as code for 'this country elects white southern men to be president and I'm the only white southern man here.'"

I agree with this sentiment and as a white guy who is tired of seeing Southern white men elected President I have found this argument highly offensive.  

by John Mills 2007-09-12 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

May not be a southern white man. May be a typical northerner with roots in three states: Utah, Michigan and Massachussetts. I have no clue why the Dems tend to be suicidal..really think Hillary is going to win? And if Hillary looses the general elections, are the Dems going to nominate Obama next time around?

by Boilermaker 2007-09-12 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

As much as I despise Hillary Clinton (and I do)...she can still win. She's carries some risk...but she can definitely win. It's a dem wave year (at the presidential level). Almost anyone can win.

And despite what the blogs think, Obama is widely seen as the most electable candidate...at least amongst the political hack class. Polling numbers with republicans are just astounding...he's just a positive candidate in a troubled time. And he's about as liberal as they come, so no complaints ideologically.

by wahoopaul 2007-09-12 02:17PM | 0 recs
Mixing It Up Would Be Nice

My point is that this country needs to move beyond electing white men President and mix it up a little.  Isn't it kind of embarassing that Pakistan has had a female Prime Minister and the US has never elected a woman or a minority President?  

And why is Edwards so electable other than being a southern white guy?  After all, the only election he has ever won was against Lauch Faircloth in 1998.  Clinton, Obama and Richardson have all won multiple elections in their careers.

by John Mills 2007-09-12 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Touts Red State Appeal

Yes, John is at 16% today. But, as I recall, he was at just 10% a week ago. Personally, I like the trend!! I'd say his message is starting to spread!

by James Hufferd 2007-09-12 04:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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