Edwards still the best bet to beat any republican

by Randy Bayne
The Bayne of Blog

A new report from Global Strategy Group shows that John Edwards continues to be the most electable Democratic candidate for President.

Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani. Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is virtually identical to that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin.

The report also says that Edwards "outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states," and brings new state into the mix so that he doesn't have to "run the table" in other Democratic states.

Even though Edwards has been shown to be the only candidate that solidly defeats every GOP candidate, and he is the only candidate that consistently voices strong support for American workers, two unions have endorsed other candidates.

This morning it was reported that the United Transportation Union endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. It is the first endorsement by a major union in this election. Clinton's endorsement comes in spite of the repeated reports showing "Clinton as the weakest major Democrat in the general election."

In another, more surprising endorsement, the International Association of Firefighters has thrown its support to Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd is currently polling at less than 2 percent.

So there you have it. The good news, Edwards is the candidate with the strongest chance at beating the Republicans — any and all of them; and the bad news, because the press has annointed Clinton and Barack Obama the Democrats may end up missing their best opportunity at capturing the White House.

To call it disappointing that these two unions did not endorse Edwards would be a massive understatement. Edwards is clearly the best choice for labor, for working America, and for the Democrat's ability to regain the White House. That isn't to say the other can't, but it will be much harder for Clinton or Obama.

The Republicans, and even moderate Democrats, fear Edwards. They know he can and will beat them, and they will stop at nothing to keep his name out of the news — in positive stories. They will also work overtime to attack Clinton and Obama without mentioning Edwards with the hope that Democrats will come to Clinton's and Obama's rescue by nominating one of them.

It is the same tactic they used in 2004 when it seemed Edwards might defeat John Kerry for the nomination. It worked then...

Edwards stands for working Americans, for the poor and middle class, for increasing opportunity, for real universal health care, for decent jobs at a decent wage, for unions. He has the best chance of winning in November, and the power brokers are scared.


Give what you can to help John Edwards for President

Karl Rove's worst nightmare

You may have seen Karl Rove's recent attacks on Hillary Clinton in the news.

This is a page straight out of his tired old playbook—Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination.

Rove knows that Democrats will rally around whomever he attacks—so he attacks the candidate he thinks Republicans can most easily defeat.

It may seem backwards, but Rove and his cronies did the same thing last time around. In 2004, they were scared of John Edwards, so they attacked John Kerry.

Don't take it from me—take it from Rove's own lieutenant on the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign, Matthew Dowd:

"Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards." [Los Angeles Times, 8/19/07]

Rove and the Republicans want our opponents to win—because they know John will be the strongest candidate in the general election.

We may not be the richest campaign—but John is the strongest candidate. This time around, the candidate with the boldest ideas for changing America—the candidate who can take on the special interests in Washington, D.C. and win—is also the most electable. We know it—and the Republicans know it, too. But they won't be able to stop us if we have the support of people like you.

Can you make a contribution today—and send Karl Rove the message that his efforts to influence the Democratic primary won't work this time?

www.johnedwards.com/roves-nightmare

It is no secret that John is the only Democratic candidate who can beat any of the Republican candidates hands down. Just look at the polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports—a major national polling firm—over the past few months. They show that John is the Democratic candidate who consistently beats all of the Republicans candidates in head-to-head match-ups in battleground states—and by the widest margins.

Rove and the Republicans are seeing the same numbers we are—and drawing the same conclusions. So Rove is using his sneaky, underhanded tactics to try and trick Democrats into rallying around a candidate who won't be as strong as John in the general election.

But with your support, we can make sure that Rove's plan doesn't work this time. We are building a strong grassroots organization in the key early states and across the country. John has the best and boldest ideas for bringing big change to America, he can take on the special interests and win, and of all the Democratic candidates he will be the strongest in the general election—in other words, John Edwards is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

All we need is your support to drive right past Karl Rove's see-through tactics—and keep our campaign on the road to victory.

www.johnedwards.com/roves-nightmare


Thank you for all you do to support this campaign.

Sincerely,

-Joe Trippi
Senior Advisor, John Edwards for President
August 22, 2007

John Edwards blast Bush on children's health care - SCHIP

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards issued the following statement in response to the Bush Administration's new order directing states to cut back on enrolling kids in the state children's health insurance program (SCHIP).

"In a stunning late-evening order, the Bush Administration made it abundantly clear that the health and welfare of uninsured children is of little concern to President Bush. The Bush order continues an ideological crusade against the SCHIP that will only benefit private insurance companies, while further punishing countless numbers of uninsured families in America. Sadly, this is a new low -- even for this president.

