Matthew Yglesias (July 19, 2007) - Does Edwards Have a Problem? (Politics)

Another possibility is that Edwards' focus on poverty just doesn't resonate compared to other issues like Iraq, health care, electability, experience, etc.

Posted by Ron | July 19, 2007 11:32 AM

"plus continues to be a white man in a world where a lot of people think a white man is more electable than a woman or a black guy"

Or, continues to be a Southern Democrat in a world where Southern Democrats routinely outperform Northern Democrats in general elections.

Or, continues to be a telegenic emoter in a world where telegenic emoters outperform limited range candidates and cerebral orators in general elections.

Or, continues to hit on the lunchbox issues in a world where Democrats win on lunchbox issues.

Or, continues to best perform best among the field of Dems in general election matchups for whatever fucking reason.

There's no reason to reduce Edwards' electability edge to gender or race. It goes far deeper than that.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 11:35 AM

Here's the final paragraph from Ross's post:

"Finally, he oozes smarm: He's got all of Mitt Romney's inauthenticity problems with hardly any of the substantive achievements. Everyone who's met him or worked for him thinks the world of him, and no doubt he's just as lovely as they say - but when he talks, I cringe. And to judge by the polls, I'm not alone."

This nails it on the head for me. What more is there to say?

Posted by Jim W | July 19, 2007 11:37 AM

"How much better could he realistically be doing?"

Not much.

It's been apparent since February or so that this was going to be a Clinton/Obama race for the mainstream press until the weather gets cold.

Neither Clinton nor Obama have done anything to disrupt that narrative.

Edwards isn't going to win 2007. That's not in the cards. He just has to win 2008.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 11:39 AM

I think it's that he's just not *different* enough.

The last time I saw the Zeitgeist swing this way, we elected Jimmy Carter. Not particularly because he was the best candidate, but he was sure-as-hell different from what we had at the time.

The country is of a mood to try something completely different. Edwards might have to go a little "strange" to attract the necessary vote. But right now, he trails two specifically different (but not necessarily better) candidates. And Gore (the nerd/intellectual) would make that three...

Posted by eglenn | July 19, 2007 11:40 AM

Of course Ross cringes! Rich guys aren't supposed to care about the poor they are supposed to care about cutting taxes so much that they send large checks out to keep the right wing gravy train flowing!

Posted by Rob | July 19, 2007 11:41 AM

"Lefty intellectuals love him."

And since when have "lefty intellectuals" represented the views of mainstream Americans?

Posted by i got a crush on obama | July 19, 2007 11:42 AM

I know this is just personal differences, but I don't see the 'smarm' at all.

Posted by Dave | July 19, 2007 11:42 AM

I'm not pointing out something that isn't obvious, but it's a nice bit of karma that Edwards voted for the war because he thought it was good politics, when if he had voted against it, he would pretty much be assured to be the next President of the United States. That has to sting.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 11:44 AM

"Ex ante a former one term Senator and former losing Vice Presidential candidate just doesn't have a very good chance of winning the presidential nomination."

This would be a more compelling argument if he weren't losing to a former First Lady and slightly-more-than-one-term Senator, and also losing to a Freshman Senator.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 19, 2007 11:46 AM

I know this is just personal differences, but I don't see the 'smarm' at all.

I have sort of a confused view of the guy. On one hand, I completely buy into the idea that he feels deeply and genuinely about the issues he talks about, unlike, say, Romney. Yet at the same time, I also think that yes, he does indeed ooze smarm. So...I dunno.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 11:50 AM

Hmmm... among other problems mentioned in this thread, one thing Edwards lacks relative to Obama and Clinton is a coherent life-narrative.

Also: has he stopped that tongue-waggling tic yet?

Still, he'd be good to have on the ticket: as Clinton's VP. No knock on Obama, whom I like best of the three front-runners, but the fact that Obama is still very young and isn't likely to lose his Senate seat anytime soon makes me think that the more quickly the Dems get a Clinton-Edwards team gelled, the better (not that they couldn't put an actual ass on the ticket and still win in 2008).

Posted by Joel Turnipseed | July 19, 2007 11:53 AM

Perhaps most people do, in fact, find Edwards to be lacking in personal appeal (or even radiating anti-appeal); I don't.

Supposedly most people thought GWBush was more personally appealing than Al Gore; I didn't.

I prefer my track record.

Posted by Quarterican | July 19, 2007 11:53 AM

"This would be a more compelling argument if he weren't losing to a former First Lady and slightly-more-than-one-term Senator, and also losing to a Freshman Senator."

I agree entirely that Matthew's resume idea is far off-base.

Edwards is running against a really famous pseudo-incumbent, and a candidate who is appealing enough to the donor class to outraise the pseudo-incumbent.

Add in the celebrity creating groundbreaking identity politics aspects of Clinton's and Obama's bids to their financial and institutional support, understand that the media always likes a two candidate narrative, and it's going to be a Clinton/Obama race for the mainstream press until the weather gets cold.

Resume has nothing to do with it.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 11:56 AM

Also: has he stopped that tongue-waggling tic yet?

Ugh, no. You would think if one of the biggest talking points against you is that you're a sleazy trial lawyer, you might want to tone down the sleazy trial lawyer tongue waggling tic.

He'll probably knock it off around the same time Hillary stops yelling into microphones.

Good lord, it's hard to be a Democrat when it comes to the superficial.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 12:00 PM

Perhaps most people do, in fact, find Edwards to be lacking in personal appeal (or even radiating anti-appeal); I don't.

Supposedly most people thought GWBush was more personally appealing than Al Gore; I didn't.

I prefer my track record.

And I'm sure you're the only one who thought Gore was more personally appealing then Bush, yet do not find Edwards lacking in personal appeal.

Certainly your track record must be the only one that has stood the test of time.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 12:02 PM

"Perhaps most people do, in fact, find Edwards to be lacking in personal appeal"

Given that Edwards routinely performs as the strongest candidate in either party in general election matchups, I'd say it's clear that the majority of voters don't perceive him that way.

