A theory on a confusing Presidential poll, informed by the CD7 primary

Without research, one could be forgiven for assuming that John Edwards and Barack Obama are duking it out to become the liberal alternative to Hillary Clinton, whose pro-Iraq War, anti-free speech record has drawn the ire of activists. But the polls show something different. As noted at Eschaton:

Obama/Edwards supporters don't seem inclined to support the other one. Clinton is a popular 2nd choice as well as 1st one, and when Obama or Edwards are excluded from the poll their support largely shifts to Clinton.

Conventional wisdom, thrown under the bus by the truth.

That poll also shows support for Edwards as first choice nearly doubling from 9% to 19% since November 2006, while Obama's support has remained level at 19% - 20% since the day he declared. And there I go, evidencing Atrios' interpretation. I lean towards Edwards and I find myself bashing Obama.

Meanwhile, a very recent University of Iowa poll (found here) reveals this:

Results show that Edwards remains the leader among likely Democratic caucus goers, competing primarily with Clinton for caucus support. Edwards led by a substantial margin with 34.2 percent. Clinton followed with 28.5 percent, and Obama with 19.3 percent... Although Edwards led in support among Democratic caucus goers, this same group believed Clinton was the strongest candidate.

Why would the caucus-going supporters of two theoretically similar candidates default not to each other, but to a third, less-similar candidate? Consider the CD7 primary of 2006, where Peggy Lamm, a female centrist with a history of cooperating with Republicans, faced off against two ostensibly liberal male contenders. One was Ed Perlmutter, a Democratic insider with high name recognition and a long history of campaigning in the contested district. The other was Herb Rubenstein, an intelligent, affable newcomer who could claim early opposition to the Iraq War. Three months before the election, the polls put Perlmutter at 51%, Lamm at 31% and Rubenstein at 6%.

Now exit the realm of provable facts and consider a theory.

In a Democratic primary, voters are torn by competing forces. They want a candidate they can ethically support and they also want a candidate who can win a general election. An ideologically-driven candidate's mission, then, is not just to sell him or herself, but to sell the idea that an ideologically-driven candidate can win the general election. If the candidate fails, primary voters shrug their shoulders and vote for the centrist.

In CD7, Perlmutter succeeded because the voters of CD7 knew him as a person. Edwards is following a similar path in Iowa, where he has been campaigning forever.

Rubenstein did not have Perlmutter's name recognition or ground game, so he tried an alt-strategy, reaching out to anti-war voters, bloggers and activists. Similarly, Obama has not spent as much time in Iowa as Edwards, so he is trying his own alt-strategy, becoming a fundraising juggernaut and outright celebrity who the voters of Iowa may soon see as a potential winner.

If Edwards/Perlmutter or Obama/Rubenstein supporters conclude that their candidate is a loser, they are likely to default not to a similar candidate, but to someone they view as a general election winner.

There are doubtlessly imperfections in this comparison. But if you're thinking I'm forcing it just to give myself an excuse to start posting Christina Aguilera videos again, well, that's just crazy. Since you brought it up, though:

Good vs. bad update: Good appears to be winning

HB-1341 is defeating the doubters. And the Edwardses are beating the haters. But the planet is still struggling in a tight contest with carbon dioxide.

John Edwards to hold press conference regarding Elizabeth's health

Like rnoboa, I am holding my breath about this.

UPDATE: MSNBC is reporting that sources have confirmed Edwards "is suspending his campaign for the presidency, and may drop out completely, because his wife has suffered a recurrence of the cancer that sickened her in 2004."

As saddened as I am by Edwards' decision, it is a necessary one. My heart goes out to John, Elizabeth, and their entire family.

UPDATE: Not so fast. CNN reports that the Edwards campaign will continue, despite the reappearance of Elizabeth's cancer:

John Edwards said tests this week had shown his wife, Elizabeth, had cancer in a rib on her right side. He said the cancer is treatable but not curable.

Elizabeth Edwards said she was "incredibly optimistic" and said her expectations about the future were unchanged.

"You can go cower in the corner and hide or you can go out there and stand up for what you believe in," John Edwards said. "We have no intentions of cowering in the corner."

The Edwards family has endured unspeakable pain already. The inner strength John and Elizabeth possess is an inspiration.

