Head-to-Head Matchups

Petey pointed out that the latest CNN poll (PDF) shows some very clear patterns in the head-to-head presidential matchups. In particular, John Edwards polls as the strongest Democratic candidates whereas John McCain polls as the strongest Republican.

Of course, it's hard to know what to make of this sort of polling (except that as a white man, I'm patting myself on the back) since the events of the campaign really do change things. How much does Edwards' relative cash shortfall matter as an electability issue? And I bet most of the respondents to this poll don't know (yet) about Rudy Giuliani's criminal associates -- a series of charges that's probably more damaging than any muck that'll ever get dredged up on Romney. But despite the uncertainty, I think you do need to count this as a serious point in Edwards' favor when you combine it with the considerable merits of the policy positions he's staked out. Meanwhile, for the GOP I think nominating McCain is clearly the right across a whole variety of considerations, but I guess if you really, really, really hate immigrants it doesn't look that way.

Comments

Looks like a white man loses almost every election matchup.

Posted by John DE | December 11, 2007 3:24 PM

See Ross's post on the subject as well.

Posted by right | December 11, 2007 3:31 PM

I don't trust these matchup polls very much. What matters the most is what kind of a campaign they'll run, and how many weaknesses do they have that most people at this point don't know about.
I have trouble believing that Edwards would really be the strongest Democratic nominee.

On the Republican side, Drudge has a report saying that Democrats are purposely holding their fire on Huckabee, hoping that he's the nominee. On a personal level, he seems like the best politician, but he has serious weaknesses (Dumond, general craziness).

Romney seems the best on paper, but comes across too much like the hapless husband (Darren?) on Bewitched.

McCain just seems too old and fusty.

Posted by Jim W | December 11, 2007 3:32 PM

That is an impressive point in Edward's favor. But when you consider he has essentially been on the ticket before and Obama hasn't; it's cool that the gap is so much less than them. Plus, Obama's fundraising abilities and the fact that he polls better among independents and Republicans gives him the edge in my opinion.

I don't think I'd really cry unless Hillary Clinton got the nomination through; metaphorically speaking of course. I think.

Posted by Rhoda | December 11, 2007 3:36 PM

I guess if you really, really, really hate immigrants it doesn't look that way.

Or if you really, really, really, love torture.

Posted by Eric the Political Hack | December 11, 2007 3:36 PM

It's worth noting that Edwards' advantage over Obama and Clinton in general election head-to-heads isn't as great as it seems here. If you check out the head-to-head numbers on Real Clear Politics, you'll see the picture is more mixed.

I do think that this is still, at least in the case of Huckabee, Romney, and Obama, an issue of name recognition. (Yes, no matter how much you may think Obama is overexposed, a significant portion of the country only has a very fuzzy, very faint notion of who he is. Same for Romney and very much so for Huckabee.)

Edwards' advantage over Obama is largely a recognition/familiarity advantage, and his advantage over Clinton could easily vanish with just a couple ads running that infamous hair-fluffing footage over and over again with the text "$400" somewhere on the screen.

This whole "electability" thing, while a real concern, can't be determined by this CNN poll or any other at this early stage. You really have to account for potential future weaknesses and each candidate's skill for dealing with his or her negatives.

Posted by Philly | December 11, 2007 3:41 PM

As I've said before, I don't trust single cherry-picked polls. Look at the Real Clear Politics matchup page, which averages several polls, and you'll see a slight matchup advantage for Edwards (as compared to Hillary or Obama), but much less pronounced than this poll. And based on the RCP page, regarding Giuliani, Edwards doesn't have any advantage over the other two at all.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2007 3:44 PM

PS.

Although, just thinking about it, I do think this is bad news for Giuliani. He has plenty of name recognition, and he used to win and tie a lot of these head-to-heads. I think the recent flood of scandal news is hurting him.

Posted by Philly | December 11, 2007 3:45 PM

As I've said before, I don't trust paid shills.