He's got a problem with the mainstream political press who find him too "hot" in style, rhetoric, and ideology.

To recycle a slogan from the other side: annoy the media, elect Edwards. Wouldn't it be nice to have the Democratic candidate be the anti-elite candidate for once? It's box office magic, y'know...

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:02 PM

"Or, continues to be a Southern Democrat in a world where Southern Democrats routinely outperform Northern Democrats in general elections.

"Or, continues to be a telegenic emoter in a world where telegenic emoters outperform limited range candidates and cerebral orators in general elections.

"Or, continues to best perform best among the field of Dems in general election matchups for whatever fucking reason."

Er...I had to point this out.
1-He's getting out-performed badly by both Clinton and Obama in the only relevant Southern primary state, South Carolina

2-LOL @ Obama not being telegenic or good at emoting

3-Edwards may say he out-performs the field, but in actuality, that's not true. Lets ignore the fact that the one time he tried to reference a specific poll from an independent firm, his campaign couldn't produce it. Beyond that, there's the fact that in mystery pollster's averaged head-to-head's, he's not significantly stronger than Obama.

Lets see: Obama leads Rudy by 2.8, Edwards leads Rudy by 3.6. That's within the MOE. Wash

Obama leads McCain by 6.2, Edwards leads McCain by 5.1. Again within the MOE (this time for Obama), Wash.

Obama leads Romney by 16.3, Edwards leads Romney by 21.0. Edge to Edwards, but they both slaughter him.

Obama leads Thompson by 13.7, Edwards leads Thompson by 12. Slight edge Obama, probably within the MOE, and they both slaughter him anyway.

So...instead of regurgitating your preferred candidate's spin, why not engage in the reality of his current poll positions?

Thanks

Posted by Michael | July 19, 2007 12:04 PM

And I'm sure you're the only one who thought Gore was more personally appealing then Bush, yet do not find Edwards lacking in personal appeal.

Certainly your track record must be the only one that has stood the test of time.

Not what I meant, not what I was trying to say. I struggle with this assumption as well, but not everyone on the internet is trying to be smugly self-congratulatory.

Posted by Quarterican | July 19, 2007 12:09 PM

Lefty intellectuals love him. Progressive bloggers love him. Labor leaders love him.

Interestingly, the reason Edwards is likely to remain the third place candidate all the way through the primaries is that this is not true enough.

Edwards is doing well among all those groups, but he does not have them locked up. He runs ahead of Obama among progressive bloggers, but it is close. My sense is that the "lefty intellectuals" actually prefer Obama, although Edwards is certainly doing better among that group than among the general Democratic electorate as a whole. And, as far as labor, he seems to be leading there, but most of labor is on the sidelines for now.

It is arguable whether being the candidate of lefty intellectuals, progressive bloggers, and labor leaders can lead one to the Dem nomination. But it certainly can't if you are only winning those groups by a small margin. If it is going to get you anywhere you need to have them locked down. Edwards doesn't and, with the exception of labor, has no chance to lock down those groups with Obama in the race.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 12:10 PM

Also: has he stopped that tongue-waggling tic yet?

Must be an N.C. thing.

Posted by JP | July 19, 2007 12:11 PM

"Er...I had to point this out. He's getting out-performed badly by both Clinton and Obama in the only relevant Southern primary state, South Carolina"

I talk about the fact that Edwards routinely performs as the strongest candidate in either party in general election matchups, and you respond by "having to point out" primary polling. O.....K.....

-----

"Beyond that, there's the fact that in mystery pollster's averaged head-to-head's, he's not significantly stronger than Obama."

I'm happy to admit that Obama is currently running close on Edwards' heels in general election matchups. It's one of several reasons why I'd prefer him to Hillary, if Edwards weren't running.

But Edwards is currently running ahead of Obama and all the other candidates, both D and R, in general election matchups. In addition, he's been running ahead of all the other candidates routinely for months now.

The fact that voters like him seems a relevant point to be make when a bunch of Republicans are trying to paint him as a smarmy guy that no one likes. The voters like him just fine. In fact they seem to like him better than anyone else running.

Now he just has to convince Dems that he can actually win the nomination, which is why the early states are so crucial for him. He'll be running behind Clinton and Obama in national primary polls until he can show that he's a viable candidate by winning somewhere.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Putting aside my cranky mood, I basically wanted to say what Brain said. I think a lot of people view Edwards as true progressive, so he gets a lot of support, but people don't view him as a true progressive, so he doesn't get a lot of support. If that makes any kind of sense.

As one of my earlier posts eluded to, I think Iraq has a lot to do with it. For the life of me I don't understand why Obama doesn't spend 24/7 harping on this. Certainly he's made an issue out of it, but not to the extent I would have assumed before this whole thing got going.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 12:17 PM

Let's say for the sake of agreement Edwards wins in Iowa, where else is going to win? He his not looking good in Nev, NH, or SC is he? Then you have NY, NJ, CA, IL, Mich, NM, Conn, and others. Show me how he wins? You can't base it on a win in Iowa because Primary dates will come to quick in this race. It is for better or worse a two person race.....

Posted by gar2458 | July 19, 2007 12:22 PM

[A]nnoy the media, elect Edwards.

Exactly.

With Ambinder's dark hints recently at the distaste with which the national political press corps views Edwards' campaign, for whatever reason (and I tend to suspect it's a combination of the "yesterday's news" perception and the apparently irresistible urge to respond to Edwards' poverty focus by parroting the right's "hypocrisy" meme), it's safe to assume that Edwards winning the Democratic nomination would bug the hell out of the press. Which might be, in and of itself, delightful - not to mention potentially very politically powerful, if played right. I think Edwards is sharpening this tack as of late, e.g., "They don't want me to say these things..."

I think most of Matt's points here are useful, as modified by Petey's point that the media's two-person-race narrative is pretty much locked in place until the snow starts falling and the numbers start moving. To paraphrase Jonathan Prince from the Edwards campaign when asked about the latest dip in the NH polls, it's only July.