I have given John Edwards a lot of coverage. Discussing policy with him at a Colorado bloggers roundtable, I became convinced that he had the vision, optimism and stamina necessary to be a great President.

As I wrote here, Edwards' quest for the presidency is as much a movement as it is a campaign. So it's totally feasible that it can continue while he and his family turn their attention to supporting Elizabeth. At least, I hope so. While Clinton, Obama and Richardson are all good contenders, the field would be much weaker without John Edwards - not to mention Gore, Kerry, Warner, Bayh and Feingold.

Some random March healthcare links

• John Aloysius Farrell: "Health care is a hot topic, but specifics are hard to come by."
• Morgan Carroll: "Injured workers deserve better in Colorado!"
• Colorado Media Matters: "Rosen's guests misled on infant health care."
• And then there's this from the John Edwards campaign:

John Edwards campaign goes carbon neutral

Nice:

By conserving energy and purchasing carbon offsets, the Edwards campaign will offset the carbon emitted by Edwards and his staff's campaign travel, and the energy used in his campaign headquarters and field offices.

Prominent national conservative blogs disavow Coulter

When Ann Coulter calls a leading Democrat a faggot (and she's done it twice), it's natural to have an emotional reaction. For some of us, that reaction is outrage. For the GOP sycophants at the Post, that reaction is to blame the victim. But both of those reactions are wrong. Because neither Ann Coulter or John Edwards should be the story.

The story is the fact that the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference applauded her statement.

Spinning is different than lying. Partisanship is different than hate. Calling Bob Beauprez "Both Ways Bob" is different than calling Edwards a "faggot." Ann Coulter can say whatever she wants. But mainstream voters should think long and hard before casting votes for representatives of a party that openly celebrates Ann Coulter.

Everyone in the media seemed to gloss over this point. Fortunately, a few rightwing bloggers are trying to do the right thing. The Politico carries the full text of a letter that a "group of some of the most prominent conservative bloggers" sent to CPAC. The letter reads, in part:

Ann Coulter used to serve the movement well. She was telegenic, intelligent, and witty. She was also fearless: saying provocative things to inspire deeper thought and cutting through the haze of competing information has its uses. But Coulter's fearlessness has become an addiction to shock value. She draws attention to herself, rather than placing the spotlight on conservative ideas...

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses - where they often feel alone - at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter's mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter's invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

The letter was apparently signed by Captain's Quarters, among others.

It's good to know that the GOP still has a spine. And it is unsuprising that it's found not among the party hierarchy, but in the blogosphere. Here's hoping the bloggers inspire the GOP elite to action.

Help Our Heroes march today

The Sunday Denver Post reports that the Democratic Presidential nominee just can't win in Colorado because the party will surely elect an East Coast Liberal. The paper makes sure to get the obligatory quote from Colorado GOP chair Dick Wadhams:

"They are going to focus on national Democratic platform, not on the Rocky Mountain West," Wadhams said. "They will nominate a liberal nominee, and it will show that they are liberals, not moderates."

Apparently, the liberals Wadhams dreads have hit upon a dangerous strategy: Asking America to work hard to achieve its goals. On Friday, John Edwards spoke in Denver:

He opened with broad assessments of what he described as America's diminished ethical leadership in the world, challenged his listeners to fight global warming and promoted universal health care, easier access to college and higher minimum wages.

And what are our local liberals up to today? A press release that just landed in my inbox states that Democratic legislators Joe Rice and Chris Romer will spend today with the National Guard in support of "Help Our Heroes":

State Representative Joe Rice (D-Littleton), in partnership with elected officials and veterans groups, will be unveiling the "Help our Heroes" legislation package this Sunday, March 4, 2007, during a media event with local National Guard troops. The National Guard will be conducting their training during the event.

The Post has it wrong. The Democrats aren't just going to win Colorado in 2008. We're going to walk away with it.

Salazar meets with Bush and I have my second meltdown of the week

So what can I write about today, given that Coloradolib's 2nd All Positive, All The Time Week is nearing its end?

Well, Colorado Senator Ken Salazar is the second high-ranking Colorado Democrat to meet with the President this week. Sounds promising. The Post reports:

Sen. Ken Salazar met with President Bush Friday to discuss energy policy and request additional funding for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado.

Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, and nine other U.S. senators also attended the hour-long meeting at the White House, which Salazar said the president called to declare that energy was "on his mind" and demonstrate that he has a "working knowledge of alternative fuels."

"My main point to the president was that he's right to spotlight the energy issues that are facing our country and we need (his) leadership in order to get something done," Salazar said.

The topic of global warming did not come up.

So that sounds positive. Wait a second. No it doesn't. It sounds like an egregious example of political fluff. Let's try again. What else is going on? Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot."

I give up. All Positive, All The Time Week is hard.

More assorted APATTW nonsnark

• Edwards to Denver: "Be inspired!"
• Saturn to galaxy: "Be awed!"
• Denver Three to White House: "Be sorry!"

John Edwards on Auraria Campus Thursday

John Edwards is one of the few people who can make sacrifice and hard work seem positively uplifting. See for yourself.

Democratic candidates meet in Nevada

Coverage: MyDD, Denver Post, New York Times, Politico

Coverage of Richardson in Denver: Rocky, Coyote Gulch

John Edwards on healthcare

Read Edwards' plan on johnedwards.com. And while I'm at it, here's a link to Colorado healthcare blog Ave Cassandra's analysis.

(More: Hillary, Obama, Richardson)

Assorted snark, politics edition

• Georgia State Sen.: "I'm battier than Schultheis!"
• Lieberman crony: "Bloggers are babies!"
• Newsweek: "John Edwards is dreamy!"
• CoCo: "Hillman and Beauprez have dumb websites!"
• DCCC: "Colorado is bulletproof!"

Hat-tip to SquareState for the DCCC link.

Assorted snark from the 2008 primaries

• McEwan to Edwards: "Adios."
• Hillary to Rove: "Boo!"
• Russert to Dems: "Huh?"
• Tancredo to House: "Whichever."

And finally, SquareState points out that the Ken Salazar for Vice-President rumors I wrote about last year are still swirling.

Evan Bayh would probably make a better runningmate for Hillary, Richardson or Obama. But an Edwards/Salazar ticket would be just about perfect.

"...you and the horse you rode in on!"

Amanda Marcotte quits the John Edwards campaign:

"Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don't respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics."

(More: Fix, Pandagon)

Edwards: "We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked"

John Edwards did the right thing. (Edwards, Fix, Kos)

Why I'm all worked up about the Edwards bloggers

There are two things about this issue that bother me:

1. Marcotte and McEwen may be controversial. But much worse has been written on the Internet by anonymous bloggers who publish unsourced assertions and vile speech while hiding behind pseudonyms. (I mention some local examples here, here and here.)

2. Republican Senators like John McCain and John Thune have also employed controversial bloggers. They got away with it because they kept their relationships secret, and were never questioned by a credulous media.

In the end, the debate is larger than John Edwards. If the radical right and the mainstream media have their way, honest, controversial commentary may disappear. In its place will be the deceitful, anonymous, clandestine Internet of John McCain and John Thune. And that'd be a very ugly Internet indeed.

(Media Matters: 1, 2, 3, 4)

John Edwards fires, fires and rehires, or doesn't fire bloggers

An update on my post "Social conservative attacks Edwards bloggers."

The Edwards campaign has not officially responded. But Salon suggested the bloggers may have been fired. Meanwhile Chris Cillizza noted the difficulty of hiring anyone whose every political opinion had been cached on the Internet. But the prize for best insight and analysis goes to Glenn Greenwald, who pointed out controversial remarks made by a blogger for the John McCain campaign.

This point is important. McCain's blogger didn't get his candidate in hot water is because he reportedly concealed the relationship. Edwards, on the other hand, offered America honesty. And it appears America may make him regret it.

Social conservative attacks Edwards bloggers

CNN reports that a prominent social conservative, Bill Donohue, is attacking the John Edwards campaign for employing bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan who, prior to working with the campaign, had been critical of the religious right.

There is a campaign to save Marcotte and McEwan's jobs launching here.

Donohue has a history of hysterical rhetoric. He has opined that child abuse in the Catholic church was "a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal" and that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity." [Source] Donohue has also stated that, "'If you asked' some Hollywood actors 'to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face.'" [Source]

How John Edwards responds to Donohue will tell us a lot about how serious the candidate is about freedom of speech. I have been enormously supportive of Edwards. I hope his sense of right and wrong outweighs his political instincts.