"The practical effect of this order is clear: States like New Hampshire, Missouri and Minnesota will have to take away insurance from tens of thousands of children from moderate-income families. Roughly 20 states will be forced to impose a 12-month waiting period before any children without health insurance can enroll. That's a death sentence for uninsured kids with leukemia and other diseases -- chemotherapy isn't available in the emergency room. Apparently 18,000 Americans already dying each year because they don't have health insurance just isn't enough for the Bush Administration.

"When Congress returns from recess, Democrats and responsible Republicans must come together to override this disastrous order and expand the children's health insurance program to serve millions more children. More importantly, it is clearer now than ever that the time has come for bold and transformational health care reform. As president, I will never allow the private insurance industry or its lobbyists to get in the way of providing health care to children or having true universal health care reform."


Donate to John Edwards for President

Do Democrats really want to win the White House in November 2008?

by Paul Burke, 08/13/07
Co-Chair, Sacramento for Edwards Grassroots

Dear Friends,

Do Democrats really want to win the White House in November 2008?

This sounds like a stupid question, doesn't it? Of course Democratic voters want to win... don't we? After six long years of suffering under the humanitarian disaster know as the Bush/Cheney Administration, one would think that Democrats would be willing to do just about anything to put a Democrat in the White House... wouldn't we?

Well, you might think so, but the national polling data suggests a different story. It's been clear for several months now that the most electable Democrats are John Edwards and Barack Obama, in that order (see Rasmussen Reports or the blog entry below for details). Hillary Clinton is running a distant third in the crucial electabilty contest. She also has the lowest favorable ratings and highest unfavorable ratings among the leading Democratic contenders. What makes matters worse for Sen. Clinton, and for Democrats if we choose to nominate her, is that Sen. Clinton has been a national figure for more than fifteen years and is far and away the best known candidate in either party. The chances of her l owering her unfavorable ratings -- currently an eye-popping 48% -- are somewhere between slim and none... and no one has seen slim around for a while.

Among Democratic primary voters, however, Clinton is ahead in all the national polls and her lead over Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama is growing. In addition, Hillary is ahead in four of the five early primary states (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida) and has pulled into a virtual tie with Edwards in the fifth, Iowa (see Real Clear Politics for details). In other words, the corporate media and the pollsters have already annointed our least electable candidate as the "inevitable" nominee, and not a single Democrat will cast a vote for another five months! How's that for democracy?

Worse still from a progressive perspective, Sen. Clinton is not only the least competitive of the first tier Democratic candidates, she's also the most conservative. In fact, Clinton is arguably the most conservative of any of the eight Democratic presidential hopefuls (with the possible exception of the ultra-hawkish Joe Biden). Yes, it will be a great historical moment for our nation when we elect the first woman Presdent, and as a proud feminist I look forward to celebrating that moment with tens of millions of American women and enlightened men. But is throwing our support behind a centrist, pro-war, corporate Democrat with poor general election prospects the best way for progressives to demonstrate our commitment to women's rights? Certainly Republican strategists and corporate elites are hoping that we make that choice. In fact, the nomination of a candidate as polarizing as Hillary Clinton is probably the GOP's only chance to wage a competitive presidential campaign in the immediate aftermath of the disastrous Bush/Cheney debacle and the virtual implosion of the Republican party. Besides, corporate elites are well aware that if they can't have their first choice in the White House (i.e., any Republican), they know that anyone named Clinton is a perfectly accecptable alternative to serve their corporate interests. If that sounds like a controversial statement, then you may not have been paying close enough attention during the 1990's.

On the other hand, as Democratic voters we do have another option. We can choose to nominate the Democratic contender who is both the most electable and the most progressive... Sen. John Edwards. As you can see from the polling data below, Edwards has consistently outperformed both Clinton and Obama against every Republican candidate in the field, and his favorable/unfavorable ratings among American voters are the best of any Democrat (including Al Gore). Better still, he's running by far the most progressive campaign of any major Democratic candidate (yes, I love Dennis Kucinich, but those of us on the left must accept the reality that, although his campaign serves an important ideological and educational role, Kucinich is not a contender). This sounds like a pretty easy choice, and it certainly is for me. In fact, I haven't been inspired to work for any Presidential candidate since serving as a student leader for Rev. Jesse Jackson's historic "rainbow coalition" campaign back in 1988. But John Edwards represents our best chance to elect a progressive populist President in my lifetime, which is why I volunteered to serve as a Co-Chair of Sacramento for Edwards. Win or lose, we're incredibly proud to serve on behalf of the only candidate in American history who has pledged to end poverty in a generation.