I'm still rooting for an Edwards/Obama ticket. Seems like a juggernaut.

Posted by Will | July 19, 2007 12:24 PM

It is arguable whether being the candidate of lefty intellectuals, progressive bloggers, and labor leaders can lead one to the Dem nomination.

Edwards' strength is that he's all those things and also seems to many to be the strongest general election candidate. As long as he can maintain his Iowa lead, he's in pretty good shape. If he wins Iowa, his national poll numbers will go up.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 19, 2007 12:25 PM

"For the life of me I don't understand why Obama doesn't spend 24/7 harping on (Iraq)."

Obama can't run (or govern) to the left without losing the median voter. Edwards can.

The electoral strength of a candidate has importance far beyond just winning elections.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:25 PM

Petey, but the median voter seems pretty solidly against the war at this point. It seems even more of a win/win for Obama. Energize the base and appeal to independents/moderates who have soured on the war.

It seems to me that Obama kinda, sorta realizes he holds the trump card, but is still kinda, sorta hesitant about letting it fly.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 12:35 PM

Edwards' strength is that he's all those things and also seems to many to be the strongest general election candidate.

I'd be curious to see a poll that actually asks this question of Dems: "Which Democratic candidate do you believe would be strongest in the general election?" My guess is that you'd see responses that line up pretty closely with the national poll results of the Dem primary horse race. Just because Edwards currently seems to poll well in the general election matchups does not mean the Dem electorate sees him as the most electable general election candidate. How many voters are actually paying attention to these poll results? Basically none.

As far as Iowa, I still believe it is a game of expectations and the resulting story line. The best thing for Edwards would be to slip to second or third in the polls in Iowa, but pull out the win in the end. If he goes in with steady leads in all the polls he isn't going to get the bump you saw for Kerry last time. The media will play it "as expected Edwards won Iowa, now on to New Hampshire where Clinton expects to do well and South Carolina where Obama expects a win . . ."

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 12:36 PM

"Edwards' strength is that he's all those things and also seems to many to be the strongest general election candidate."

Yup. It's worth noting that in the entire post-'68 open primary era, the candidate running proudly to the left of the Democratic field has never been even a viable general election candidate, let along the strongest general election candidate.

Hillary's got a huge amount of institutional support that isn't going to be easy to unseat, but giving the base an actual shot at the White House is a situation we've never seen before, and is a situation that has some very real potential to win at the primary ballot box.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:39 PM

Edwards doesn't fight for himself, and no one will fight for you if you don't fight for yourself. Leftie bloggers don't really love anyone. They like a bunch of candidates.

Posted by Matt Stoller | July 19, 2007 12:39 PM

I thought one of the things the blogosphere likes about Edwards is that he does fight for himself, particularly the last few months.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 12:44 PM

"I'd be curious to see a poll that actually asks this question of Dems: "Which Democratic candidate do you believe would be strongest in the general election?"

I have seen such polls, and Hillary wins by a large margin at the moment.

"Just because Edwards currently seems to poll well in the general election matchups does not mean the Dem electorate sees him as the most electable general election candidate. How many voters are actually paying attention to these poll results? Basically none."

Exactamundo.

And that's why Edwards isn't going to leap to the top of national primary polls anytime soon.

But when the weather gets snowy, the voters in a few small states are going to get turned into high information voters, produce winners and losers, and frame the contest for the February 5th voters.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:45 PM

Leftie bloggers don't really love anyone. They like a bunch of candidates.

I think that is an important and too often overlooked point. People just take Edwards slim lead among lefty bloggers and equate it to Dean in 2003/2004. They are not even close. Dean was an overwhelming favorite of the lefty blogosphere. Edwards has a small and tenuous advantage among that group now. And the intensity of support (Petey excluded of course) is just not there, like it was for Dean.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 12:46 PM

"Leftie bloggers don't really love anyone."

For the major lefty bloggers with a major ad based revenue stream, or aspirations to one, basically true.

My theory is that the major lefty bloggers have internalized that if they publicly love someone, they'll risk cutting off potential traffic from supporters of other candidates.

So they're not willing to stand with what they've been talking about for years.

Or to put it less politely, you'll all a bunch of spineless whores.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 12:51 PM

But when the weather gets snowy, the voters in a few small states are going to get turned into high information voters, produce winners and losers, and frame the contest for the February 5th voters.

I'll give you this much Petey. I don't think this cuts quite as well for Edwards as you do though.

First, I think his support in Iowa is more likely to erode than grow. He already has a base from 2004. Hillary and Obama do not. And Iowa caucus voters like their personal attention. They'll wait for the repeated visits from Hillary and Obama before finally choosing one (those that are not set on Edwards of course).

Second, Iowa is not the be all and end all. I think you'll see a media frame something like this: Expectations are that Edwards' strength is in Iowa, Clinton's is in New Hampshire and Obama's is in South Carolina. How the candidates fall within that frame will determine the media coverage they get going into Feb. 5 and thus the sense of who the "front runner" is.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 12:52 PM

Edwards is the most electable Democrat. He can still win this thing.

At this stage of the campaign most people aren't paying attention. The media is obsessed with the black guy, white woman narrative. They are also obsessed with hipness and Obama is hip. But as the primaries approach voters attention will turn to who can actually become president. And lets face it Edwards can be pictured as president.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 12:55 PM

"People just take Edwards slim lead among lefty bloggers and equate it to Dean in 2003/2004. They are not even close."

While I agree that Edwards doesn't have Dean's monopoly on netroots support, I do think his lead is more than slim.

"And the intensity of support (Petey excluded of course) is just not there, like it was for Dean."

I actually think Edwards has pretty solid intensity lead over the field among the grassroots on the net.

What's different than Dean is that the netroots leadership, which saw Dean as a career boost, sees neutrality as a career boost this time around. So the netroots leaders aren't whipping the flock this time. But the flock seems to be doing pretty good on its own.

