Edwards the Electable?

Byron York puzzles over the latest national poll numbers, which show Edwards wiping the floor with every Republican comer, while both Obama and Hillary run closer to their possible GOP foes. My impression is that this has been the case for a while, and I'd posit three possible (and by no means mutually-exclusive) explanations. First of all, most voters' image of Edwards was formed in the '04 race, when he ran as a more centrist candidate than he's become this time around; thus despite having move steadily leftward over the last three years, he's still perceived as the least liberal of the Democratic front-runners by the general public. (Democratic primary voters, who are presumably paying closer attention, have a more accurate assessment.) Second, he's a Southern white male, and even if the percentage of swing voters who would rule out voting for a woman or a black man is relatively small (and it might be large-ish), his race and sex alone would still presumably give him a slight boost. Third, he's received considerably less press attention than Hillary and Obama over the last six months, and in a year when a generic Democrat would presumably trounce a generic Republican, he's presumably still a more "generic" figure than either of his better-publicized opponents, and thus a better vessel for undecided voters to pour their anti-GOP animus into.

The other possibility, of course, is that most people just really like the guy, but as a confirmed Edwards-hater I'm loathe to even consider it.

Photo by Flickr user alexdecarvalho used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

Yeah... Edwards was a trial lawyer, so he's more worthy of "hate" than vapid warmongering cretins like Giuliani and Romney. Uh huh. Plus, he spends too much on his haircuts!

Anti-GOP animus has been richly earned over these past 7 years and I hope the payback makes every last defender of the reptiles cry.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 11, 2007 12:34 PM

ML&J, I think it's much simpler than that. A lot of hard-right extremists hate Edwards because deep down, they want to kiss him. That angers and confuses them.

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 11, 2007 1:03 PM

Even Democratic primary voters don't seem to be aware of Edwards' current positioning. I seem to recall a recent poll that showed likely primary voters think Hillary is the furthest left of the three major candidates on the war, whereas in fact she's furthest right (by a considerable margin).

Edwards is a good-looking Southern white guy lost in the primaries last time to a guy Democrats regret nominating and lost in the general to a guy much of the country regrets re-electing. Whereas Obama is a black guy with a funny name and Hillary is . . . Hillary. So sure, Edwards trounces the GOP opposition. Whether that's an indication of how well he'd actually do in a general election campaign is another story, and depends on whether you think Edwards is an effective campaigner.

I don't think he is. I can't point to anything he did particularly well in his Vice Presidential campaign, but more to the point, he has won one election in his whole life. It is very difficult for me to take candidates like Romney and Edwards, who declined to face the voters for reelection even once, seriously as candidates. They might be great guys; they might have great ideas. But we have very little idea whether they'd be good, much less great, candidates.

Posted by Noah Millman | December 11, 2007 1:17 PM

For the record, it's not so much the trial lawyer thing, or that he has turned left, for some of us. Edwards just is personally grating. I loathed him when he was a DLC centrist in North Carolina, just because he oozes insincerity, ambition, and pseudo-charm.

Giuliani is indeed a jerk -- I can't loathe 'em both? Romney's not my choice for president, heaven knows, but he doesn't personally disgust me. Neither does Obama, who I don't like much more (and who seems to have a penchant for weird warmongering -- just with Pakistan and Iran).

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2007 2:31 PM

I'm with the Marquis. Policy preferences aside, Edwards and Giuliani both seem so slimy and obnoxious to me that I can't imagine ever voting for either. The rest of the candidates range from merely distasteful (Hillary, Romney) to moderately appealing (Obama, Huckabee).

Posted by right | December 11, 2007 2:54 PM

"just because he oozes insincerity, ambition, and pseudo-charm."

This is true, but why does it matter?

Posted by Brendan | December 11, 2007 3:22 PM

I hope the payback makes every last defender of the reptiles cry.

You really have to wonder if it's not all a big joke and that Jim Keane (MoeLarryAndJesus) isn't really just some sort of elaborate performance artist pulling one over on all of us. I mean how does a grown man write the above quoted sentence with a straight face?

Posted by Mark Adams | December 11, 2007 3:42 PM

TMoC again: "I loathed him when he was a DLC centrist in North Carolina, just because he oozes insincerity, ambition, and pseudo-charm."

How can a two-time Bush voter possibly have a problem with that trinity?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 11, 2007 4:50 PM

Did I ever actually say I was a two-time Bush voter?

Anyway, I fear that Bush is sincere and (in a strange partial sense) unambitious. The sincerity (in some ways) one of his worst features. I never voted for Bush out of any personal liking. I even considered McCain, despite his many failings and bad policy positions, a better choice in 2000.

I can imagine possible candidate pools where I'd prefer Edwards and vote for him (certainly the DLC Edwards of his first senate run), despite loathing him.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2007 5:09 PM

TMoC replies: "Did I ever actually say I was a two-time Bush voter?"

You didn't have to.