We'd rather win. Regardless of what the spin doctors and corporate media pundits try to tell us, it is far from inevitable that the Democrats are going to nominate our most conservative, least electable candidate. Do you remember a couple years ago when it seemed live everyone you knew supported George Bush and everyone you knew supported the war? Do you remember feeling like an alien in your own home town because all of a sudden it seem liked many of your neighbors, co-workers, and classmates had lost their collective minds and turned into xenophobic, blindly "patriotic" warmongers and Bush clones? Those folks are whistling a very different tune these days, huh? Isn't it amazing how quickly things can turn around?

It can happen again. Not a single primary vote will be cast until next year, and it's still summer. John Edwards can win the Democratic nomination, and we can put a progressive in the White House in 2008. But in all honesty, we need your help to make it happen. The other candidates, both Democrat and Republican alike, are the darlings of the corporate elite. John Edwards is campaigning on a platform of economic justice platform, which makes the folks at Walmart and Exxon very uncomfortable. Like Rev. Jackson a generation ago (who came much closer to winning the nomination that most people today remember), Sen. Edwards is counting on the good will of regular folks like us to get involved and take back our democracy from the corporate CEO's. We can win, but only with an inspired, grassroots effort.

If you'd like to end poverty in our nation, bring our troops home from Iraq, and guarantee quality, affordable health care to every American, you have the power to do so. If you'd like to get inolved, or just learn more about our progressive grassroots campaign, please sign up for our new Sacramento for Edwards Google Group and check out our new Sacramento for Edwards blog.

Tomorrow Begins Today!
Paul B
Co-Chair, Sacramento for Edwards


Rasmussen Reports Show Consistent Pattern
rmcveigh in Diaries 8/10/2007 at 11:41 PM EST

The most recent Rasmussen Report shows a consistent pattern in presidential match ups between Democrats and Republicans.

Back at the beginning of April I looked at favorables/unfavorables and match-ups between candidates.

The most recent Rasmussen Report shows little has changed since then. John Edwards currently has the highest favorable ratings at 54% among all the presidential candidates both Democrat and Republican. John also has among the lowest unfavorable ratings. [lowest of the first tier Democrats]. Conversely Senator Clinton has the highest unfavorable rating at 48%.
John does well in match-ups against Republican presidential candidates. He beats all of them.

Let's look at match-ups with Giuliani:
Edwards 49%Giuliani 42%
Clinton 45%Giuliani 46%
Obama 44%Giuliani 43%

Since April, Clinton has closed the gap with Giuliani, but Edwards has went from seven points down to being seven points up.

Another name often mentioned is Fred Thompson. How do Clinton, Obama, and Edwards do against Thompson?
Edwards 50%Thompson 39%
Clinton 45%Thompson 46%
Obama 46%Thompson 39%

Edwards beats Thompson by the greatest margin, while Clinton loses to Thompson.
How about match-ups with McCain?
Edwards 45%McCain 38%
Clinton 45%McCain 43%
Obama 46%McCain 40%

Edwards beats McCain by the largest margin, while Clinton bets McCain by a mere two percentage points.

Lastly, let's look at match-ups against Romney:
Edwards 52%Romney 36%
Clinton 46%Romney 42%
Obama 47%Romney 38%

Again, Edwards beats Romney by the biggest margin, while Clinton wins by only four percentage points.

To compare current match-ups with the percentages in April, go to http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/4 /4/04240/87008.

So the question for Democrats is simple. Do we make our nominee a person who is now in tight races with the Republican presidential candidates, or do we nominee a person who has the biggest margin of victory against Republican presidential candidates? Do we roll the dice, or do we nominee a winner that will beat the Republican presidential candidate in November 2008?

John Edwards clearly the most electable Democratic candidate

By Zak Ford

Two of the biggest things that stand out about John Edwards are his substance and electability.

The Edwards campaign recently forwarded me the below NY Times op-ed and attached memorandum regarding Edwards' polling in the general election. The PDF file includes a lot of detailed polling information from battleground states. Please review this information and forward it to your friends.

For the month of August and into September, The Sacramento for Edwards Coalition with Assemblymember Dave Jones will focus its attention on helping local supporters organize house parties to promote Edwards. In late September/early October we are planning a voter registration drive. Please contact me if you would like to get involved.

I look forward to working with you in the months ahead.

Please join our One Corps chapter at http://blog.johnedwards.com/chapter/1442.

Zak Ford
Office of Assemblymember Dave Jones
916-813-6658


Donate to John Edwards for President

What's wrong with America and what will you do to change it

Help John bring universal health care to America.

John Edwards standing with America's workers

Help John fight for workers.