In a way it's similar to labor's situation. I think a lot of labor leadership is going to be too intimidated by Clinton to actually endorse Edwards. But that doesn't mean the flock won't come along anyway.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 1:01 PM

Edwards is the most electable Democrat. He can still win this thing.

I disagree that Edwards is the most electable Dem. And I voted for Edwards in 2004 (when the race had been whittled down to Edwards and Kerry) for that very reason.

Certainly he can win the general -- I think any Dem is going to be favored to win the general, although Hillary would make it the toughest. But I actually think Obama would be the most appealing to independents and moderate Republicans.

Those independents and moderate Republicans I know actually find Obama neutral to appealing. They are neutral to slightly negative on Edwards. And they loathe Hillary. Not saying that is a representative group, but I think Obama is clearly the candidate that most represents change (not that he is the candidate that is most likely to implement change) and I do think that is clearly what the general election electorate will be looking for in 2008.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:03 PM

"And lets face it Edwards can be pictured as president."

Uh, no--he can't. That's one of his problems (and that was the problem with Kerry/Edwards: we had two VPs on the same ticket--with a good cabinet member firing up the base). Can he work up a crowd at a labor rally? Yes. Does he have any gravitas whatsoever? Does he project like a Commander-in-Chief? Does he win on any of Aristotle's "ethos/logos/pathos" versus Clinton or Obama? No.

That said, he's actually pretty good. But that's like saying the Houston Rockets or the Utah Jazz are pretty good. They really good--and I'd take their key players on any US squad or All-Star team, but you know: they just aren't going to win anything.

Posted by Joel Turnipseed | July 19, 2007 1:03 PM

Umm, people don't like JE because they think he's a class traitor. It makes them uncomfortable to think about poor people. Particularly when it's a rich guy talking about poor people. I think that's pretty much it.

Posted by fellow-ette | July 19, 2007 1:07 PM

"(Iowans will) wait for the repeated visits from Hillary and Obama before finally choosing one"

I don't think Iowa is a gimmie for Edwards. If I were Mark Penn, I'd throw a lot of resources into trying to strangle Edwards in the crib in Iowa. Maybe it'll work.

"I think you'll see a media frame something like this: Expectations are that Edwards' strength is in Iowa, Clinton's is in New Hampshire and Obama's is in South Carolina. How the candidates fall within that frame will determine the media coverage they get going into Feb. 5 and thus the sense of who the "front runner" is."

No doubt.

But the precise reason I'd be trying to snuff Edwards early if I were Mark Penn is that the longer he stays alive, the better off his chances are.

Edwards would win a preference poll right now among high information Dems. The longer past Iowa he stays alive, the higher information the electorate gets.

If he doesn't get stopped early, he's going to start winning states you don't expect him to win.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 1:08 PM

So they're not willing to stand with what they've been talking about for years.

Do I count as a "major" blogger for these purposes?

I think I've been pretty clear about my feelings: Hillary Clinton really, really, really shouldn't be the nominee; I think the others all have their pros and their cons; insofar as I can push things in a not-Clinton direction, that's what I'll try to do.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 19, 2007 1:08 PM

"The country is of a mood to try something completely different."

I disagree.

It always looks that way 18 months before an election. But then as the election day approaches people want something familiar.

I don't care what the polls say today. IMO Obama is not electable. As the election day approaches people will be uncomfortable with someone with so thin a resume in the Oval office. Especially with the daily terror alerts that will be coming from the WH. Hillary? Who knows. She has the experience but she is still a woman and that is a big handicap. Still, she is more electable than Obama.

As the election day approaches people get last minute jitters. Can they picture the candidate as president? Can he do the job? What if there is a crisis? They prefer familiarity. Something they are used to. A white southern male is something they have familiarity with.

Keep in mind Edwards is doing very well in match ups with GOP candidates.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 1:10 PM

"Do I count as a "major" blogger for these purposes?"

No. Your bread is buttered quite differently than the Stollers and Armstrongs and Moulitsases of the world.

You see your role differently, you see your career unfolding differently, and you anticipate paying your rent differently.

The difference isn't that you aren't "major". It's that you aren't "netroots™".

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 1:13 PM

As the election day approaches people will be uncomfortable with someone with so thin a resume in the Oval office.

Edwards' resume certainly is not going to help him in this regard. If this is what people are thinking it will be a Clinton landslide. Thankfully, I really doubt the "experience" angle is one that voters are going to care about nearly as much as many think.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:14 PM

Are there any good polls on second-choice and third-choice preferences of Dem voters? Both the Obama supporters and Edwards supporters on this board would clearly support the other candidate over Hilary. It would be interesting to know how strong that phenomena actually is.

Posted by mhp | July 19, 2007 1:17 PM

When is the last time experience carried the day for the election of U.S. President?

Let's go thru the list (and incumbent elections obviously can't count):

George W -- no
Clinton -- no
George HW -- he had experience, but that really wasn't his key to victory
Reagan -- no
Carter -- no

That's 30 years where not only has it not mattered, but in many elections an argument can be made that "experience" in the Washington sense was a detriment to presidential candidates.

Or is it just that 9/11 changed everything?

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:18 PM

"Petey, but the median voter seems pretty solidly against the war at this point."

It all depends what you mean by being "against the war".

You have to be careful with these polls.

Yes, they are against the war in the sense that they want it to end. But the great majority will not accept an end that will be seen as defeat or humiliation for the US. A lot of that "against" voters still think a win for US is possible. They think we just need the right leader or the right strategy. When they say they are "against" they mean they are against the current quagmire.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 1:21 PM

Since throwing his hat into the ring in 2003, Edwards has continued to underperform expectations. He is not a great campaigner. He was a media darling early in 2003 and completely fizzled, wasting all of the goodwill he had with the media folks. After making a strong showing in Iowa, he promptly fizzled in New Hampshire - finishing fourth! He was a lackluster VP candidate in 2004. He looks good on paper, which is why he does well in head to head polling. But I don't think it means as much as Edwards supporters want it to mean, since he is not a strong enough campaigner to live up that potential.