Cross-posted at SquareState.

John Edwards, universal healthcare and the lazy, lazy media

Chris Cillizza's blog at The Washington Post is usually a must-read. But today, he's giving blogxygyn to the idea that presidential candidate John Edwards' universal healthcare plan could cost us the White House in 2008. The truth is that at the local and national levels, Americans favor raising taxes in order to fund a single-payer healthcare system.

John Edwards speaks at the DNC

Read the full remarks as prepared. Also, make sure to check out state party vice-chair Dan Slater's post.

Cross-posted to SquareState.

Things get testy on the campaign trail

Joe Biden and John Edwards speak out on the field. Yikes.

Edwards, Obama or Clinton: We can't lose

Our three 2008 frontrunners all commit to universal healthcare in this Chicago Tribune article.

Your 2008 update for January 24, 2007

The media has a big, dumb crush on the Hillary/Obama storyline. Edwards and Biden are reacting to Iraq escalation. And John Kerry's not running in 2008.

Which would be the richer primary? Those that are running - Richardson, Obama, Hillary, Biden and Edwards? Or those that aren't - Kerry, Feingold, Warner and Bayh?

Edwards to deliver anti-war speech in Clinton's backyard

Today John Edwards will come out against funding the escalation in a speech at a historic Harlem church.

More thoughts on John Edwards for President

It wasn't so long ago, I was voicing my doubts about a John Edwards candidacy. I wasn't sure whether he had the pragmatism to fix the foreign policy messes made by George W. Bush. And between Hillary the establishment favorite, Obama the fresh face, and Biden the senior statesman, there seemed to be little ownable space left for Edwards.

Today he announced a Presidential campaign that appears to be as much about movement-building as it is about winning the White House. Ezra Klein and Atrios both have commentary. The former writes:

"This campaign," Edwards promised, "will be a grassroots, ground-up campaign where we ask the people to take action." As part of that, there'll be monthly Days of Action, the first on January 27th, which will exhort volunteers and supporters to enter their communities and work on a particular issue. "Americans," Edwards kept saying," have to be patriotic about something besides war," and that means taking individual initiative to ease poverty, conserve energy, and create the Good Society even without holding office. The announcement was striking for sounding less like a campaign for the presidency and more like a telethon. His campaign would certainly like to lead in the polls, but Edwards seemed more interested in leading a movement.

Klein's post reminded me of something I wrote about Edwards when I saw him at a luncheon back in March:

Most of his speech focused on poverty. He talked about the immorality of a culture that subsidizes oil companies while cancelling school lunch programs. And he talked about the face of poverty that he has seen traveling across the country over the last year. He also offered several concrete proposals on how to end poverty, like mixed-income communities and easier access to financial aid. I kept thinking, "This doesn't sound like someone who is running for President in 2008. This sounds like someone who has found his life's calling and who has dedicated himself to it. It sounds like someone who understands the promise of self-determination and is terrified to see it slipping away."

Can Edwards' crusade catch fire in the America of 2006, where the President ended the year with a speech begging Americans to "go shopping more"?

John Edwards from the Upper Ninth Ward

John Edwards is in

It's official.

Happy holidays from John Edwards (for President)

I got the same email from John Edwards that MyDD and Benny's World did. An excerpt:

For the past two years, we've worked together to build an America that lives up to its promise - one where we all share in prosperity at home and one that shows real moral leadership around the world.

I'm proud of our successes fighting poverty, supporting working families, and standing up for what we believe.

Now, we have a big decision to make - and I do mean we.

I'm getting ready to take this effort to the next level - to bring Americans together in all fifty states to tackle the big challenges facing our country, from poverty and lack of health care, to energy and global warming...

If you want to take this effort to next level, send me an e-mail and
let me know: JohnEdwards@readytochangeamerica.com.

For the record, I tried to find a link. But when I typed in readytochangeamerica, it resolved to the aforementioned MyDD post. When I typed in readytochangeamerica.com, it resolved to johnedwardsevents.com.

Photo of Edwards, me and assorted bloggers courtesty of ProgressNow.

