Edwards / Warner vs. Allen / Romney

[© tweed]

Assuming Democratic Convention is in Denver

Edwards/Biden 51% 298
Allen/Romney 46.5% 240
Some Immigration Wingnut 2%ish

[© tweed]

Minnesota is like Ohio, always close but rarely different. I think Edwards lack of appeal and experience would be enough to seal his fate against the well known Allen. Especially with the moderat Romney on the ticket.

This argument is the dumbest series of sentences in succession I've heard in a long time.

First sentence: MN has the longest running streak of going Democratic in the nation.  It's been over the trend line Dem in every election since '72.  Ohio was actually more Kerry than the nationwide vote was in 2004, and Clinton won it twice.

Second Sentence:  Polls consistently show Edwards is probably the most popular Democrat in the country other than Bill Clinton.  To say he has a lack of "appeal" is just plain false.  I'll give you that his lack of experience would be an issue, or at least the GOP would try to make it one.  But this is 2008, not 2004, and national security will be a much smaller issue.  Also, "well known Allen"?  What does that mean?  Edwards is much more well known now than Allen is, and that is of course irrelevant as both will become "well known" after a five-month campaign in the national spotlight.

Third Sentence: It's questionable whether Romney is a moderate.  He ran as one in Massachusetts because he's sane, but he's going to run for president in 2008 and he'll be a coldstone social conservative in an attempt to capture some base votes.  Also, he's a Mormon.  That hurts.  Warner, who you have as Edwards VP (he wouldn't be, BTW, as that gives you two total terms of experience), is also a moderate.

[© tweed]

Assuming Democratic Convention is in Denver

Edwards/Biden 51% 298
Allen/Romney 46.5% 240
Some Immigration Wingnut 2%ish

Edwars loses Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Ohio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_cocaine

[© tweed]

Vlad-

"This is true, Colorado would have been a better example."

No, that's an even worse example.  Colorado was a solidly Republican state for decades and has steadily started to turn towards the Democrats on many levels.  The state continues to trend Dem by a few percentage points on the presidential level every year.  They also elected a Dem senator in 2004 and the Dems are favored to win the governorship this year.

"http://www.pollingreport.com/WH08dem.htm I don't Edwards is as popular as you think. He is a failed VP candidate and a one term senator."

That just measures popularity with the base.  I was talking about favorability among everyone.  Edwards favorability ratings hang around +15, the highest of any Democrat out there.  Just because Hillary does well in that poll doesn't mean that she's all that popular nationwide; she has basically equal positive/negative favorability ratings.  Gore does well there, and has negative favorability ratings among the entire voting populace.

"That's problem. Edwards will have been out of the Senate (which he served one term in) for a total of four years. There are one term senators that lose primary races for their state governorship, what makes you think Edwards could win the presidency with such a short resume"

He can win because Republican fatigue is enormous and will continue to grow.  He also has positives (charisma) that can balance out his negatives on experience.

"The job of the VP candidate is to bring in voters that might be hesitant to vote for the top candidate. That's why Kerry picked Edwards, he was told that Edwards might bring in southern voters - it failed miserably, but that was the point. Romney would run as a social moderate and an economic conservative in order to draw in the independents which are trending Democrat."

That would only work if Romney doesn't run for president.  If he does, he's already been established as a social conservative.  A social moderate has no chance to win the Republican nomination.

[© tweed]

Vlad

Why do you omit the totals that are unfavorable to you in Colorado for 5 elections?  That doesn't make sense.  Also, it's necessary to compare a state's totals to the national PV totals when measuring a trend.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The "people I know don't like him" statement isn't an argument.

These are the polls I was speaking of:
http://pollingreport.com/E-F.htm

His favorables consistently outweigh his unfavorables.  You can't say that about any other Democrat.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Americans are majority pro-amnesty
2. What are these "glaring pro-amnesty comments"?
3. CA-50 is a heavily Republican district.  It was an accomplishment for Busby to do as well as she did.  Also, illegal immigration in a California district near Mexico in June 2006 is a much bigger issue than it will be in November 2008 nationwide.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, but that's not an argument.  I can say (correctly) that most people I know like Edwards, but it has no bearing on the rest of the country.  It can't be verified and is a small, unscientific sample size.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush won with worse favorability in 2004

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's only one poll (I provided three and could have provided more in that other thread) and it doesn't signify what you claim it signifies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's just incorrect.  It's a heavily GOP district.  That has to be factored in.  Republicans aren't going to lose in districts like CA-50, just like the Democrats didn't lose in 200 districts in 1994.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That still doesn't work.  You can't use "the people I talk to don't like him" as an argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong.  Bush had decent approval ratings on election day (about 50-55%).  Kerry was a poor candidate, granted.  But Bush probably would have been the entire field of Democrats that ran in 2004.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if I cite results from a Harlem distrct special election, somehow it becomes representative of an entire population?  CA-50 is nowhere near representative of the entire country:

-Republicans have a 15% registration advantage
-Bush won it by 12.3% in 2004
-Bill Jones still win the district in the 2004 senate race against Barbara Boxer despite losing the state by 20%
-It's in the 90th percentile of wealth of USA congressional districts and the poverty rate is 4-5% below the national average
-It's close in proximity to Mexico, which makes immigration a larger issue than it is in most other places in the United States

If anything, the 2006 special election results, in which Busby only lost by 2%, a very impressive performance, signify just how big a hole the Republican party is in.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good point.  Hell, why can't I perform brain surgery?  What makes me so much less qualified than doctors?

The second point: it's a perception issue so no point in arguing it.  The issue isn't rooted in fact, rather, perception.

Third issue: I can't beat the same points into the ground anymore.  You don't seem to get it so I'm going to leave you on your merry way in your CA50 dreamland.

[© tweed]

Hell, why can't I perform brain surgery?  What makes me so much less qualified than doctors?

Because they go to Doctor's school, lol. I don't thinkt hey have pollster school, otherwise I might go for awhile.

Actually they do.  For the most part, that's what a university poll is.  Polling isn't just going out and talking to people in a random sample.  It's a scientific process and even after days of work and calling and weighting it's still somewhat of a crapshoot.