Monday, May 26, 2008

Wanna win PA and OH?

SurveyUSA, the best pollster of 2004, has recently come out with some VP pairings for Obama and McCain. Sorry Hillary fans, she's not included in their polling. But what's interesting is who seems to help Obama the most in those seemingly crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Check it out, and click on the graphs to see the crosstabs.

And for good measure, he'd even help Obama win Virginia, which hasn't voted Democratic since 1964.

Even here in California, Edwards would help Obama rack up the biggest victories.

Now I now what some of you (Aria?) are saying. This is simply name recognition at this point. Granted, that's part of it. Probably 99% of the country (and possibly quite a few Bruin Dems too) have never heard of Kathleen Sebelius or Tim Pawlenty. (FYI, they're the governors of Kansas and Minnesota, respectively.) But notice Edwards helps Obama more than Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell does for Obama in his home state of PA! This isn't just name recognition going on here.

Paul Rosenberg of OpenLeft has much more on this, an in-depth 3-part series as to why Edwards would make a great VP pick for Obama:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Also last year, I debunked the talking point that Edwards couldn't win North Carolina for John Kerry. This argument is based on some pretty bad logic and ignores what actually happened in North Carolina, as opposed to 47 other states in 2004.

I'll add this to Rosenberg's diaries. My feeling is that given how long this process is taking (thanks to Hillary threatening to take this fight to the convention), we're not going to get much time to introduce the country to our VP nominee. So if you really want the VP to help Obama first win the election so he can actually implement the necessary changes, then it would behoove you to have him pick someone with an already high name ID. And note how much better Obama/Edwards does in every matchup than the generic Obama vs. McCain matchup without any VP names given. For all the others, you'd have to hope that after building up their national name recognition, they would provide as much a boost to Obama's numbers, and there's no guarantee that will happen, as the GOP will be trying to define an unknown Democratic VP nominee at the same time to drive up their negatives.


Anonymous said...

Let us not forgot the biggest flaw of John Edwards. He doesn't have ANY credibility.

His most common refrain from the 2008 nomination was "I apologize". I apologize for my vote for the war, my vote for the bankruptcy bil.... While in the Senate and in the 2004 race Edwards was a DLC Democrat. Four years later, he turned into a barn-burning populist. The Edwards of 04 and 08 could have quite a good debate with each other.

Bob Graham. Ted Strickland, Brown, Sam Nunn, Sibelius, Gregoire, and Bredesen are much better choices. Kaine would be good. Warner would be good if he could be convinced to ditch his Senate race.

BruinKid said...

Yes, let's just completely ignore all the polls I just cited because Mr. Anonymous doesn't like Edwards. Your opinion flies in the face of actual evidence taken from multiple states.

And 2004? Um, what do you think the "Two Americas" speech was, if not barn-burning populism? Even in 2004, people were talking about how Edwards had already distanced himself from the DLC. These errors in history that you make don't lend much to your credibility on the topic. In fact, you've shown how flawed your opinion actually is.

Kyle said...

Choosing any woman who isn't Hillary would be a huge slap in the face to her millions of female supporters.

I also think any Veep considerations without her aren't particularly wise. But that's just me.

Anonymous said...

Hillary doesn't need to be considered in VP considerations. If the Clinton campaign knew anything about politics, they wouldn't have lost and had their asses handed to them.

She needs to fall in line, go to NY, and get lost and just hope noone challenges her in the NY primary.

Last question for Bruinkid, does Edwards have any credibility on any of his positions he took based on his Senate record or is it just rhetoric. Maybe you'd want to hear what Russ Feingold said about Johnny boy.

"The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war ... He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."

Kyle said...

Noone isn't a word.

Just sayin'

I'm sure Bruinkid will respond to you.

BruinKid said...

I respect Feingold a lot, but it was curious that of the votes he mentioned, Hillary Clinton also voted the exact same way as Edwards did, and yet Feingold didn't mention her but saved his ammo for Edwards.

But look, people change. Any seasoned politician has changed their minds on many issues. Whether that's due to a true change of conscience, or for political reasons, we can only speculate. Even Obama, who voted against the Kerry-Feingold Amendment in 2006 for setting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, but supported it in 2007. Did he really change because of a real change in conscience, or was it motivated by political reasons?

Or how about the reason that put me firmly in Edwards' camp, Obama's vote on the coal-to-liquid bill that Al Gore called a "horrible mistake"? Obama's since changed his mind on that one too. Is Obama credible when it comes to that?

Even someone like Dennis Kucinich was pro-life before he started running for President in 2004, and suddenly he's defending a woman's right to choose. Al Gore was very much pro-NAFTA, and even debated Ross Perot on Larry King Live over it back in 1996.

Here's a lesson for you, Mr. Anonymous. I talked to a friend of mine who voted for Nader in 2000 because he felt Gore was too conservative back then. He really wanted Gore to run. When I mentioned the NAFTA thing (and other positions Gore has changed over the years), he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "So the f*ck what? Do you realize what's going on in the world today? He GETS IT now."

And so, with all these issues facing us today, I want candidates who GET IT now, regardless of what they felt about it before. You can play gotcha games and harp on credibility till the end of time, but there are more important things on our plate, and the rest of us are looking towards the future, and getting Obama to the White House. And the polling evidence from the most reliable polling firm of 2004 (which you've consistently ignored) shows Edwards gives Obama the strongest boost to his candidacy.

And the change Edwards has gone through since his time in the Senate is tiny compared to a whole bunch of Republicans who have become Democrats in the last couple years (in part thanks to Bush). Do all of them have no credibility now either when they say we need to get out of Iraq too? Wanna play the purity game with them too? We should all be happy that someone can change from a centrist to a full-throated populist; this doesn't happen often enough.

Oh, and when you don't fess up to being WRONG in what you originally wrote about Edwards after I pointed out your errors, YOU have no credibility. Just sayin'.

Look, I get it. You hate Edwards. Fine. But what most Americans worry about is what kinds of policies a politician will implement when actually in office, and the Edwards of today is saying the RIGHT things when it comes to all these issues. I don't care if it's just "rhetoric", because it's rhetoric the American people NEED to hear.