Chris Matthews on John Edwards

I'm six days late on this quote. But in light of my recent support for John Edwards, I'm blogging it:

"This is not hardball, this is batting practice," [Hardball moderator Chris] Matthews complained to the audience during a commercial break. "This guy is killing me. He couldn't do this four years ago."

Matthews' praise for Edwards is even more impressive when you consider the NBC host's propensity for regurgitating GOP talking points. Matthews was named Media Matters 2005 Misinformer of the Year.

Thanks to Coyote Gulch and Political Wire for the News & Observer link.

Bayh out, Edwards probably in

From today's Rocky:

Sen. Evan Bayh on Saturday ended his White House bid while 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards finalized plans to get in, fast-paced jockeying in a Democratic race under the shadow of two unannounced candidates.

Bayh decided he could not compete with Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, whose possible candidacies have dominated the positioning almost two years before the actual election.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, has decided he can and is planning to announce his campaign in New Orleans between Christmas and New Year's, two Democrats said.

That's it, I'm endorsing Edwards. Who's with me?

Me and John Edwards and possibly the longest post in the history of Coloradolib

I know what everybody out there is wondering.

What did I do today before I had lunch?

I sat in a conference room at the new Hyatt with former vice presidential nominee and 2008 frontrunner Senator John Edwards.

Who was there besides me and the Senator?

Writers from Square State, ColoradoPols, Dave Cullen, Colorado Confidential and Talk Left. And activists from Progressive Majority and Progress Now Action, who arranged the whole thing and I will love 'em forever for it.

The question I didn't ask the Senator.

Is Amanda Congdon super-hot in person?

The question I did ask the Senator.

"When I saw you speak in March, you advocated integrating neighborhoods by economic class. Um, can you, uh, explain that?"

What the Senator answered.

Edwards was sitting directly to my left and it was a real experience to have him turn, look me square in the eye, and describe one of his most controversial ideas. It involves a restructuring of HUD and the nation's housing voucher system to give people more choice and local governments more control. In America today, education and capital are mobile. If we give people the ability to migrate to the neighborhoods they choose, we can give technicians and laborers the same advantages that knowledge workers and the creative class currently enjoy.

Want to read more about that?

Go for it.

What else did we talk about?

Edwards rebuffed questions about political campaigns and talking points. He wanted to talk policy.

The conversation initially focused on social issues. The President has bought a tenuous recovery by running up a gigantic deficit while cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans. The result has been a system where the GDP and Dow increase while wages drop or remain stagnant. Is there a solution or are we screwed?

Edwards offered three goals our country needs to pursue to right the economy. A war on poverty. A change in the energy dynamic. And a universal healthcare system. In fact, he said he is hard at work on a proposal that will guarantee efficient, economical healthcare for all Americans. Since Edwards had just proposed increasing the use of housing vouchers to help fight poverty in America, I wonder if his healthcare system might use them the same way, like a plan I saw in The Washington Monthly.

Edwards also talked terrorism. He managed to dig himself a bit of a hole as he tried to split the difference between legalizing torture and giving future presidents the tools to protect America. He pointed out that the Military Commission Act, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have lessened America's moral authority. But he refused to rule out the use of aggressive interrogation tactics in extreme circumstances. It wasn't the answer the crowd wanted, and we discussed it for a long time after Edwards left without reaching any consensus.

But to me, the exchange was a clear indication that Edwards is planning a White House run in 2008. It seems like he has thought through the shades of gray a President might face.

Who else is writing about the roundtable?

Probably all the bloggers I mentioned up top. Knock yourself out.

Where can you buy Elizabeth Edwards' book?

It's on Amazon.

Where did I eat lunch afterwards?

At the Appaloosa Grill with five other bloggers. We discussed what we'd heard; the idea that if we all linked to each other, none of us would actually need to spend time writing about the event; and whether Bill Winter will destroy Tom Tancredo or merely whup him. Were we being overly optimistic about the CD6 race? Maybe. Hanging out with John Edwards will do that to you. His charisma is legendary. But his optimism is what I find most appealing. Edwards believes in America. He's apparently devoid of cynicism or guile.

So, like, Edwards in '08, then?

Yeah, probably. Let's get through '06 first.

Photo courtesy of Progress Now Action.