And while Edwards has certain demographic advantages - white male Southerner - he has personality deficits that tend to erase those advantages. He is perceived by too many people as a big phony. Former moderate DLCer turned into righteous man of the people. Millionaire plaintiffs attorney. Former Iraq warrior turned into staunch war opponent. Phoney anti-poverty foundation that was actually a campaign organization. The expensive haircuts and beauty salon bills charged to the campaign.

Face it, the guy just is not that good of a candidate. In baseball terms, he was a prospect with all the tools who just did not live up to the expectations or the hype.

Posted by blah | July 19, 2007 1:21 PM

"All Lawyer'd up" was coined with Edwards in mind.

Posted by judson | July 19, 2007 1:34 PM

"Those independents and moderate Republicans I know actually find Obama neutral to appealing."

No wonder.

So far Obama has had kid glow treatment from the press who has cheered him on every step of the way. They can't stop talking about his hipness and coolness.

Obama has not taken any controversial positions. His speeches are basically Hallmark card messages of lets all get along.

Obama has not not been subjected to any swiftboating or serious scrutiny.

Do you actually expect this state of affairs to continue until November 2008?

The GOP will spend hundreds of millions in swiftboat attacks against him. The media will eventually get tired of his Hallmark card speeches. He won't know what hit him. And unlike Edwards or Hillary he doesn't have the experience in presidential elections to deal with the assault.

By the time he has been Swiftboated and Willie Hortonized I'd be shocked if he won his home state.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 1:35 PM

Edwards doesn't fight for himself, and no one will fight for you if you don't fight for yourself. Leftie bloggers don't really love anyone. They like a bunch of candidates.

Thank you for that delightful helping of vapid, evidence-free aphorisms. Instead of a blog, maybe you could produce some fortune cookies.

Posted by Christmas | July 19, 2007 1:35 PM

"He is perceived by too many people as a big phony."

So should we take the fact that he routinely performs as the strongest candidate in either party in general election matchups as a sign that the American electorate likes voting for big phonies?

Or would a more parsimonious explanation be that only a small minority of the electorate shares your perception of him?

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 1:36 PM

By the time he has been Swiftboated and Willie Hortonized I'd be shocked if he won his home state.

Hmmm . . . well I guess I can discount the seriousness and thoughtfulness of your comments.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:38 PM

Brian,

Are you kidding?

Reagan was a two term governor of the largest state in the union. He was fully engaged in national issues. That's not experience?

Clinton had been a 5 term governor. Served 10 year as governor. During that time he was fully engaged in national issues.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 1:42 PM

I don't accept that Edwards is the strongest candidate in general election matchups. You are free to prove otherwise.

In any event, I think you place far too much weight on head-to-head polling. All that shows is potential. The candidates have to actually perform up to that potential in order to succeed. I think Edwards' history shows a strong likelihood that he will not perform up to that potential.

Posted by blah | July 19, 2007 1:43 PM

Brian,

I think you are seriously misreading American electoral history here...

President Reagan had long and significant electoral experience: from SAG to the Goldwater campaign to two terms as Governor of California to a run in 1976.

After that on your list:

Carter in '76 was like shooting the moon in Hearts w/o the Qs-As or the Ah: an incredibly lucky sequence in a really screwy circumstance against an opponent who fell down stairs and was tainted by Nixon.

Clinton was both born and made to be President--and he also got the significant advantage of Perot splitting the vote.

GWB, the most ridiculous candidate on the list, was Governor of Texas and had the advantage of running against a party on the ropes, whose President had been impeached, and whose vote was diluted by Nader.

Otherwise, pretty much every 20th century American President has been elected by having the best experience, best ideas, and best connection with the American people (and yes, this includes Nixon, after we got him back to kick around again: Phillips was right--there was a 'Silent Majority').

Posted by Joel Turnipseed | July 19, 2007 1:45 PM

DonB,

I'll humor you briefly before I officially discount your nonsensical rants:

--Are you saying Reagan was elected based on his experience? He obviously was not, and that was the point.

--Same goes with Clinton.

As a general rule when an incumbent is knocked off after one-term, the electorate isn't voting based on experience.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:45 PM

Joel,

I disagree. I purposely didn't go back more than 30 years for several reasons. One being that the state of televised media has really changed how elections are conducted and what kinds of candidates get elected. Experience in the resume sense manages much, much less.

I think it strains credulity to think that a challenger knocking off an incumbent is doing so because the electorate is favoring experience. If anything it is the exact opposite.

So that leaves, Carter, GHW, and GW. Carter and GW (your outlier examples start to look more like the trend). Granted, Nixon is probably the best counter-example.

As far as the best ideas, and best connection with the American people. Well, yeah. If that is what you mean by experience then of course the most experienced candidate wins. But that is obviously not what I was talking about.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 1:54 PM

"By the time he has been Swiftboated and Willie Hortonized I'd be shocked if he won his home state."

While I think this is obviously extreme, I do think that there is a legit case to be made that Obama may have a glass jaw. If the race were only between Clinton and Obama, I think the Clinton folks could make a legit case that she is more electable than Obama due to having better shields, despite her lousy perception amongst the general election audience.

But, of course, just because it's a legit case doesn't make it correct. I'd bet that Obama would be a more electable general election candidate than Clinton.

The bigger problem I see for Obama is that I really can't construct a path to the nomination for him. He's running in the shadow of the candidate with all the institutional support, and those runs never work. While I'm sure his folks would be pleased to see him win, they really don't seem to have the objective of putting him in the White House in 2009, best I can tell.

And, of course, there's the issue of how progressively he'd be able to govern after running as the second coming of John McCain. If your base is the ideological middle, you're going to govern differently than someone running as a proud progressive would govern.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 1:54 PM

Brian,

You made the false claim that Reagan and Clinton did not have experience.

"Edwards' resume certainly is not going to help him in this regard."

The bar is lower for white males. Compared to Rudy/Romney/Thompson he has more than enough experience.