Posted by ed | December 11, 2007 3:48 PM

The Republican donor class is very, very unhappy about McCain-Feingold, right? Because while Dems used to beat the GOP in contributions over $100,000, the Republicans had more from all other levels.

Also during the Clinton era McCain said nice things about spending money and not cutting taxes that might increase the deficit.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 11, 2007 3:53 PM

I don't think polls mean anything this far out, but...

What's the deal with McCain v Obama? a tie?

Posted by Jim | December 11, 2007 3:58 PM

Whomever the big guys want to win wins. GE, Viacom, Disney - they'll figure what's good for you, don't worry.

Posted by abb1 | December 11, 2007 4:01 PM

Philly is right: name recognition is everything here. Given that on a generic ballot, Joe Democrat consistently clobbers Dick Republican, it's not surprising that any of the three Dems destroy Huckabee and Romney, who for the vast majority of the country are just interchangeable Dick Republicans (har har). And yeah, it's clear that McCain a stronger "known" candidate than Giuliani.

On the Democratic side, though, it's a bit trickier. If Obama is really less exposed than Edwards and Clinton, then it should be an advantage in these hypothetical polls, no? He's closer to Joe Democrat than the known commodities of Hillary (polarizing first lady) and Edwards (smiley VP loser). I'm something of an Obama guy myself, but it's hard to spin this to his advantage -- if he's reached maximum exposure, it's disappointing that he's still underperforming Edwards (race, anyone?); and if he's still relatively unknown, he's underperforming Joe Democrat.

Posted by Dr. I Don't Know | December 11, 2007 4:08 PM

McCain's best chance for being the nominee is a brokered convention. Polls like this will matter then.

Posted by DanF | December 11, 2007 4:20 PM

Minor insight: The head-to-head comparisons of the Republicans seem to indicate that name ID may be driving a lot of this. Probably from least-to-best known the Republicans are Huckabee-Romney-McCain-Giuliani, with the last two possibly being switched---which would match their respective deficits against the most famous Democrat in America, the Oprah candidate, and a guy who was on the national ballot last time. Giuliani and Clinton seem to underperform according to name ID, which might be reflective of their higher general-election negatives.

Posted by Jack Roy | December 11, 2007 4:23 PM

It's getting to be Last Call at the Republican bar--if the pragmatists can pull their act together, McCain can go all the way. Otherwise, no dice.

Posted by Robert Powell | December 11, 2007 4:23 PM

If you are really, really, really on the wrong side of the unskilled immigration issue -- morally, economically, and politically -- than I guess you have to resort to the sort of demagoguing Matt does here.

Massive unskilled immigration:

bad for blacks, bad for the budget, bad for the middle class, bad for domestic unskilled workers, bad for social cohesion.

good for restaurateurs, landscapers, employers of domestic help, and good for the egos Harvard-educated Jewish pundits with high-minded egalitarian sensibilities and nostalgia for Ellis Island.

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 4:24 PM

Fred: it's also good for the immigrants themselves, and their families, and the people who live in their neighborhoods (since immigrants committ fewer crimes than the native-born).

Posted by too many steves | December 11, 2007 4:36 PM

And the anti-immigrant crowd is nothing if not deeply dedicated to helping out America's black, unskilled workers.

Posted by Spike | December 11, 2007 4:40 PM

As an African-American male, I pray that Obama is not the nominee.
If he is the nominee, the GOP will run a campaign against him that will be so ugly and so racist that it will make the Willie Horton ad and the Corker "call me..." ad against Harold Ford seem like enlightened discourse. I don't even think they'll be subtle about it at all. You'll see ads with Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain and cocaine and pics of Obama hugging white women and stuff that we cannot even imagine at this point. They will destroy him, while Obama will be begging, "Can't we all just get along?!"
The GOP will be desperate to win because they understand that they will be completely shut out - no House control, no Senate control and no White House - if they lose the Presidency and they will do anything...anything to prevent that state of affairs. (That is, except nominate that ingrate McCain!)
Edwards would win easily, while I think that Hillary could squeak out a win. But Obama would suffer a brutal loss that might set back race relations for a decade.

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 4:45 PM

Spike, let's not automatically conflate being in favor of restricting or controlling immigration with being anti-immigrant.

Fred probably doesn't care about this, but massive immigration to the United States is also pretty tough on the environment.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 11, 2007 4:50 PM

a series of charges that's probably more damaging than any muck that'll ever get dredged up on Romney

Not true. From the authoritarian evangelical perspective, just being a Mormon is worse than any muck that involves mere organized crime.

Posted by Tom Hilton | December 11, 2007 4:52 PM

Massive unskilled immigration.

Fred: We don't have "massive" immigration, unskilled or not. The net immigration rate, even if you include illegals in the mix (which of course you should) is, like 1/3 of what it was circa 1900. Oh, and the economy is, like fifty times bigger than it was then in real terms. Oh, and and the native-born population is expanding much more slowly than a hundred years ago, increasing the ease with which immigrants can be absorbed. Oh, and this terrible scourge of contemporary "mass" immigration has coincided with markedly improved social indexes (less crime, less drug use, etc) and a booming economy -- proof positive that today's modest levels of immigration are consistent with a prosperous and healthy country.

If you don't like immigration, great. But don't call it massive. If you must, please say something like: "Today's historically moderate level of immigration is bad for America; we should return to the ahistorically low levels of the 1950s."

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 4:58 PM

Doesn't mean much - for any of them - until the hard Right unleashes its attack machine.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | December 11, 2007 5:01 PM

What are you guys talking about? Fred never shuts up in this forum about raising the minimum wage. It's always "We need to raise the minimum wage this" and "we need to raise the minimum wage that." His comments are so goddamn predictable.

Posted by Barbar | December 11, 2007 5:03 PM

If the Republicans ran the sort of campaign described by frankie d, it might well be the end of the GOP as a national party. Maybe the Whigs could make a comeback.

Posted by DTM | December 11, 2007 5:10 PM

"Fred: it's also good for the immigrants themselves, and their families, and the people who live in their neighborhoods (since immigrants committ fewer crimes than the native-born).

Posted by too many steves"
----------------
Yes recent immigrants, especially illegals, have low crime rates; probably because they are afraid. But next generation Hispanics assimilate to the criminal class and have higher crime rates than the natives. That's probably why neighborhoods with lots of illegals have high crime rates; they also have lots of the first generation. So, indeed, we don't want immigration of the unskilled.

Posted by Robert Hume | December 11, 2007 5:16 PM

"If you don't like immigration, great. But don't call it massive. If you must, please say something like: "Today's historically moderate level of immigration is bad for America; we should return to the ahistorically low levels of the 1950s.""

The immigration rate in the 1950's was typical. It was the immigration level around the 1900 that was ahistorically high. We have returned to those levels.

Posted by Robert Hume | December 11, 2007 5:19 PM

"Of course, it's hard to know what to make of this sort of polling (except that as a white man, I'm patting myself on the back)"

Race and gender are waaaay oversold on the persistent Edwards general election matchup advantage compared to Clinton and Obama.

It's region. It's rural roots. It's biography. It's the forceful economic populism. It's the preternatural ability to create a soft emotional connection through TV.

As a Northeastern urbanite born to money with moderate left economic views and a diffident TV manner, Matthew would fare quite badly in general election matchup polls despite being a white man.

To a less extreme degree, Chris Dodd would have the same problem, despite also being a white man.

-----

But despite my thinking he'd make a poor nominee, Matthew certainly does make a mean chart.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 5:23 PM

frankie d,

The upside of America being a nation that was racist but isn't so much anymore is that many people will vote for Obama precisely because he's not white; the downside is that many will vote against him because he's not white. But the former will vastly outnumber the latter. If the GOP is suicidal enough to play the kind of tricks it did with McCain in 2000 and Ford in 2006 and think that it won't backfire on the national stage, so be it. It'll only spell the end of the party and the birth of a Democratic majority for years to come.

