Exactly, Edwards is not from a high union state, but nonetheless he has chosen to speak out on behalf of unions. He hasn't been in politics his entire life, so I think it's difficult to say he hasn't done much except in the last few years.
In fact, he spent his entire life fighting for working people against big corporations, in the court rooms. He's not a career politician, sure.
This says something about his character. And he spent his first campaign as practically the only candidate speaking about poverty and the divide of two Americas. Now he has been campaigning for workers to join unions, he has campaigned for a minimum wage increase and he is calling for it to be raised again.
We'll have to see. Ultimately I think his win with the SEIU was so overwhelming that eventually they will endorse. As far as issues go, the unions would be in agreement with Edwards on public financing and the steelworkers used public financing to re-enforce their support for him. It will really depend on what the SEIU is thinking. If they want to make an impact in the race, then they will endorse Edwards.
It was Dean and Gephardt that had split the union endorsements, with Kerry getting the firefighters and Edwards just receiving one or two small ones as I remember. This time he has already received more endorsements than last time. If he picks up some major ones heading into the last few months here, I think he will get a big boost. The poll taken at the SEIU convention showed a huge win for Edwards, double digits over Obama, and then Hillary well behind in third. When you look at politically active union members, Edwards does the best, and if this translates into endorsements it's going to mean a boost with the less-politically active members later in the campaign. It's also going to mean valuable canvassing, grassroots support, and funding for Edwards.
I think the Obama campaign is banking on Edwards and some of the others bringing down Hillary and then coming out of nowhere as the positive candidate at the end. It's kind of what Edwards did in 2004 actually. I think 2008 will be a bit different though as certain voting groups are consolidating behind candidates and perhaps voters are also looking for a progressive leader this time around. In 2004 for example, the labor unions split between Dean and Gephardt, while Edwards might be able to lock down more of that support this time around. Hillary actually saw some gains with the labor vote in this poll, but if later endorsements go for Edwards, then it really could change everything.
I would say it really is going to be a close one until the end. All three leading candidates have a chance depending on what voters are looking for this time around.
The poll is meaningless as far as recent trends. It's impossible to know if Hillary has been going up recently and is trending up now or if she had a larger lead in the past and is now falling back a bit or if this has been stable for a while. I hope they will release monthly polls now so we can see real trends.
I'm not sure that this is the worst news for Edwards. You really don't want to be ahead going into the last month, so I think it's better to fall back now and then rise in the last few weeks before the election. Organization is also going to very important and if he can pick up some union endorsements (SEIU, Teamsters, etc..) everything could change.
I really don't think the money is as big a deal as some would like to think. It gets to a certain point to what's the difference between 100 million or 150 million in a few months time period? It really doesn't matter because it's impossible to spend either and continue to maximize the results. Ads are one of the main expenses and there are only so many that a campaign can run effectively.
John Edwards will have grassroots support, including union support, and he will some money to spend on ads as well. The rest the DNC will be able to cover until the Convention.
This was a very deceiving tactic. If you're going to put out attacks on other candidates that have to do with fundraising, then please do it in a diary that is not titled "two new polls in SC and MI." I didn't come to this diary to read attacks on other candidates, unless they have to do with analysis on polling, which this John Edwards story clearly doesn't.
Don't overlook all the other opportunities in 2008. Rick Noriega has a great shot at taking out Cornyn, there's Alaska where Stevens is in the midst of a scandal, of course now Idaho where Larry LaRocco presents a great challenge for the eventual Republican nominee, New Mexico where we could see a Domenici retirement, North Carolina and Kentucky where Dole and McConnell have been flanked with low poll numbers, Nebraska where we could see a Hagel retirement and Kerrey run, and Oklahoma where Andrew Rice might just pull out a grassroots surprise against the far right-win Inhofe.
These are all really great opportunities, particularly with Noriega in Texas, Alaska if Begich runs, and Nebraska if Kerrey runs.
I don't see 60 seats in 2008 out of possibility of reaching.
They're just individual polls, don't worry about it so much. What's really important are the trends in the polls and where everyone stands come December and January. Everyone is doing fine and what we are going to see is a very close race in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The last poll I saw put Hillary's support high with Centrists and Liberals. It had Edward's support high with activists and moderates.
I understand it's a Democratic primary and many Democrats for some reason hold the view that Hillary is the most liberal candidate, in my opinion it is because of Republican attacks on her.
I also agree Edwards and Obama have been fighting over the same vote, but I think we're beginning to see an effort by Edwards to win over Hillary's supporters who are not following the race closely and perceive her as the most liberal on the issues.
Actually Hillary has been performing very well with Liberals and Edwards very well with Moderates. Edwards also does well with liberals, who are following the race very closely, like those in the netroots and unions. Generally, I believe this is from bias. Many voters not paying close attention have a perception of Hillary as far left-wing from Republican attacks on her. I even just read in a New Hampshire article that a voter said something like, "Hillary - never, I wouldn't vote for her, she is a socialist." Obviously this is not true, but some voters think she is liberal and they support her because of this. I think what's beginning to happen right now is that Edwards is starting to go after these voters. First he had to catch up with Obama as the leading change candidate and now he can win over Hillary's support.
I really think Edwards is picking up steam right now. He had a terrific performance in the last debate in Iowa and he also did very well in the cancer forum.
It also seems Obama is playing it very cautious right now. He didn't comment at all when Hillary made the terror statement. Edwards, Richardson, and even Dodd led on that one. Edwards is also leading the way right now on the anti-lobbyist message and universal health care.
I also think Edwards is going to start picking up Liberal voters, many of who up to now have been with Hillary. He has a really strong argument, as far as to the different lessons learned from the 90s health care reform between himself and Hillary that I think will really stick with voters and it goes right with his attack against lobbyists and powerful corporations.
Edwards is clearly leading right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see his national primary numbers get a bit closer to Hillary in a month, barring any more "hair cut" stories by the media.