Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Edwards is Surging in NH
Former Sen. John Edwards is rocketing in New Hampshire according to a WMUR/CNN poll released yesterday.
Right now the big loser is Clinton who was polling a safe first at around 40% back in January. Obama also lost out, dropping to 3rd, though Edwards surge was clearly at the expense of Clinton. Al Gore's 11% percent-not bad considering he is not even running-is also bad news for Clinton. I think we can safely take Gore out of the equation. I'm absolutely convinced that Gore is very happy with his new role of environmental advocate and has no plans to run. This guy always hated electoral politics anyway; he'd rather stayed a journalist. That 11% can be taken as an anti-Hillary vote which would likely be split between Obama and Edwards.
This is big news for Edwards because NH was likely to be where Edwards would do the worst out the four early primary contests. Of course the problem for Edwards is to build on this strong showing. I don't know what kind of ground operation Edwards has in NH, but Clinton's is very strong and as the example of Howard Dean shows, it doesn't matter how well you do in the polls in a small state if you don't have a strong grassroots operation.
The media is focusing on Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement as the reason for the bounce, which probably has some validity. But I think that Edwards's political message might have something to do with it too. For the last two electoral cycles Democrats have voluntarily chosen candidates that many people voted for while holding their nose. They picked nominees they thought could win, not because they found anything particularly exciting about their ideas or message. It was the politics of siege with the idea that most of the country hated progressive ideas so Democrats needed to find the least "offensive candidate". With the GOP in its worst position since 1974, a lot of Democrats are looking for a candidate who can energize their electorate around a new direction for the country, not play more of the same politics of old. And as a recent study by the Pew Research Center shows, political attitudes of most Americans is turning away from the conservative agenda that dominated Washington for over twenty years. For example, in response to the question of whether the government should have the responsibility of taking care to those who can not take care of themselves, the percentage of Americans answering in the affirmative has gone up 12 points since 1994. Social conservatism is on the decline too, with those who claim to support "old-fashioned views on family and marriage" down 8 points since 1994. The number of Americans who believe that peace is best guaranteed through military strength have declined almost 15 points points since 2002. As I've said before I think Edwards is the only candidate who really gets the opportunity 2008 presents and understands that the mood of the country is for real-not rhetorical-change.
"Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards appears to be surging among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire shortly after the announcement that his wife's cancer had returned in an “incurable, but treatable” form.
A WMUR/CNN poll released this afternoon shows Edwards shooting into second place ahead of Illinois Senator Barack Obama, though within the margin of error.
The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, showed support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton dropping eight percentage points from two months ago, to 27 percent. Edwards is at 21 percent and Obama at 20 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore-doing better than most announced candidates-received 11 percent. All other Democrats running were in the single digits."
Right now the big loser is Clinton who was polling a safe first at around 40% back in January. Obama also lost out, dropping to 3rd, though Edwards surge was clearly at the expense of Clinton. Al Gore's 11% percent-not bad considering he is not even running-is also bad news for Clinton. I think we can safely take Gore out of the equation. I'm absolutely convinced that Gore is very happy with his new role of environmental advocate and has no plans to run. This guy always hated electoral politics anyway; he'd rather stayed a journalist. That 11% can be taken as an anti-Hillary vote which would likely be split between Obama and Edwards.
This is big news for Edwards because NH was likely to be where Edwards would do the worst out the four early primary contests. Of course the problem for Edwards is to build on this strong showing. I don't know what kind of ground operation Edwards has in NH, but Clinton's is very strong and as the example of Howard Dean shows, it doesn't matter how well you do in the polls in a small state if you don't have a strong grassroots operation.
The media is focusing on Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement as the reason for the bounce, which probably has some validity. But I think that Edwards's political message might have something to do with it too. For the last two electoral cycles Democrats have voluntarily chosen candidates that many people voted for while holding their nose. They picked nominees they thought could win, not because they found anything particularly exciting about their ideas or message. It was the politics of siege with the idea that most of the country hated progressive ideas so Democrats needed to find the least "offensive candidate". With the GOP in its worst position since 1974, a lot of Democrats are looking for a candidate who can energize their electorate around a new direction for the country, not play more of the same politics of old. And as a recent study by the Pew Research Center shows, political attitudes of most Americans is turning away from the conservative agenda that dominated Washington for over twenty years. For example, in response to the question of whether the government should have the responsibility of taking care to those who can not take care of themselves, the percentage of Americans answering in the affirmative has gone up 12 points since 1994. Social conservatism is on the decline too, with those who claim to support "old-fashioned views on family and marriage" down 8 points since 1994. The number of Americans who believe that peace is best guaranteed through military strength have declined almost 15 points points since 2002. As I've said before I think Edwards is the only candidate who really gets the opportunity 2008 presents and understands that the mood of the country is for real-not rhetorical-change.
Labels: Campaign 2008, John Edwards
# posted by Gang of One @ 7:02 AM 
