More

Ari Melber

Ari Melber

Posted: December 21, 2007 03:07 PM

John Edwards + Ben Harper = Most Electable?


How bad do you want to win back the White House? As the primaries finally approach, a growing share of Democratic voters say choosing the most electable candidate is more important than the issues, according to a brand new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. (Voters who prioritize electability are now 45 percent of the Democratic electorate, up 9 points from last month.) Now I think electability is a strategically flawed and morally vapid way to pick the next President. We should vote for leaders, not general election strategies.

But on top of that, it's striking that most Democrats wrongly think that being a primary frontunner means a candidate is most likely to win the general election. Over six out of ten Democrats say Clinton is the most electable, for example, in last week's CBS/New York Times poll. But a battery of national polls suggest John Edwards is the most electable candidate. Average all the head-to-head polls from July until now, and Edwards beats Republicans by an average of 8 points, while Obama averages a 5-point edge and Clinton nets only a 3-point lead. (Some individual polls show larger leads for each candidate, of course, but these are the broader trends.) This sharp YouTube video tells the story quite clearly, complete with a Ben Harper soundtrack. Readers should note that it was produced by the Jed Report blogger, who runs an anti-Hillary site, but the polls are public and the methodology is available. And I'm not sure what's worse: applying electability to pick the Commander in Chief, or applying it incorrectly.

----
Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared.

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:29 AM on 12/24/2007
This is an interesting debate. How do you pick your candidate, electability or principled leadership?

I happen to believe John Edwards has both. He is taking the strongest stand against corporate influence over our government. So much so that even Ralph Nader is considering endorsing him.

I like the ideas coming from Barack Obama, but I feel he hasn't shown much leadership in the Senate. The same goes for Hillary Clinton. Chris Dodd earned my respect for preventing retroactive immunity for the telecomms so far. I wish Obama and Clinton would have stood out in the Senate, by fighting against Bush and the Republicans--I just haven't seen it.

I'm looking for a fighter in a candidate--one who will go head to head with the bullies.

- Tom

ps. I like Kucinich a lot but don't feel he has much of a chance as a presidential candidate. He's a great representative. Impeachment: bring it on!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ChristianEcon.com
"The Lord abhors dishonest scales."-Proverbs
09:45 AM on 12/24/2007
If Democrats are only potentially leading by 8, 5, or 3 point margins, I'm very concerned for this country and this world, considering the comprehensive disaster Republican ideology has proven to be, regardless of how lame Dem frontrunners are.
09:37 AM on 12/24/2007
Thanks for bringing us this excellent video. Electability is enormously important, assuming that one cares about WINNING -- and doesn't the notion of continued Republican rule in any form strike fear in your heart?

I've preferred Edwards all along, on principle, because the rest (apart from Kucinich) aren't likely to oppose the corporatist economic system they feed off. An Edwards win would finally give regular people a chance again, after three decades of being robbed blind by the ultra-rich.

We're in the grip of a greed so extreme that it negates the traditional social contract between government and the governed. Everywhere we see parts of the same picture: a portrait of deliberate decay, brought to us by those who don’t give a damn about the citzenry, except insofar as we can be induced to buy both their products and their lies on the airwaves they monopolize (which we’ve forgotten we own) and insofar as we can be taxed to support corporate subsidies and bailouts; war profiteering; militarism; paramilitary forces; prisons and police state powers; privatization of government functions; environmental destruction as a path to drill Arctic oil; an educational system structured to produce terrified worker-bees laden with debt; special breaks for the most privileged; the export of our own jobs; and foreign “aid” programs designed to reduce other countries to the same level of subservience that the Masters of the Universe call “freedom”.

Let’s face it, these pigs want America broken. It’s nothing personal; they want every nation broken, except in the capacity of its government to control the people. Then all they have to do is control the governments, which have been easy enough to buy. Let’s face this, too: Republican economic policies were continued and even expanded under Bill Clinton. He happily gave us NAFTA, GATT and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
08:18 AM on 12/24/2007
John Edwards + "I'm the most ELECTABLE" = Don't vote for the white girl or the Black guy, they will never make it through the general election because most whites are racist or sexist.

I would have more respect for John Edwards if he would just come out and say vote for me because "I'm a WHITE GUY". He's a bigot and a coward as are most of his supporters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalrebuttal
10:53 PM on 12/23/2007
Look at the recent polling and you will see Obama beating all the Republicans. Hillary and Edwards ? Not so much.

The "electable" spin isn't working and it's too late in the game to think up another strategy.
03:38 PM on 12/22/2007
The truth is, Edwards is the clear, BEST choice. Everyone is getting caught up with the trends that they forget they have a mind of their own. Edwards has the same message on "hope and change" if any Obama supporter cared to listen. Get off the paddywagon already and wise up.

The people who support me are fearless. - John Edwards
09:16 AM on 12/22/2007
Paul Krugman calls Obama a "feel good", "the anti-change candidate".
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/17/5862/

Ron Walters on Bill Moyers
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12142007/transcript3.html
"...unless Hillary stops him in Florida, he might just go all the way [to win the nomination]. [Yet] When you look at the history of this country and the history of racism and race in particular there is a huge, huge doubt that he will eventually become president of the United States."

Krugman again:
"And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
timm0
It's impossible to have too many malasadas.
05:44 PM on 12/21/2007
"Now I think electability is a strategically flawed and morally vapid way to pick the next President."

I've said virtually the same thing many, many times. It's part of the reason why jack-offs like the DLC and the Rs have such a stranglehold on the Dem vote. Way too many are predictably illogical, emotional, and overly analytical. Just ask lieberman.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eddiestardust
05:39 PM on 12/21/2007
Since our jobs are going overseas by leaps and bounds, by way of Offshoring and the use of H 1-B Visas, it would be appropriate for Democrats to rally behind a candidate who is against the use of these corrupt business practices.

Senator Edwards is the only one who understands.
04:23 PM on 12/21/2007
Sorry, but there are no giants among them so it probably will not make much difference who is elected on the Democratic side. Richardson had the potential but has been unable to get the fire going. Intriguing is Republican terror at Huckabee's march to the front. A populist Republican president? Unthinkable.
04:20 PM on 12/21/2007
Ari, we love The Nation; we have been subscribers for two years now. In my opinion, The Nation cannot be swayed by the corporate media. Thank you for reporting this story and shedding some truth upon the bogus corporate media love-fest for Hillary & Obama. Not only have I believed from the very start of this campaign that John Edwards is the most electable amongst the Democratic candidates, John Edwards' stances on progressive issues appeal to the values of me and my family; we are voting for John Edwards. It is my sincerest hope that The Nation decides to endorse John Edwards.
04:19 PM on 12/21/2007
Oh, yes. Of course. A white male. Why didn't I think of that?

Except, those polls are on "perceived" electability, instead of voters who would consider voting for them in the general.

I don't trust this homegrown, hand-picked polling. It seem quite inaccurate and defies my prior knowledge. Look at the red bars... are you trying to tell me that Hillary has more Republican support than Obama? Seriously!

Come on, Republicans know almost nothing about Edwards (except that they think he's a "faggot," for some reason). He has the least experience of any candidate, and no clearly-defined message. The messages he's toting now are directly lifted from the Obama campaign... He keeps messing up, with the infamous $400 haircut and sneeze-hand shake. Can you see this guy winning an election?

Obama has the independent/moderate backing that we need to win. Don't try to deny it.