The Phoenix Network:
About | Advertise
 
Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Wising up

Edwards must count on Democrats voting with their heads in the primaries
By STEVEN STARK  |  October 3, 2007

071005_tote_main

According to the latest conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is threatening to turn the Democratic presidential-nomination race into a rout. Key to her current appeal is the assumption that she’s the party’s most electable candidate. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 54 percent of Democrats described her as their best hope in 2008. (The other candidates lagged behind.)

There’s only one problem with this faith in Clinton’s electability: it’s wrong. On paper, John Edwards is the party’s best chance for a victory, even though his latest fundraising difficulties have made it increasingly unlikely that he will ever be the nominee.

Sure, Clinton often runs ahead of the Democratic pack in polls that track the candidates’ strengths against possible GOP opponents. But that’s because she has already assumed the role of a nominee, and the others have not. If Edwards or Barack Obama won the nomination, that air of certainty would transfer to either of them.

In truth, Democrats who are supporting Clinton because of her electability probably haven’t been reading the latest polls carefully. In current match-ups with Republicans, Clinton isn’t looking particularly strong, despite the GOP now being weaker and more divided than it is likely to be a year from now. There are also early warning signs that Clinton’s presence at the top of the ticket could be a disaster for her party’s congressional candidates in many closely contested races.

Mapping it out
The electoral college is currently more equally divided between the two major parties than it has been at most times in history — hence the now-cliché Red- and Blue-State analysis. Democrats and Republicans each enter 2008 with about 200 of 538 available electoral votes, 270 of which are needed to win. The key, then, for the Dems, is to get the other 70 either by winning the toss-up states or, better yet, also winning some states Republicans are taking for granted because they’re in the GOP base of the South and mountain West.

Clinton’s problem is that, according to some polls, Rudy Giuliani is currently running even or only slightly behind her in New Jersey, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania — up-for-grabs states Clinton has to sweep in order to win. Given his current showing, it’s likely Giuliani will win some of those contests in November 2008 and deny Clinton a majority.

Even Fred Thompson, a regional candidate if ever there was one, isn’t doing that poorly against Clinton. In the latest Rasmussen poll, he’s trailing Clinton by only five points nationally. What’s the disconnect here? Everyone knows about Clinton’s high negatives in the polls, even if, for now, Democrats seem to be ignoring them. And it is still possible to win an election even if 40 percent or more of the electorate can’t stand you. But it isn’t easy.

Worse for Clinton still, some early polls suggest that she isn’t as strong in the populous suburbs as one would expect. In a recent Survey USA Missouri poll, she ran even with Giuliani in the St. Louis metro area. One can safely assume she carried the city handily, so the disappointing results suggest weakness in the ’burbs that could spell trouble with a Capital T in swing states.

Could Obama do better? He clearly doesn’t have Clinton’s high negatives — a good sign — but he doesn’t exactly have a wealth of experience, either. And in an age of terrorism, that could count in November. True, voters in 1960, during the height of the Cold War, were willing to entrust the presidency to a young JFK. But he had been on the national scene much longer than Obama, and Kennedy hardly won by a landslide in a country that, at the time, was more strongly Democratic.

Moreover, Obama’s appeal in the Red States, while stronger than Clinton’s, probably wouldn’t be decisive. Obama could get to 270 votes, but, like Clinton, would have to use a “max out” Blue State strategy to do so. Still, he’s a far less divisive figure, so his general election chances would be better than Clinton’s.

By contrast, if Edwards could emerge from his present difficulties and win the nomination, he would likely mirror Giuliani’s election strategy. Edwards would try to hold the Democratic base, win some of the swing states, and pick off a few Southern border states — such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee — that traditionally go Republican. It’s worth noting that the only Democrats to win the presidency since 1964, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were — like Edwards — both Southerners who ran similar electoral college campaigns.

The goal for Edwards, then, is to persuade enough Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire to vote with their heads and not their hearts when the nomination process begins in January. This is precisely what happened in 2004, when there was a late surge in Iowa away from Howard Dean to Edwards and John Kerry, based on the theory that those two eventual nominees represented the party’s best chance for success. If anything, the desire to win is even stronger this year. It’s a long shot, but Edwards must press the electability argument. Right now, it may be all he has left.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related:
  • Stable — within limits
    Clinton’s dominated the Democratic field since february, but voters are getting used to Obama
  • Outsmarting himself
    Can race trump the egghead factor in Obama’s bid for the nomination?
  • Wrapped up
    If a third candidate crowds the 2008 presidential election, the GOP will have effectively handed the election to Hillary
  • More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama , John Edwards (Politician) , Rudolph Giuliani ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Wising up
Edwards didn't serve even one complete term in the Senate, talk about lack of experience. He was a mediocre Sanator at best, ask anyone left right or center from NC, and he didn't swing any southern state for Kerry in 2004. Suggesting he would accomplish any of this now is preposterous. This is typical far away thinking: you live far away from the south and think Edwards was popular, he wasn't. He was elected primarily due to dislike of Senator Faircloth and it was a tight race! As the kiss of foolishness in your peice you mention how Edwards could be the next Kerry that New Hampshire and Iowa could unleash...and you think that's a good idea? Do you work for the republican party? Edwards is a bad idea, he was in 2004 and he still is today.
By myhumbleopinion on 10/07/2007 at 2:58:14
Wising up
The second quarter in a row, that Ron Paul surprised all with his fundraising, 40,000 donors? More money raised this quarter than McCain, Romney (minus his own money!), Edwards. Vegas linemakers are moving Ron Paul up and you still have him at 200,000 to 1? Ron Paul has a much stronger chance at winning the Repub nomination that Kucinch or even Richardson win the Dem. primary. On the economy and the war, nobody is stronger than Ron Paul. Young people aren't as stupid and uncaring as we have conditioned to buy into. The grassroots is alive and stong. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel.
By Mike C on 10/07/2007 at 4:53:22
Wising up
outside of iowa, there's really no such thing as "grassroots". such a phenom exist there because of the nature of the caucuses. it's all gotv.and at this point, regardless of polls, theresa villmane, a local veteran there, is riding with the clinton war party. you may also find part of a boston cadre of experienced hands there as well. the notion of the "grassroots" just rising-up is a dream. they never have, never will. just ask marx...then pass the bong, yes?
By jeffery mcnary on 10/09/2007 at 5:03:29

Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY STEVEN STARK
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   OBAMA REDRAWS THE MAP  |  November 07, 2008
    But the electoral shifts may not last
  •   MAVERICK IN A MESS  |  November 01, 2008
    If McCain loses, is it the mainstream media's fault?
  •   LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE  |  October 29, 2008
    What if all the pundits, pollsters, and press are (gasp!) wrong about Obama’s chances?
  •   LOU DOBBS IN 2012?  |  October 16, 2008
    As the GOP implodes, the financial crisis may present a white-hot moment for a third-party voice to enter the fray
  •   HOOVER? DAMN!  |  October 09, 2008
    George W. Bush’s failures may have set off a tectonic shift in US presidential politics, commencing a Democratic Party reign

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



Featured Articles in Music Features:
Saturday, November 22, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group