Who, if he were not that, would not take any opportunity to deny being a member of that ugly class? It's like the opposite of the great Connery line from "The Untouchables."

"Who would claim to be that who was not?"

In future years being a two-time Bush voter will be one of those shameful things families try to hide, like snapshots of dead uncles in SS or Klan uniforms.

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

Romney's not my choice for president, heaven knows, but he doesn't personally disgust me

Then you haven't been paying attention. Have you ever seen him give a straight answer to a hard question? Doesn't it occur to you that every position he's changed since being governor or Massachusetts amounts to pandering to the Christian Right? Do you think that, while throwing Larry Craig over the side, it was also necessary to call him "disgusting"?

Romney is filth.

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

But I'm NOT a two-time Bush voter, actually.

I'm still not sure that I was right not to be, given the choices at hand and all factors, but I'm not.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 11, 2007 7:49 PM

So you wrote in Bernard Law the other time?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 11, 2007 8:39 PM

I bet my anti-GOP animus can beat up your Edwards hatred,

Posted by tgb1000#yahoo.com | December 11, 2007 10:28 PM

Its the generic Democrat reason. Most people nationwide haven't paid close attention to the race and Edwards has gotten far less attention than Clinton and Obama or even the Republicans. Mostly the public knows that his wife has a very tragic illness. Those New Hampshire polls where he is at 10% despite being in that state for 5 years, and despite being the white male candidate who would logically be the antiClinton, show that he doesn't wear all that well.

The huge house, the haircut, the hedge fund, gaming Medicare taxes in his law practice, the flip flops, the opportunism, the ultra left celebrities around him, the public financing limits that would leave him broke for 4 months --- he is only a little more electable than Kucinich.

Posted by Karen | December 12, 2007 9:29 AM

For starters, anyone who supported either Bush or Nader, at any time in 2000 or 2004, has automatically forfeited any right to bitch in any way about whomever the Democrats choose. Period.

Any Republican who in any way makes any comments about Edwards' career as a trial lawyer should remind himself who founded his party, that crafty, slick trail lawyer Abe Lincoln. And how did William Howard Taft get his start, btw?

Why does Edwards do better? Simple: White Southerner with few negatives. Not a polarizing former first lady from New York, not a somewhat inexperienced Black liberal. Just once and barely, America elected a Catholic. And just take a look at the election trends since then.

The only real stinker IMHO on the Dem side is Richardson. Kucinich has the quality most treasured by the current left - no chance whatsoever of getting elected. Biden and Dodd are easily electable. There you have it.

Posted by Andrew | December 12, 2007 9:47 AM

Edwards couldn't even carry his home state of North Carolina. He was unimpressive as a vice presidential candidate.

Posted by David | December 12, 2007 10:06 AM

Earth to Ross! Let me get this straight--I'm comment #17 and nobody has pointed out the obvious? Edwards gets more support from Republican voters than Clinton and Obama because he is a white male.

Talk about the love that dare not speak its name!

Posted by Rich | December 12, 2007 10:08 AM

My apologies to Andrew at 9:47--he did mention this, albeit with more specifics than I think are necessary.

Posted by Rich | December 12, 2007 10:09 AM

That Edwards did not (help) carry North Carolina in 2004 is more the fault of the head of the ticket, his pathetic campaign, Bob Shrum, etc., although I was none too pleased with Edwards' performance in the debate with Cheney. But Edwards overall did have the misfortune of being the running mate of an especially pathetic campaign, recycled Mondale.

That is one thing I'll give both Clinton and Obama: They're not wimps. I think of Hillary as Bill with balls. That's one area about Edwards I remain concerned about. As one astute friend recently observed, "Kerry, Gore, Mondale; and I'll even include Carter: we keep running the same pathetic wimps over and over again."

Again, Edwards is not a woman, not a Black liberal (Powell could have been President); not from a Blue state. These are all entirely legitimate issues as far as Democrats choosing who to nominate, at least if you're serious about winning. (A large portion of our party is not serious about winning; see above.)

Posted by Andrew | December 12, 2007 10:23 AM

he has won one election in his whole life.

Obama also has only won a single election, and he won that one by forfeit. (Talking big leagues here; state senate doesn't count. I could get elected to a state legislature.)

Hillary's won two elections, one of which was not much of a contest, though to be fair that's probably because no one could have given her a run for her money in 2006.

Posted by Jason | December 12, 2007 11:33 AM

I think it's because he's known but on the sidelines. The Hillary vs. Obama race has turned pretty nasty.

Though it could also be because Edwards is tapping into a populist sentiment that is very present on the right. And, in an election against somebody like Romney, the far right might have reason to leave, and to them Edwards is the most acceptable.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | December 12, 2007 11:51 AM

Re: Obama: Actually, he has won three elections. He was twice elected to the Illinois State Senate, where he represented (roughly) 218,000 people.

Posted by The Bag of Health and Politics | December 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Biden and Dodd are easily electable. There you have it.