And hell, if you're cynicism proves justified, at least we'll know that it's really time to emigrate and concede victory to the Rovians.

Posted by tinisoli | December 11, 2007 5:24 PM

"It's worth noting that Edwards' advantage over Obama and Clinton in general election head-to-heads isn't as great as it seems here. If you check out the head-to-head numbers on Real Clear Politics, you'll see the picture is more mixed."

Edwards has been the strongest Dem in the sizable majority of general election matchup polls all year long.

The advantage is real and persistent. You can try to argue it doesn't indicate anything for next November, but you can't argue the advantage hasn't been there all year for Edwards with relatively few exceptions.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2007 5:29 PM

frankie d just made me depressed.

Posted by Steve V | December 11, 2007 5:30 PM

I have to wonder if this is just a combination of the Median Voter Theorem and the electorate's misconceptions about where various candidates sit on that theoretical one-dimensional left-right axis. In the wake of Bush, the electorate's median voter has moved a bit to the left. Edwards, despite his actual policies, is perceived as being more centrist because he's a white Southern man. Edwards, then, is drawing in more centrist-trending voters more because of his demographics than he would if you asked voters to pick based on policy outlines rather than the candidates' names and faces.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 11, 2007 5:33 PM

"...as a white man, I'm patting myself on the back..."

Matt, I do not wish to try to guess what you meant by that. Still less do I want to reproach you for patting yourself on the back: it MAY be an entirely appropriate thing for you to do, but I hope you will see fit to tell us why. This is not a trap, although (obviously and regrettably) later attempts may be made to turn it into one.

Posted by Frank Wilhoit | December 11, 2007 5:35 PM

...and good for the egos Harvard-educated Jewish pundits...

I'm all for ignoring the paid shills, but is does anyone wish to address this? As Oliver Willis often observes (correctly), the Cons just can't help themselves. It sure gets ugly when that mask slips. Yikes.

Posted by ed | December 11, 2007 5:42 PM

of course, you couldn't take just any old white guy like matt - sorry matt! - and make him a viable candidate.
i think edwards is a formidable politician and probably will support him, personally.
but one ignores our electoral history if one ignores the unmistakable, irrefutable fact that there are certain white americans who would normally vote democrat who might not vote for a black man.
there are plenty of elections where that phenomenon has raised its ugly head.
polled voters will say, yes, i'll vote for the black democraat and that same voter curiously changes his/her mind in the privacy of the voting booth.
you can rest assured that the GOP will do any and everything it can do to remind voters that Obama is indeed black and that he might be a muslim and who knows, he might even be a terrorist! and they will not care particularly if they are subtle about it.
the GOP has never been shy about tapping into this vein of racism before. all of the successful GOP presidential candidates have done it, in one fashion or another.
Reagan, with his dog whistle appeals, carefully masked by his genial demeanor.
Bush 41 with his willie horton ad.
Bush 43 when he really needed it down in south carolina when he smeared mccain.
the only recent candidate who has not traveled this path was dole.
and that may be one of the reasons he lost. despite his reputation as a political hatchet man, it appears that he had too much integrity to sink to those levels.

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 5:45 PM

Steve V,

Cheer up. I think there's a good chance that Edwards would be a great president. I think his policies are much more progressive than the policies Obama has advocated. Edwards might be the best choice for progressive Dems. Obama might make Republicans feel better about having a Dem in the White House.

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 5:50 PM

THe only way I'd vote for a republican is if it's McCain over Clinton. Or Ron Paul over Clinton. So that poll has intuitive credibility to me. WHat can I say? Also, about frankie d, I have noticed a lot of black people being the ones who say racism will prevent Obama [or any black nominee ever] from becoming president. I think they just see racism more than we do, and also don't want to get their hopes up. But I don't think they're right in this case.

Posted by Phoebe | December 11, 2007 5:52 PM

Jasper writes: "Oh, and and the native-born population is expanding much more slowly than a hundred years ago, increasing the ease with which immigrants can be absorbed."

One problem with this view is that the children of immigrants are now going to school with, socializing, and dating a far higher percentage of..... children of immigrants. With a faster growing native-born population, children of immigrants would be socializing, interacting, and going to school with a higher percentage of children of the native-born, which is much better for assimilation.

Here is the Center for Immigration Studies:
"• In 2002, 23 percent of all births in the United States were to immigrant mothers (legal or illegal), compared to 15 percent in 1990, 9 percent in 1980 and 6 percent in 1970.

• Even at the peak of the last great wave of immigration in 1910, the share of births to immigrant mothers did not reach the level of today. And after 1910 immigration was reduced, whereas current immigration continues at record levels, thus births to immigrants will continue to increase.

• Our best estimate is that 383,000, or 42 percent, of births to immigrants are to illegal alien mothers. Thus births to illegals now account for nearly 1 out of every 10 births in the United States."
http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back805release.html

Posted by pjgoober | December 11, 2007 5:56 PM

phoebe,

we see the reality of racism because we have to deal with it.
white folks do not, as a matter of course, have to deal with racism, so they tend to be unaware of it.
trust me, i wish it was not so. my personal and professional life would be much simpler.
but, alas, wishing does not make it so.

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 5:57 PM

As an African-American male, I pray that Obama is not the nominee.
If he is the nominee, the GOP will run a campaign against him that will be so ugly and so racist that it will make the Willie Horton ad and the Corker "call me..." ad against Harold Ford seem like enlightened discourse.

I'm not much of a Democrat, as regular commenters around here know, and I would like to see Obama elected.

My problem with your analysis is that if nasty attacks are all it takes to derail a promising candidacy, we'll never have a black president. Come to cases, the Republican party would set a fire in an orphanage if they thought it would win them a presidential election. Accomodating ugly tactics encourages their use; they have to to be opposed, or nothing ever changes.

Foolishly perhaps, I think most Americans (including many Republicans) genuinely like Obama and would not take kindly to having that feeling--which is really rare in national politics--rudely displaced. I want to elect someone who I like, who I won't mind seeing on TV for four or eight years, whose election I think will be good for the county, and who I personally (selfishly, I guess) will feel good about myself for supporting. So cheer up, and come help us beat the bastards back.

Posted by southpaw | December 11, 2007 5:58 PM

Thanks frankie d, but just to clarify I wasn't depressed about the prospect of Obama losing to Edwards, but instead about the prospect of a racist GOP campaign like you describe. I gotta admit, it's hard to envision the GOP staying above that kind of thing all the way to November.

Posted by Steve V | December 11, 2007 6:03 PM

"I'm all for ignoring the paid shills, but is does anyone wish to address this?"

As a Jew myself, I'll address it. Aside from a few notable exceptions (e.g., Kaus, Krauthammer, Samuelson), Jewish pundits tend to be pro-open borders. A few are honest enough to admit that they favor these policies for essentially emotional reasons, out of nostalgia for their Ellis Island ancestors. (See, for example, Tamar Jacoby on this).

If you were making a broader claim that the right is full of Jew-haters, you're off base. There are some paleo-populists on the right who aren't fans of Jews, but they are a distinct minority. There are at least as many leftists who hate Jews, if not more.

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 6:05 PM

This post could have appeared under the title "Tuesday Petey Blogging".

But it would be better still to let Petey himself have a few posts over the next few weeks...

Posted by otto | December 11, 2007 6:09 PM

".and good for the egos Harvard-educated Jewish pundits...

I'm all for ignoring the paid shills, but is does anyone wish to address this? As Oliver Willis often observes (correctly), the Cons just can't help themselves. It sure gets ugly when that mask slips. Yikes."

Ed, first of all, it's kind of messed up to read things in the most uncharatable interpretation humanely possible. Second, here is Mathew Yglesias himself with a discussion of the jewish perspective on immigration. Judging from this blog posting ("Jews and Immigration"), MY seems to think that being jewish is not un-relevant to views on immigration. I look forward to you casting aspersions on MY for this as you did with Fred.
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2006/04/jews_and_immigr.html

Posted by pjgoober | December 11, 2007 6:11 PM

The immigration rate in the 1950's was typical. It was the immigration level around the 1900 that was ahistorically high. We have returned to those levels.

Robert: You're dead wrong. The country reduced immigration to its lowest levels ever in the four decades or so after the stock market crash. Before the 1920s the immigration rate was almost always higher than it is today, going all way back to Jamestown. There were single years in the 1840s and 1850s when the country's net rate of immigration exceeded 3% -- double that at the beginning of the 20th century and five or six times what we experience today. The Kennedy immigration bill, whatever its flaws, merely got us back to an "ordinary" rate of immigration level after an ahistorical forty years or so of restriction. Immigration in 2007 may or may not be good or bad for the country. What it certainly is not is "massive" or unusual in terms of history.

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 6:14 PM

As a Jew myself, I'll address it. Aside from a few notable exceptions (e.g., Kaus, Krauthammer, Samuelson), Jewish pundits tend to be pro-open borders.

Fred: nearly all gentile pundits tend to be pro-open borders, too. You need the borders to be open to allow tourists in an out, and for trade. In fact, I don't think I've heard of a single call for the borders to be closed, ever, except for a couple of days after the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by Jasper | December 11, 2007 6:20 PM

"As an African-American male, I pray that Obama is not the nominee.
If he is the nominee, the GOP will run a campaign against him that will be so ugly and so racist that it will make the Willie Horton ad and the Corker "call me..." ad against Harold Ford seem like enlightened discourse."

If anything, by appointing not one, but two (count them) black Secretaries of State (along with a black HUD Secretary and National Security Adviser), a GOP President has made the prospect of a black president more possible.

Regarding the Willie Horton ad and the Corker "Call me" ad: The point of the Willie Horton ad was that Dukakis was soft on crime; that Willie Horton happened to be black was an unfortunate fact, but it would have been an effective ad had Willie Horton been one of those unlikely affluent white murders of the sort you see on Law & Order every week. Remember how Dukakis ruined himself in the debate with the question about what he'd do if his wife was raped or killed (I forget the details, but his response was lame and emotionally detached).

As for the Corker ad, its point was that Harold Ford had been living it up on the dollar of lobbyists, whose largess included the company of strippers. Would it have been better if the "Call me" stripper had been black? It seems to me that this would have also provoked claims of racism. Was it a classy ad? No, but politics ain't bean-bag. Harold Ford has had enough advantages in life: elite prep school, Ivy League college, son of a Congressman -- why should he get treated with kid gloves when running for the Senate?

Posted by Fred | December 11, 2007 6:21 PM

Worse graph than those at the Economist!

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | December 11, 2007 6:31 PM

Fred is the typical apologist for GOP racism.
Willie Horton? Just a coincidence he was black. No appeal to racism there. No sireee.
The Corker ad? Just a coincidence that the apparently nude woman in the ad was white.
Puleeze!!!! Try telling it to someone who doesn't know their history.
Appointing figureheads means nothing.
As is apparent to anyone paying attention, neither Colin Powell nor Condi Rice had very much power at all, as most foreign policy has been made by the Veep's office during Bush's terms. Putting tokens in visible positions is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Black folks are not stupid.
They know very well that the GOP does not have its best interests at heart.
That is why you will not find one single solitary GOP representative elected from a majority black district anywhere in this country.
The GOP was so pitiful that they had to point to now retired J.C. Watts, as their sole black congressional member, and he actually represented an overwhelmingly white district.
He was able to do so because he was a Sooner football legend whose name was golden.
(Too bad he made such bad political choices because he was a helluva QB!)

Posted by frankie d | December 11, 2007 8:06 PM

Frankie D: I understand your worries, but I think this is about as good a chance one can expect to elect a black president. Of course "a black president" is not an end in itself, but if Obama can win it (and I think he can), the fact that he is black will have profound and positive repercussions. The racists vote Republican anyway.

If we're scared to run Obama this time around, because racism is still a reality, then when will we ever have a better chance? I think we are lucky to have both a black candidate like Obama, palatable to a wide range of Americans who had never before considered voting for an African-American, and a generally Democratic-favorable environment, during the same election cycle -- so let's run with it.

Frankie d, I agree with you that the Republicans will pull every race card that they possibly can, if Obama gets the nomination.... but the fact that this is a *national* campaign will make this different than, say, the Ford and Corker campaigns. The national press corps, despite their total sycophancy to the authoritarian/crony capitalist/Giuliani wing of the Republican party, aren't really racists; I doubt that they'll give blatant race-baiting the publicity and 'respectability' that it was given in Tennessee in 2006, or in South Carolina in 2000, or even nationwide in 1988. It will still be a factor, but I think it will be surmountable.

Anyway, the bottom line is that if we feel like the country is not 'ready' for a black president now, well then we'll never ever have a black president.

Posted by Xaphoo | December 11, 2007 8:27 PM

I can see where John Edwards supporters would be encouraged by the CNN poll to think that Edwards really is more popular than the other Democrats.

But the numbers actually work the other way. Edwards is doing well because he's becoming less well known not because he's becoming more popular. As the Edwards campaign continues to stumble, Edwards is having a hard time keeping himself in the public eye and he's becoming less recognizable to voters as a result. Therefore his poll numbers are drifting upward toward the level of "generic Democrat." Doing well in the head to heads with Republicans is actually a bad sign for Edwards.

That's not the case with Clinton and Obama though. They've also been moving up against the Republicans. But they've been doing so against persistent and hostile micro-scrutiny by the media and the Republicans. In other words, Clinton and Obama are getting their support the "old-fashioned way. They're earning it.

To the contrary, Edwards is just getting the good will that comes with being a Democrat.

Posted by Ric Caric | December 11, 2007 10:40 PM

Edwards has to win Iowa. I live in South Carolina and voted for Edwards in 04 (the only primary he won). The question for me isn't whether Edwards is right on the issues, he is, the question for me is can he win more than SC in the Democratic Primary.

If Edwards can not win Iowa, he has no shot at defeating Hillary for the nomination. In fact, if Edwards loses Iowa, he should immediately withdraw from the race. Obama has shown me enough to win my vote as the viable alternative to another Clinton administration. Whoever upthread said that Obama will use rhetoric from the right (SS crisis!)to pass legislation from the left (end regressive tax cap) while Clinton does the opposite is exactly right. It's enough for me that Obama is anti-war. I don't have to buy into his magical ability to breach the chasm between black and white, Democrat and Republican.

Hillary is using the same policy playbook that Bill used. Let's not forget that Bill gave us NAFTA, Welfare reform, don't ask don't tell, Somalia, Waco, Elian Gonzalez and the Republican takeover of Congress while never winning more than 49% of the popular vote using that playbook. There don't seem to be many successful plays in it.

At the end of the day, I'm voting for an anti-war candidate. Whomever seems the most viable Democratic alternative to Clinton will get my vote. Edwards is beginning to feel like a long shot. I think his strategy of waiting until the public is "paying attention" has been a mistake.

Posted by Just Karl | December 11, 2007 10:46 PM

if Edwards loses Iowa, he should immediately withdraw from the race

I basically agree with this, though I'd put it a little differently. Whichever of Edwards or Obama ends up doing less well in Iowa, should immediately drop out of the race. There have got to be a lot of "anyone but Hillary" voters out there, and those votes need to get consolidated around a single candidate in order to beat Hillary.

Posted by Tom | December 11, 2007 11:24 PM

I think Xaphoo is right. I see what you're saying, frankie d, about the right's dirty race-baiting tricks in the election, but Obama is a great candidate and it's a great time to be a Democratic Presidential candidate. If not now, then when? The acceptability of race-baiting tactics on the national level is pretty low. Outside of the Deep South, anything the Republicans will do in that regard will have to be done at a fairly subtle level, or else risk alienating moderate voters, and the outright racists would likely vote for Republicans anyway.

I guess if he were to have a "perfect" candidacy, maybe we'd have a Barack Obama who'd had another term in the Senate or didn't have a funny name, but I think besides that, he's the best chance we have for a real progressive agenda in the White House and for smashing the color barrier there, too.

The "experience" thing is a lame criticism if you ask me, too. Does anyone seriously think another 6 years in the Senate would somehow magically give a candidate the experience necessary to become President? Nobody becomes President with the "right" experience, because there's no other job like it. Not a governor, not a general, not a vice-president, not a cabinet secretary, not a legislator, etc. What we have to do as voters is trust that the candidate will have the judgement to make the right decisions and the temperament to lead well.

Posted by Adam Villani | December 11, 2007 11:41 PM

How about we elect a competent president? I don't care if the president identifies as a martian but competency would be a nice change of pace.

Posted by mike c | December 12, 2007 8:18 AM

But the numbers actually work the other way. Edwards is doing well because he's becoming less well known not because he's becoming more popular. As the Edwards campaign continues to stumble, Edwards is having a hard time keeping himself in the public eye and he's becoming less recognizable to voters as a result. Therefore his poll numbers are drifting upward toward the level of "generic Democrat." Doing well in the head to heads with Republicans is actually a bad sign for Edwards.

If this were true, I will be the next president.

There are plenty of reasons to pick a candidate, but do not deny reality: Senator Edwards has outperformed the other Democrats in head-to-head races against any Republican (or generic Republicans) since he entered the race. You can certainly argue that this might change, you can certainly argue that you wish to rely on other issues in making your decision. However, Edwards is not becoming a generic Democrat--he simply polls out better than the other Democrats.

I choose to support Edwards because I agree with his views more than the others and I think he would be the best president. He will, by happy coincident, also do better in the general election than the others.

Posted by TFisher | December 12, 2007 10:38 AM

The point of the Willie Horton ad was that Dukakis was soft on crime; that Willie Horton happened to be black was an unfortunate fact, but it would have been an effective ad had Willie Horton been one of those unlikely affluent white murders of the sort you see on Law & Order every week.

I seriously doubt that. One of the effects of the Willie Horton was not to show just that Dukakis was soft on crime, but also soft on black crime. Consider this statement made by Lee Atwater right before the Democratc Convention, when Dukakis when looking to choose a Presidential candidate:

"There is a story about a fellow named Willie Horton who for all I know may end up to be Dukakis' running mate. Dukakis is making Hamlet look like the rock of Gibraltar in the way he's acted on this. The guy was on TV about a month ago and he said you'll never see me standing in the driveway of my house talking to these candidates. And guess what, on Monday, I saw in the driveway of his house? Jesse Jackson. So anyway, maybe he'll put this Willie Horton guy on the ticket after all is said and done."

What do Jesse Jackson & Willie Horton have in common, except that they're black?

Posted by Peter H | December 12, 2007 12:15 PM

Edwards is doing well because he's becoming less well known not because he's becoming more popular...

'If this were true, I will be the next president.'
TFisher

Not you Mr or Ms Fisher:

"If you were to go back in history and take every president, you'll find that the numerical value of each letter in their name was equally divisible into the year in which they were elected. By my calculations, our next president has to be named Yellnick McWawa." Cliff Claven, Cheers

Posted by Robbie | December 12, 2007 11:00 PM

The one real general election loser for the Democrats is Barack Obama. Anybody who would argue John Edwards is unelectable is an idiot, pure and simple.

Obama has NUMEROUS liabilities, including his race, his name, his being from a blue state, no coattail effect, a poor debater, half-baked policies, too much pandering to the right-wing, and I could go on and on and on. Why do you think the media are pushing him so much, making absurd claims he is the next JFK or MLK or Lincoln, for God's sake?

Any time the media push a particular Democratic candidate, that's the one to stay away from.

Posted by Susan Nunes | December 17, 2007 10:38 AM