Sunday, July 29, 2007

Which Democrat would do better in the general election?

If you, like me, care most of all about backing a Democrat who will win in November -- and I'm hoping for a solid win, not a nail-biter -- Edwards is the choice. Or so Rasmussen tells us.
Vs. Thompson

John Edwards 50%
Fred Thompson 39%

Barack Obama 46%
Fred Thompson 40%

Hillary Clinton 45%
Fred Thompson 45%


vs. Ghouliani

John Edwards 49%
Rudy Ghouliani 42%

Barack Obama 47%
Rudy Ghouliani 41%

Hillary Clinton 44%
Rudy Ghouliani 43%


vs. Romney

Obama 47%
Romney 38%

Edwards 45%
Romney 38%

Clinton 46%
Romney 42%
Obama pulls ahead if Romney is the candidate -- I wonder why? In all other scenarios, Edwards seems strong.

Do I have a problem with an Edwards presidency? Nope. My main problem: The guy chokes in debates. Such, at least, is my perception; you may not share it.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

As good ol mom as my political gauge again, she says Obama and everyone in her church does also, in a lily white suburban area no less.
But they would go with Edwards too I'm sure.
Flo

Anonymous said...

Add to my above comment.
There is one thing that I have to take in to consideration when using Moms area as a gauge though.
Most of the people there are old 5th Minnesota US. congressional district transplants, the most liberal in the country.
Most of them used to think that voting for anyone from the south was the same thing as voting Republican, they all held their noses when they pulled the lever for Carter, but they liked "Fritz" Mondale who was from the 5th Mn.

Anonymous said...

Edwards IS the candidate to beat in a national election. "'08" will lead with the copy: "a year of change". Clinton will not represent that. Unfortunately, for her, too many center folks dislike her for the wrong reasons. Point blank, they are ignorant and too malleable but so be it. Personally, there are many things I like about Obama (some I don't) but we all know this country is still too racist to vote him in. I'm not saying it's right but again, he will not be elected but for the wrong reasons. I actually see him in the VP spot.
Edwards says the right things. Edwards is popular in the South. I completely disagree with him on a few things but he said the magic words. Personal opinions be damned, he's "Staying true to the Constitution". But if he says "I'm the son of a poor mill worker" one more time, I'm gonna jam my yellowed UAW card down his god damned throat. And if and when he gets elected I hope sites like Cannonfire will stay on his ass about true Universal Healthcare and his seemingly "focus group"ed foreign policy decisions. The latter ain't much better than the "Decider".

Anonymous said...

I will qualify my comment by saying that I do not trust any politician and do not take what they say at face value but read between the lines.
Having said that, so far I rather have Edwards than Hilary or Obama. It has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman or a Clinton or Obama being black. It has to do with what I read between the lines they so very carefully string together.
And Joe, as to your criticism of Edwards, isn't Hillary always voted the best performer in all debates so far and yet she does not poll at the highest level according to your poll. Maybe, just maybe people are not looking for perfection but an imperfect but more genuine person.
A while back when you brought up the subject of candidates I said that Edwards is the likeliest candidate to win against any Republican (and I still believe that) and that is why he is always marginalized by the MSM. Edwards scares the RNC the most(I even wonder if he scares the Democrats as well-the career politicians).
BTW, David Micheal Green has a very lengthy article about the viability of third parties and the nature of the two party system that might be worth reading. It is too long to summarize, but you can find it posted on Commondreams.org