Look, if I had to pick one of the Democrats running to be president, by magic fiat, I'd probably pick Biden. And maybe he'd be electable, though motormouth Joe might say something that would earn him a ticket to loserville pretty fast. But Dodd? I think the most uncharismatic, uninteresting, senator in a field of senators would lose to a number of Republican nominees, even in the looming bloodbath of 08.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 12, 2007 12:15 PM

The only argument I think holds water is #2.

On #1: I agree that Edwards is more left this time than last, but last time he was still one of the most progressive members of the field. "Two Americas" is not a centrist theme, and neither is "let's reward work, not wealth." The main difference is that this time anti-poverty plays a bigger role (last time it was a more generic pro-equality).

On #3: While generic Democrats perform better, any time this is replaced with named Democrat the numbers get worse. If you put Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Gravel, or Special K there, they'd do worse in the matchups than Edwards, and they are all less well known.

On #2: Put simply, progressivism sounds better when the speaker has a southern accent. Bill Clinton. Jimmy Carter. LBJ. Or put another way, when John Kerry says something he's a Northeastern liberal, if John Edwards says the same thing he's a Southern populist.

I think the white male thing may also play a role. Before the OH-05 election, someone mentioned that Democrats only hold 5 seats that are redder than OH-05. All of those seats are held by white males. Not super-compelling, given the overall numbers of Congress, but something to consider.

Posted by JoshA | December 12, 2007 2:05 PM

Ah, you have good points, Marquis. It's so purely academic, as is Richardson and Kucinich. The backdrop is key, everything, though: America is yearning to vote Democratic. America has had it with this regime. We got that sinking feeling. On that backdrop, it's just as likely that Biden at least could also trounce the Republican nominee.

Regardless, though, is the biggest real issue, to make Bush the issue, the Bush disaster; how do we cleanse ourselves from the poison he has infected our body politic with?

Posted by Andrew | December 12, 2007 2:45 PM

abe lincoln should rot in hell!He should have let the south go there own disgusting way.Im so sick and tired of every election we have to cater to the bigets and wackos in the south.And if you voted for Bush do us all a favor and stay home on the next election day.Bush wasnt the problem,the people who voted for him are!

Posted by truthynesslover | December 12, 2007 2:53 PM

This is the first time I've seeen this blog (I was linked from Andrew Sullivan's blog). Why are you a confirmed Edwards hater? He's the only person who seems to give a damn about helping the people who need help the most: the poor, the disenfranchised, the ordinary folks out there without health insurance or personal lobbyists. I agree that he can be unsavory at times, but which major politician in either party isn't?

Yes, Edwards became very wealthy as a trial lawyer, but he got rich directly by helping extract large sums from sometimes unscrupulous or negligent corporations for people who were victimized by them.

I don't know your background and whether you're liberal or conservative, but there isn't anybody who possibly could have done a worse job prosecuting the war on terror than George W. Bush. And all the major Republican candidates save McCain want to maintain torture, as if that does anything but hinder our global war on terrorism! And Mike Huckabee said in a debate that he doesn't believe in evolution!

I'm a Democrat who has wavered between Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Biden, but for the first time I see a candidate who recognizes the ultimate issue that adversely impacts all others -- the perverse influence of big money lobbyists in Washington.

Posted by edwards08 | December 13, 2007 6:50 AM

And Mike Huckabee said in a debate that he doesn't believe in evolution!

Well, my gosh. Let's not make him our high school science teacher or biology prof., then.

There are about a hundred better reasons not to pick Huckabee for president than that.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 13, 2007 12:00 PM

the perverse influence of big money lobbyists in Washington.

But what, precisely, is Edwards going to do about that? He's certainly not going to shut down the trial lawyers' lobby, which is (last I checked) one of the more powerful out there, for example...

I don't like Edwards policy positions, etc., but I think Ross here (and myself) are mostly expressing an instant, aesthetic, personal distaste for Edwards --- he just rubs us really really really the wrong way.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 13, 2007 12:03 PM

TMoC writes: "But what, precisely, is Edwards going to do about that? He's certainly not going to shut down the trial lawyers' lobby, which is (last I checked) one of the more powerful out there, for example..."

I guess TMoC hasn't "checked" since he voted for Dumbya in 2000...

But then, of course he hasn't.

This is the essential dishonesty of Repiglicans. They continue to insist that the dreaded "trial lawyers" and "ACLU" and "Hollywood elites" are running everything when...

Ah, why do I bother... these dishonest, lunatic pricks will keep their stupid nonsense going into infinity. Stay tuned to hear more of their nonsense being reported as fact by their gape-mouthed goober pals. Did you know that the single worst miscarriage of justice ever was some old lady winning a lawsuit against McDonalds after she was burned by their hot coffee? They do! They'll still be yapping about it a decade from now. To hell with the Scottsboro boys, Mickey D's might have to raise prices by a billionth of a cent! The heavens mourn!

There is nothing dumber or more reptilian than a movement conservative.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 18, 2007 2:05 AM