The bar will be much higher for a black or a woman candidate.

Imagine if George W Bush had been black or a woman. People would not think his Bushisms are "cute". Or that his failing a pop quiz about foreign policy is "no big deal".

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 2:00 PM

GWB, the most ridiculous candidate on the list, was Governor of Texas and had the advantage of running against a party on the ropes, whose President had been impeached, and whose vote was diluted by Nader.

In what sense were the Democrats "on the ropes" in 2000? Clinton left office with sky-high approval ratings, the party had bounced back to win House seats in the 1998 election and came within one seat of regaining the Senate in 2000.

The real tragedy of 2000 was that, despite the largest left-center presidential vote (Gore + Nader) since 1964, the government wound up taking a hard turn to the right as the result of a bunch of strangely-put-together circumstances (Florida, Supreme Court, Nader, media) that had nothing to do with the ideological or policy preferences of the electorate.

The cowed way that the Democrats responded to all that damaged their brand in 2002, but in 2000, they were riding high.

Posted by Mark | July 19, 2007 2:02 PM

Reading Petey on Edwards is just like reading all the Harry Potter readers in the thread the other day. Of course, Petey insisted that they were just being insecure, defensive whiners who couldn't stand the thought that anyone might criticize them. Kettle, meet pot.

Posted by K. Williams | July 19, 2007 2:03 PM

To those saying Obama is not electable because of his inexperience...

Obama has 8 years in the state senate and 2.5 years in Washington as a Senator. When election day rolls around, he'll have 4 years of experience in Washington as a Senator

Edwards has 4 years in Washington as a Senator.

So...run that by me again? What about Edwards "experience" makes him a more viable candidate?

Petey:

I showed you the numbers. Obama is actually out-performing Edwards against Thompson and McCain, while Edwards outperforms vs Rudy and Romney. How do you go from there to "Edwards is the strongest in the general"? I thought ignoring the facts was what the right does, not the left.

If the basis of that claim is that he has pounds Romney by even more points than Obama does, the claim is meaningless. In a matchup where one candidate is favored by 16 and the other by 21, "electability" doesn't come into play. In all 3 other matchups, there's no empirical evidence to suggest Edwards is stronger. So tell me, aside from your own postulate that he's stronger, how do we know he's stronger?

Posted by Michael | July 19, 2007 2:04 PM

I do think that there is a legit case to be made that Obama may have a glass jaw.

I don't know that a case can be made now. I certainly haven't seen it. However, it is clearly true that Obama hasn't faced the worst of what is going to be thrown at him. He will face more attacks as the primaries near and how he responds will go a long way to determining whether he can pull off the nomination.

Frankly, I think that is where Edwards' real chance lies. If Obama goes down because in the end because he just can't cut it, then Edwards emerges as the real alternative to Hillary. Then Edwards has a shot. And in that scenario I will certainly be behind Edwards 100%.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 2:05 PM

Still no word yet if the middle class people who donated to his foundation thinking it was all about combating poverty but was actually about advancing his political career knew what they were giving to; people don't like to come forward when they've been had - even (if not especially) when it's by someone they admire. Some enterprising journalist - I don't care what their political affiliation is - should be investigating this story.

Posted by Linus | July 19, 2007 2:05 PM

Petey:

are we following the same campaigns? Obama has a glass jaw? WTF have you been?

Slime thrown his way:

Obama was raised in a madrassa, taught wahabiism, and just might be a terrorist sympathizer

Obama smokes! That's no role model for your children

His middle name is Hussein! Is America ready for someone with that middle name?

Obama knows a crooked guy named Rezko! Who would think, crooked guys in Chicago?

There have been stories trying ot prove Obama is in bed with lobbyists (even though he took no political contributions from them nor any favors or gifts), that he's faked his accounting #s to pump the total number of donors (turns out the campaign was just complying with FEC laws), etc etc.

And his favorability ratings are still fantastic.

Glass jaw?

Which one is the candidate that can't shake a story about a haircut again?

Posted by Michael | July 19, 2007 2:12 PM

"So should we take the fact that he routinely performs as the strongest candidate in either party in general election matchups as a sign that the American electorate likes voting for big phonies?"

Yes.

Posted by too many steves | July 19, 2007 2:16 PM

[Edwards] is not a great campaigner.

I have no problem with people who interpret data different ways and support different candidates, but this kind of crap is not that. Edwards is, of course, a very good campaigner, which most people with even just a glancing familiarity with him would concede. Why do you think he's ahead in retail IA, and was able to almost win there in '04? In fact, a common, petulant, knee-jerk criticism of him is that he is too good at it (slick; smarmy). Why the constant FUD, 'blah'? Support who you like, but why be an idiot about it?

Posted by jonnybutter | July 19, 2007 2:28 PM

"are we following the same campaigns? Obama has a glass jaw? WTF have you been?"

Given your writings, I don't think we are following the same campaign, Michael.

Obama has a potential glass jaw in some small part due to the slime you mention, but that's not really the big problem. His real defensive problem comes in the way he feels the need to run on such an ethereal basis.

If you don't stand for anything, cuts tend to bleed. And the cuts will come.

The analogy would be Jimmy Carter in 1976. While he won the election, it ended up being far closer than it should have been. And if we think 2008 is likely to be a Democratic leaning year, 1976 was an uber-Democratic leaning year. When you run on smiles and pablum, you've got nothing to fall back on when the barrage of incoming fire gets intense. And you start to bleed.

And even worse is what comes after you win, when you've run a purely defensive campaign because you need to protect your jaw. You end up in a permanent defensive crouch.

Edwards, on the other hand, is able to run on a bunch of bold ideas to the left of current mainstream opinion and still maintain his popularity. I'd rather have a nominee who's got a solid enough jaw that he can securely leave it open to throw punches at the opposition.

But that's just me. I'm interested in taking back ground that the opposition has picked up over the past 30 years.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 2:29 PM

His real defensive problem comes in the way he feels the need to run on such an ethereal basis.

