Among independents in the exit-polled states, Kerry has beaten Edwards in six contests; Edwards has beaten Kerry in four. This month, the candidates are tied with four wins apiece. Since Feb. 10, Edwards has won two primaries to Kerry’s one.
The pattern among crossover Republicans is more lopsided. Kerry has won one contest; Edwards has won six. This month, Edwards has beaten Kerry among Republicans in all six states in which Republican votes were measured.
…Fine, you say. But independents and crossover Republicans don’t control Democratic primaries. Democrats do, and they’re voting for Kerry.
That’s true. But the exit polls show that, by and large, Democrats aren’t voting for Kerry because they prefer him on the issues. They’re voting for him because they think he’s the Democrat most likely to beat Bush. What happens if they find out he isn’t? What happens if they realize that Edwards is doing as well as Kerry among independents and is doing better than Kerry among crossover Republicans?
I’m for Kerry. Mainly because I consider myself a pragmatist. But then, last night, I was standing in the polling booth here in Milwaukee and my pencil was hovering over the ballot and… I thought about the Wisconsin debate. Edwards, in my opinion, truly won that debate. He was affable, intelligent, on message, and didn’t try to dodge any questions. Being #2 means you can be a bit brave, I suppose, but I decided last night to reward his candor and his ideas. I voted for Edwards.
I’m praying for a Kerry/Edwards ticket because I really want to vote for Edwards as President in 2012.
Good for you, Bub. I think based on what you just said, voting for Edwards was the best choice. I can understand taking Kerry to be pragmatic, but I’m not so sure he’s really the best candidate to face Bush. Imagine Edwards’ debate performance on Sunday against George Bush. Would it really be much of a contest? The only reason why Gore didn’t destroy Bush in the debates is because he’s a robot. Imagine Edwards, with his sensible middle-of-the-road ideas, his honesty, and his likability going against Bush. It could get ugly for Bush.
Anyway, I absolutely respect your decision to go with the candidate you respected the most. If other democrats give Kerry the nomination, then a Kerry/Edwards ticket is respectable. But I feel that had you still gone with Kerry, that would have been a wasted vote. Voting for the #2 guy was the better use of your vote given what you said. Anyway, what I’m saying doesn’t mean shit so I guess just ignore it.
I guess I need to do more research on the Patriot Act, how much depends on the AG implementing it, and how much of it is set to expire.
I don’t think it’s quite the trump card you’re making it to be when considering the entire platform. Bush more than likes the Patriot Act, he dirty backdoor loves it. I bet Kerry would like it too if it were more popular with the public. I guess I just don’t see this as some fatal flaw that crashed the house of cards just to jumble some sayings together for no reason.
Well, Dean is out. And most of his delegates were superdelegates. They weren’t won in primaries. But if you’re a Democratic congressman or governor or Senator, you get a vote in the convention, hence you’re a superdelegate. I wonder how many of those superdelegates who pledged themselves to Dean early on have changed their mind since. They’re not bound to vote for Dean, they can switch sides.
Well, Dean is out. And most of his delegates were superdelegates. They weren’t won in primaries. But if you’re a Democratic congressman or governor or Senator, you get a vote in the convention, hence you’re a superdelegate. I wonder how many of those superdelegates who pledged themselves to Dean early on have changed their mind since. They’re not bound to vote for Dean, they can switch sides.[/quote]
I know what superdelegates are. But right now, Dean is in second, Edwards in in third. Numbers don’t lie, to quote the title of this thread.
I’m not against the fact that Edwards and Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. I’m against how it has been used and I’m against that Bush wants it renewed. I think the Patriot Act, or something similar, was necessary at that time because, well, everybody seemed to think another attack was imminent. Voting against it would have been risky. Principalled, yeah, but definitely risky.
My pragmatism comes from my thinking that Kerry is the best “against Bush” candidate simply because he makes National Security much harder for Bush to run on. I think the vast majority of Moderates, the people elections tend to hinge on, consider that a priority. Kerry has problems, yeah, but I’m not convinced those problems are going to carry much weight with the electorate. Edwards other Presidential problem, as I see it, is that I’m not convinced that 2004 is the right time for the “Two Americas” and the “let’s get rid of poverty” speeches. If it wasn’t for 9/11, yeah, that would work, but because of 9/11 and Iraq I think we need a President who is a statesman and a bit of a foreign policy diplomat.
Now, Edwards bringing domestic/economic issues forward (and being a Southerner with considerable, yet not creepy, charm) with Kerry playing tough and offering foreign policy/statesmanship/experience/veteran/etc., experience… well, I see that as a winning ticket.
Yeah, Edwards vs Bush in the debates would be a disaster for Bush… but I doubt he’ll fare that well against Kerry’s monotonal (yet not annoying - to me) statesman-like gravitas. Gore beat the crap out of him… but blew it by being all “Al Gore” (remember when Gore crept up behind Bush to emphasize his height - or attack him - or something?)
Show me something that says he wants to scale it back and I’ll change my mind. That link seems to indicate that he tried to make the best of it when it was being drafted, but not that he wants to scale back the ridiculous amount of power it holds right now.
The only advantage Edwards brings that I can see is his short voting record in the Senate. He has shown no desire to go for the jugular in his campaign, against either Dem rivals or the President. And I don’t think that will cut it this fall.
I think Kerry is more knowledgeable, more experienced, and will be a tougher campaigner.
Maybe, except can you even remotely imagine a Republican choosing a Democratic running mate? Appointing a Democrat to significant cabinet position? My suspicion is that bipartisanship is just a ploy to sucker Democrats.