I think this line of attack is a bit silly. No doubt Obama speeches are chock full of platitudes -- hard to think of any President that did not rely on the same on their way to the White House.

But to argue that Obama doesn't or will not have a real policy platform is nonsense. He already has set forth policies in a number of areas and I am certain he will get more specific in others. We are still a ways away from the primaries.

Frankly, I think its smart politics to keep the specifics for later. No reason to give your opponents too much time to pick away at your proposals. And, as everyone seems to acknowledge, the race is not won in 2007.

The pro-Edwards arguments I find somewhat persuasive. But I think most of the anti-Obama arguments tend to be strikingly unpersuasive and, if anything, undermine much of the pro-Edwards arguments. DonB case in point.

Posted by Brian | July 19, 2007 2:40 PM

"I think this line of attack is a bit silly. No doubt Obama speeches are chock full of platitudes -- hard to think of any President that did not rely on the same on their way to the White House. But to argue that Obama doesn't or will not have a real policy platform is nonsense. He already has set forth policies in a number of areas and I am certain he will get more specific in others. We are still a ways away from the primaries."

I don't have time right now to run through the whole argument I'm trying to make, and I'm short of caffeine in the bloodstream, but let me try quick.

The lack of policy specifics are a symptom of a larger disease. By themselves, they aren't the problem.

In 1976, after some Democratic electoral debacles, Pat Caddell pioneered a new kind of Democratic campaign with Jimmy Carter. It's essence was to be "beyond ideology". Carter was neither of the left or the right. He was interested in good new ideas that would bring people together.

The stance (barely) got Carter to the WH, where things promptly fell apart. Caddell tried the same campaign again in '84 with Gary Hart, "not left ideas or right ideas, but better ideas". Similar tactics were used by Dukakis in '88, "competence, not ideology".

Paul Tsongas tried in '92. Bill Bradley tried in '00. John Edwards tried in '04 under the tutelage of David Axelrod, who is the new Caddell in the party.

The essence of the strategy is to avoid politically toxic elements of the Democratic Party and make your base among independents. And it's not an awful strategy. I supported Edwards in '04, and when I look back at history, I probably would've supported Hart and (maybe) Dukakis too.

But the strategy has a bunch of weaknesses too. As stated, it's got a general election weakness in that by avoiding standing for anything specific, you have no firewalls when you get cut. Dukakis (a far worse politician than Obama), bled to death quickly when cut. Carter came very close to bleeding to death. John Kerry ran his general election campaign (although not his primary campaign) this way, and again, he bled like hell when cut.

Compare and contrast to the way the Republicans run, and the way the Clinton-Gores ran. They let you know who they stand with, and who their enemies are. So when they get cut, they've got a base to fall back on and clot.

And the problems of the general election continue once in the White House. It's hard to play any kind of offense when your base is in the middle. And I think that this is a historical moment for Dems to play offense. Edwards is almost a dream candidate for moving the yard markers forward.

OK. Time for me to run. I've probably confused more than I've clarified. And to reiterate, I'm not an Obama hater. If Edwards disappeared, I'd almost definitely support Obama. I think the symbolic elements of electing Obama would be pretty damn powerful and wonderful. But hopefully it'll give some confused clue of what I'm talking about.

Posted by Petey | July 19, 2007 3:18 PM

"I'd rather have a nominee who's got a solid enough jaw that he can securely leave it open to throw punches at the opposition."

Agree.

Obama's main selling point seems to be that he doesn't offend. He is non threatening.

Well, Reagan offended plenty of people and he was proud of it.

When you dare to offend the enemy and go on to win that's a real win. You have a mandate.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 3:27 PM

And, of course, there's the issue of how progressively he'd be able to govern after running as the second coming of John McCain.

Has anybody in recent memory campaigned to the middle, sold himself on a history of bipartisanship and uniting not dividing and then managed to govern with a strong ideological bent?

Posted by Led | July 19, 2007 3:49 PM

strange numbers in NH:
On the Democratic side, 16 percent of the 333 voters surveyed said they would not consider voting for Clinton under any circumstances; 15 percent said the same about Obama, and 24 percent viewed Edwards as unacceptable.

seems odd that Edwards' negatives are so much higher than the others'.

Posted by cleek | July 19, 2007 3:54 PM

The argument that Obama or Edwards lack "electability" doesn't hold much water as compared to Clinton, for whom there already exists a built in, engrained animus across the electorate. I often hear Clinton supporters touting her electability with the same "glass jaw" analogy Petey uses, except in the inverse: e.g. Hillary has taken every punch Republicans can throw and is still standing tall, and thus will absorb further beatings without effect. The problem is that this argument is simply false on its face. She hasn't come out of it standing tall. Huge portions of the country hate Hillary. In other words, the damage has already been done. Sure, the Republicans might not make a lot of additional Americans hate her guts, but the existing hatred is already huge and engrained and widespread. This bears more directly on her electability far more than the mere possibility that Obama or Edwards might have a "glass jaw." Clearly, for a huge swath of Americans, Hillary's "jaw" shattered long ago.

Here's the sad reality: if Republicans succeed in creating as much public hatred and distrust in Obama or Edwards as already exists for Clinton, it would be catstrophic for either candidate's campaign. And yet, even if such a calamity unfolded, they would still be even with Hillary in terms of widespread negative feelings. And it's not like we're not talking about small numbers here. By conservative estimates, 40% of the country would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. How can anyone in the reality based community tout her "electability" in the face of such dismal numbers?

(Note - the current Gallop "unfavorability" ratings have Hillary at 52%, Edwards at 31%, and Obama at 27% among all Americans.)

None of this is to say that Clinton isn't a good candidate or that Democrats shouldn't vote for her. I am merely suggesting that backing Clinton on electability grounds is a silly. It's a bit like arguing that George W. Bush is immune to public criticism because his approval rates won't go much lower than 25%. Factually, it's a true statement. But that doesn't make it a good thing for him or his supporters.

Posted by owenz | July 19, 2007 4:01 PM

Maybe if Edwards could get some "real news coverage from the Main Stream Media" instead of the "fluff" coverage he would be better understood by most.

It isn't much of a leap to see how Hillary has stong ties to the corporate media, and Obama is the chosen darling, they are both easier and their midline centrist type rhetoric is easier for the palate of most.

John Edwards is leading the issue for the Hard Working americans and the lower income voters.

He by far is the best choice for the majority for 2008 - I wonder when will people wake up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5MMECuuyhY

Posted by dk2 | July 19, 2007 4:11 PM

Haha, and now I read Petey's last post and realize that he is not touting Clinton, but Edwards. Still, I think my point stands.

As for Edwards being able to "go on the offensive" in ways that Obama cannot...well, we will just have to see about that. Returning to electability, I think one of Edwards' big problems is the perception that he is a pretty boy and a glad handler. Coulter tagging him with the "F" word was all about the pretty boy part of it. The Coulter smears and the MSM's "hair obession" are a bunch of BS, obviously, but I do think this perception of him bears on how the public would view an Edwards on the "offensive." Will he be taken seriously if he starts insulting Republicans?

I am an Obama fan, so naturally I'm biased. But I think the guy has a certain sternness and seriousness to his public persona that will lend weight to any attacks he delivers on the opposition. In other words, I think he's got the external "persona" required for going on the attack. If he projects real anger, it will sell. The real question is whether he has the temperment for it on a personal level. Is he willing to get mean? That part is untested, unless you count his skirmishes with McCain, which didn't amount to all that much.

Posted by owenz | July 19, 2007 4:23 PM

Petey:

"I think the symbolic elements of electing Obama would be pretty damn powerful and wonderful."

Perhaps you could get some caffeine in your system and then come back and flesh this thought of yours out. What positive changes could we look forward to in the United States by electing a President with more melanin? Should we expect a transformation similar to the ones Newark experienced under Sharpe James, D.C., New York City experienced under Dinkins, Virginia under Wilder, etc.?

History suggests that it's a fallacy to expect "powerful and wonderful" things from an executive due to the color of his skin. Perhaps we should follow Dr. King's lead and focus on the content of the candidates' character instead?

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 4:31 PM

Petey:

"I think the symbolic elements of electing Obama would be pretty damn powerful and wonderful."

Perhaps you could get some caffeine in your system and then come back and flesh this thought of yours out. What positive changes could we look forward to in the United States by electing a President with more melanin? Should we expect a transformation similar to the ones Newark experienced under Sharpe James, New York City experienced under Dinkins, Virginia under Wilder, etc.?

History suggests that it's a fallacy to expect "powerful and wonderful" things from an executive due to the color of his skin. Perhaps we should follow Dr. King's lead and focus on the content of the candidates' character instead?

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 4:32 PM

"By conservative estimates, 40% of the country would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances."

Nothing shocking about this. She has been demonized by the Right Wing Noise Machine for 15 years.

I fully expect the Dem nominee, whoever it is, to have unfavorables in the high 40s on election day.

Both Gore and Kerry had unfavorables around 48% on election day. That's what millions in attack ads will do to any candidate.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 4:35 PM

"The Coulter smears and the MSM's "hair obession" are a bunch of BS, obviously, but I do think this perception of him bears on how the public would view an Edwards on the "offensive."

Some people seem to think that there is a Messiah Dem candidate out there who will be immune to attacks from Coulter & MSM. That somehow the Right Wing Noise Machine will say "OK, we won't go after Dem candidate X, we'll let him win".

I am with Bob Somerby. Clinton/Kerry/Gore.........it makes no difference to the Right Wing Noise Machine. They'll go after any Dem candidate who threatens their grip on power.

The same MSM that invented the Clinton haircut "scandal", turned Kerry into the Botox candidate and is turning Edwards into the haircut candidate and will do the same to other Dem candidates. This is just a given.

Posted by DonB | July 19, 2007 4:45 PM

I hope a band somewhere has taken "The Right Wing Noise Machine" as its name.

Speaking of Ann Coulter (her latest essay), have you noticed what she her slur for Obama?: "B. Hussein Obama".

Posted by Fred | July 19, 2007 5:04 PM

It's not a lack of media coverage. It's the fact that the media is brain dead. Exhibit A: Marc Ambinder.

Posted by Terp | July 19, 2007 8:15 PM

Some people seem to think that there is a Messiah Dem candidate out there who will be immune to attacks from Coulter & MSM. That somehow the Right Wing Noise Machine will say "OK, we won't go after Dem candidate X, we'll let him win". I am with Bob Somerby. Clinton/Kerry/Gore.........it makes no difference to the Right Wing Noise Machine. They'll go after any Dem candidate who threatens their grip on power.

Interestingly, I think Obama is the best bet on that front, because he's the toughest one for the machine to go after overtly. The race factor with Obama means that when the RWNM goes after him, the run the substantial risk of looking like assholes and making a lot people like him more.

I'm sure they will want to attack Obama, but attacking a non-activist (ie, not Jackson) black
candidate is new ground for the smear artists, and the potential for backfires is great.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 19, 2007 10:28 PM

I know this thread is over but I'd just like to second Petey's entire argument.

Southern Democrats win general elections.

Edwards will fight hardest for true Democratic principles if elected. Obama and Clinton are establishment candidates. In Edwards, I see a man who has, since 2004, grown into a leader. Under Edwards, we get the greatest number of troops home the soonest.

I think Obama may have experience/glass jaw issues. For me, Edwards came out on top of the "where were you 4 years ago" one liner from Obama in the last debate. If Obama is owning the anti-war stance, then he needs to be more vocal in the Senate. Why is he hiding on this issue?

Clinton is a nightmare. Obama is my second choice.

An Edwards win in Iowa means an Edwards win in South Carolina.

Posted by Just Karl | July 20, 2007 12:13 AM

Does Edwards Have a Problem?

Comments (87)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories