A Real Edwards Surge

Is John Edwards's surge a media-created phenomenon, a collective reaction formation to the media's desire to see a three-person race, or guilt for building up Barack Obama? Does the media really have that power?

Or are we seeing something more organic?

On Monday, the Edwards campaign recorded more e-mail sign-ups than almost any day in its history.

Over the weekend, the campaign was forced to add four new servers to handle all the web traffic.

Contributions are up online: Thursday and Friday, the two days after the debate, made for one of the highest 2-day totals they've seen in months. (He's been ubiquitous on national television -- morning shows and Sunday shows.)

Those are national totals.

What about Iowa? There are two metrics, one of which we don't have available: their hard count of confirmed caucus goers. The other is crowds.

Not only has Edwards been greeted by unusually large crowds for him, he is outdrawing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head-to-head. In Des Moines Monday, Edwards drew 400 to Hillary Clinton's 200; in Mason City on Saturday night, Edwards drew 600 to Obama's roughly 300.

The campaign tracks undecided caucus goers through nightly rounds of phone banking: the Edwards folks claim they're hearing more about their campaign's unique holiday card than they are about HRC's Des Moines Register endorsement. (Note: HRC and Edwards's universes don't overlap too much, so it's not that surprising.)

Still -- at almost every event in recent days, Edwards has gotten standing ovations. At the end.

I've been to dozens of Edwards events since the beginning of the cycle, and I've seen such enthusiasm for him only a few times.

The Edwards campaign is not conducting nightly tracking polls, so advisers can't pinpoint
day-to-day movement.

Democrats with access to the internal polling data of some of Edwards's presidential rivals say that he may be winning back male voters he lost to Barack Obama and is consolidating his strength with the union electorate in Iowa.

Are we reading too much into the fact that Obama has started to peer in Edwards's direction? It is possible that the Obama campaign has detected a flight of soft supporters abandoning the nest. But it's also possible that Obama campaign wants to shave four or five points off Edwards's margins in order to solidify a lead they know they have.

Comments

What about the current Drudge Report story on his love child? That is pretty scary. I hope it is not true. Everyone seems to be ignoring it...for now.

Posted by Steady | December 19, 2007 8:35 AM

Ummm...http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/story?id=4021096&page=1

You spoke too soon, Marc.

But nice try, MEDIA.

Posted by David | December 19, 2007 8:41 AM

Right, David, cuz one poll tells the story.

Judging by 2004, crowd size and intensity are pretty good gauges of what's happening.

And Edwards is, as he was in 2004, in a groove. He believes, and it shows.

Of course, Clinton and Obama will keep saying that Edwards can't go the distance, but the last thing they want is for his populism to be unleashed on a national audience. He has the right message for the moment.

Posted by David Mizner | December 19, 2007 8:48 AM

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

Say no to nepotism.
Say no to triangulated Iraq vote disasters.
Say no to mud-sling machine politics.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by PulSamsara | December 19, 2007 9:08 AM

"What about the current Drudge Report story on his love child? That is pretty scary. I hope it is not true. Everyone seems to be ignoring it...for now."

Gee. I wonder who controls the National Enquirer. Let's see, David Kendall, Roger Altman, Ron Burkle. I wonder if the fact that the Clinton campaign has three of its people in decision making positions there has anything to do with the unsubstantiated shit they publish. I wonder if Bob Kerrey and Billy Shaheen will accuse Edwards of being responsible for 9/11 next.

If you want to know if Edwards is surging, the Clinton campaign's pivot to try to sleaze Edwards should be all the evidence you need.

We're going to win this thing, and they know it.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 9:09 AM

John Edwards is the best closer in the bunch. I watched him in Iowa back in January 04' and the same thing happened-his campaign events went from two or three at the public library to getting visits from the fire marshall. There are some polls (insider advantage) showing upward movement in Iowa, and what people are reporting on the ground seems to confirm this. Polls have consistently shown Mr. Edwards to be the second choice of those backing Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Biden-so when they don't reach viability in individual caucuses they will back Edwards. The media has painted this as a two way race because of national polls--but Edwards hasn't focused his efforts beyond New Hampshire while other candidates have begun work in super Tuesday states.

All the polls could be crap--and this could just be something to talk about. I'd be willing to bet that Hillary Clinton will be having a third place celebration in a Des Moines hotel ballroom on January 3rd. Let's just hope she remembers not to scream into the microphone.

Posted by Ralph Johnson | December 19, 2007 9:10 AM

No matter what happens in Iowa, he's toast in NH then in S.C. With no money, he's gone. Big question is where will his supporters go? Can't see Clinton, but who knows?

Posted by Show Me the Money | December 19, 2007 9:26 AM

Edwards' surge will surge everywhere. He will be the nominee.

Posted by Oscar | December 19, 2007 9:30 AM

I have a feeling that John Edwards will win it all and will be our next president. His graph is going up at the right time.

Posted by Aaron | December 19, 2007 9:35 AM

"Show Me the Money" is exactly who we're about to stomp. Time to end the reign of corporate Democrats. They think we're going to have an auction rather than an election, and we're about to show them exactly what time it is.

From today's NYT:

“We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that’s not true is living in a fantasy world,” Mr. Edwards said. “How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action.”

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 9:36 AM

If you want to know if Edwards is surging, the Clinton campaign's pivot to try to sleaze Edwards should be all the evidence you need. We're going to win this thing, and they know it.

I hope so. And the scary thing for Hillary is, there's now a non-trivial chance she could come in third. Yikes. That would be a body blow to her fortunes. Although, with this race as volatile as it is, there's also a non-trivial chance Obama could come in third.

Posted by Jasper | December 19, 2007 9:44 AM

Looking good heading into the homestretch...

Posted by Will | December 19, 2007 9:50 AM

John Edwards is the strongest candidate in either party and that's reflected by polls that go back from the last election. Yes if Edwards wins Iowa he'll only have five days to carry that momentum, but must we not forget Edwards won the SC primary in 2004, not to mention he's been steadily climbing up in NH and he's better positioned their than he was last time around. He'll have money if he wins Iowa, and beating two of the biggest giants in the democratic party would make NH voters take a second look at his campaign.

Posted by Matt | December 19, 2007 10:17 AM

Except he has a love child and that is frowned upon in Iowa I think. Who knows?

Posted by Steady Now | December 19, 2007 10:23 AM

Yesterday, InsiderAdvantage released a poll that showed Edwards leading in Iowa:

Edwards 30%
Clinton 26%
Obama 24%

Among "higly likely" voters:

Obama 27%
Edwards 26%
Clinton 24%

However, and this is the most important part, in that Insider Advantage Poll, John Edwards had over a 13% lead over Obama among Second Choice voters, which is VERY VERY IMPORTANT in the Iowa caucuses, because if a candidate doesn't receive 15% (viability) in a precinct, then that candidate's supporters are allowed to move over to their second choice.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, John Edwards was the overwhelming second choice of those who support someone other than Clinton and Obama, so since it is very unlikely that Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, or Gravel will meet viability in most precincts, it's very possible that John Edwards could win Iowa IN A ROUT.

Of course there is an Edwards surge, which is why the National Enquirer are coming out with their latest smear on Edwards, claiming that he has a "love child" on the way, just like it claimed that Bill Clinton had a child that he had to have a paternity test about (which was a lie), and just like it claims that Hillary Clinton has had several lesbian affairs (which was also a lie). The thing is, though, the Enquirer has been attacking Edwards this campaign season, and one of Clinton's former Treasury guys is part owner of the Evercore firm that owns the Enquirer.

By attacking John Edwards, they indirectly help Clinton and Obama. Evercore has donated money to both Clinton and Obama's campaigns, none to Edwards.

P.S.

John Edwards would beat all Republicans in NC and pick up NC's 15 electoral votes. Clinton and Obama would not. Yet another reason to chose Edwards, since he makes the election easier for Democrats:

Edwards 48 Rudy Giuliani 43 Edwards 50 Mike Huckabee 43 Edwards 52 Mitt Romney 40

Giuliani 46 Clinton 39
Huckabee 48 Clinton 42
Romney 46 Clinton 42

Giuliani 46 Obama 43
Huckabee 47 Obama 42
Romney 45 Obama 42

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2007/12/general-election-poll-president.html

Posted by framecop | December 19, 2007 10:31 AM

Look at the recent Rassmussen and CNN polls that show Mr. Edwards as the best canidate to beat any of the three leading Republicans. Of course, come January 4th the story in the mainstream media will be of a Clinton collapse-not an Obama or Edwards success.

Posted by Ralph Johnson | December 19, 2007 10:33 AM

SteadyNow et al. - you probably work for HRC trying to slam Edwards. Give it a rest already.

Posted by Cdub | December 19, 2007 11:04 AM

1) I don't buy the polls -- at least until young people start turning out, who knows how many of Obama's "Chicago ghost voters" (read: college kids temporarily switching residence) will turn out.

2) I love the person who said "say no to nepotism" as a reason to vote for Obama -- I realize that they mean no "bush-clinton-clinton-bush-bush-clinton" but do Obama's people realize his campaign is run by the infamous Daley Machine and David Axelrod, easily a dirty a player as anyone working for Clinton or Edwards (heck, he's as bad as Ed Rollins for that matter).

3) Does Edwards have burried or "lost" records like Clinton and Obama? Did Edwards duck out of any controversial vote in the senate the way Obama did as a state senator? Did he convert $1,000 to $100,000 in insider dealing they way Hillary did? Get off your high horses people.

Posted by Rusty | December 19, 2007 11:27 AM

That same ABC poll David linked also showed that among second choices for the non-frontrunner supporters, Edwards has an almost identical lead as in the Insider Advantage poll, when the two polls seem to give contradictory information on the surface. But both polls have their flaws, so beware of inferring too much from them.

Posted by BruinKid | December 19, 2007 11:30 AM

Here's the link, since I can't seem to embed links.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/19/91046/767/902/424206

Posted by BruinKid | December 19, 2007 11:32 AM

edwards is a trial lawyer thats what we need during this reconstruction if we avert civil war dont expect bush regime to go out graciously thats why we must impeach & show the kids 4000 KIA is more of a concern than sexual slander

Posted by melindyrose | December 19, 2007 11:35 AM

"SteadyNow et al. - you probably work for HRC trying to slam Edwards. Give it a rest already."

We should feel pity for Team Clinton. They know that if this election is about what matters in people's lives, they lose. So they need to make it about sleaze and cocaine instead.

And they're still going to lose anyway.

Pity the poor Clintons. It's time for them to go, and they just haven't figured it out yet. This election is about us, not them.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 11:44 AM

Petey, pray tell, what are the big policy differences between the Obama, Edwards and Clinton? The most daylight you find on them is health care, where not even Obama's supporters agree with him that it can be done without mandates, and how fast to leave Iraq (and I actually diverge with Edwards on this one -- I think it's very fragile over there and we don't want to comit to a exit date too early). Their economic plans are largely the same except I don't think Obama has comitted to pay-go and Clinton is a devotee of Rubinomics/deficit reduction (they'll all tax the rich/reverse Bush tax cuts).

Posted by Rusty | December 19, 2007 12:07 PM

We'll just have to settle this one at the ballot box, Rusty. You can have the sleaze merchants and union-busters, and I'll have the voters. We'll see who wins soon enough.

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 12:14 PM

Rusty, trade is a big difference. Clinton and Obama both favor expanding NAFTA; Edwards has made clear he would take a very different approach on trade.

On energy, Edwards is the only one to propose a plan to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 and for a moratorium on new carbon-burning plants until technology is in place to sequester carbon emissions. That matters a lot if you live, as I do, in a state (NV) that is slated to have 6 new coal-plants built in the next few years and we already have dangerously high mercury levels in our water supply. Edwards is also the only one to oppose new nuclear power plants unless technology is put in place to re-use spent fuel rods -- again, an important issue to me because the energy industry will continue to fight for the Yucca mountain repository so long as they need it to take waste from new plants. Neither Obama nor Clinton has taken such a clear position.

Lastly, Edwards is the only one whose proposed an expansion, rather than an abandonment, of public financing of presidential elections, by restoring the $1000 donor cap and raising the match on the first $100 to an 8-1 match -- so that a couple that donates $100 each is donating the same as a maxed-out donor. Meanwhile, Clinton and OBama have totally abandoned public financing, which will push the Democratic party ever deeper into the arms of the financial industry, ever more dependent on lobbyists and special interest donations, and farther away from the concerns of ordinary people. Thats something we've got to change if we are going to avoid returning to the dark days in terms of policy and politics of the early 2000s.

Posted by Gus | December 19, 2007 12:26 PM

The ABC Poll is a fluke.

Almost 50% of the sample would be attending their first caucus. ALMOST HALF.

That poll is clearly pro-Obama propaganda.

Posted by framecop | December 19, 2007 12:35 PM

I don't like to attack Democrats in general and love a spirited primary but I am relishing the impending implosion of John Edwards campaign and victory by either one of the frontrunners just to watch Petey crawl away vanquished.

Petey you are without a doubt a former Deaniac and fairly new to primary politics with the way you carry yourself. It is immature and your comeuppance will be hilarious.

Get ready to apologize. Don't worry we will take you back but we will also remember that you are not to be trusted.

Posted by Hot Dog | December 19, 2007 12:38 PM

I wonder if this surge accounts for this new video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOZML6P0Vg

Posted by vicissitudes | December 19, 2007 12:48 PM

John Edwards although downplayed in the MSM has been consistant in his message and that has reched the ears of the folks in Iowa. Unlike other parts of the country that can only rely on the mainstream media that preordained Hillary and Obama, people in Iowa have had the chance to get to know the people running and their issues. One big issue is that the media and the lobbyists are attempting to hijack the election.

Posted by tourist | December 19, 2007 12:57 PM

"I don't like to attack Democrats"

I'm confused. I thought you were part of Team Clinton. Attacking Democrats is all you folks do like doing. It's the fun part for you.

"your comeuppance will be hilarious."

Are you going to sic Billy Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, or Ron Burkle and the National Enquirer on me?

Posted by Petey | December 19, 2007 1:04 PM

did "Steady" in that first comment actually refer to the "drudge report" as a SOURCE? are you kidding? what an idiot.

Posted by mia | December 19, 2007 1:09 PM

"Over the weekend, the campaign was forced to add four new servers to handle all the web traffic."

Those must be pretty lame servers. I'll bet I can handle traffic from every potential caucus voter in Iowa on my single desktop.

Posted by Frank | December 19, 2007 2:18 PM

Well, the recent polls squarely contradict this: Rasmussen (12/17, 775 LV) Clinton-31, Obama-27, Edwards-22; ABC/Wash Post (12/13-17, 652 LV) Obama-33, Clinton-29, Edwards-20. Yeah, Johnny Boy, that's some surge. By the way, the only significant positive movement in these polls is for Sen. Clinton: +6 in Rasmussen over last week, +5 in ABC/Wash Post since their last poll.

Posted by Dazed and Confused in DC | December 19, 2007 5:49 PM

Sure, Edwards is moving up. He's been the subject of virtually no scrutiny during the whole campaign. HRC's team has sought to take Obama down with its slime tactics of the last few weeks, and that effort is bound to have some (short term) effect.

Edwards can't win. His reliance on matching funds makes him dead in the water against any Republican in the general. He was unlikely to hold his own Senate seat in NC had he run for reelection, nor was he an asset in NC or SC in the 2004 general (and Cheney waxed him in their only debate).

Edwards shouldn't win. He has absolutely no record in the Senate of fighting for any of the things he now says he's passionate about, and only brings up his time in the Senate to apologize for his bad votes.

Edwards won't win. Iowa voters will either opt for "experience" (inexplicitly meaning HRC) or "change" (meaning Obama).

This comes not from an Edwards hater, but as someone who actually made their first ever political contribution to Mr. Edwards in 2004. Today, Edwards has all of the baggage of Clinton (bad judgment on Senate votes) and Obama (lacks "experience") with none of their attributes.

Posted by Leo | December 19, 2007 6:03 PM

John Edwards isn't even credible on his own campaign theme of working against corporate greed and special interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOZML6P0Vg&eurl=http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx?p=2

he has a calculating message of populism that is working well in current environment, but he can't/won't deliver on it. besides, should Dems really nominate a candidate who just LOST in the last general election???

Posted by boynla, LA, CA | December 19, 2007 6:27 PM

The slander regarding a "love child" was formerly pulled by George Bush on John McCain. The McCains had adopted a child from Africa. Pure slander.

It is a classical Rovian swiftboat tactic. Take aim at the candidate's greatest strengths with lies of the greatest audacity. John and Elizabeth Edwards have a marriage that is the strongest possible; not so the Clintons (the Republican's dream Democratic candidate) and a host of Republican candidates.

By the way, are any of those folks who are echoing the charges on the various blog paid operatives?

Posted by CyberCitizen | December 19, 2007 6:29 PM

John Edwards is the candidate that republicans fear most. In hypothetical matchup polls he consistently beats all republicans by larger margins than Hillary or Obama. The media, in its lust to cover "new" candidates, have largely ignored the Edwards and McCain campaigns. Ironically, these are the candidates who have the greatest appeal to the largest voting block - independents.

Posted by Scott | December 19, 2007 6:52 PM

scott - independents only truly matter in the general election, which neither edwards nor mccain will be participating in this year.

Posted by boynla, LA, CA | December 19, 2007 6:54 PM

Leo,
So far as I know, Edwards has only committed to public financing for the primary election, not both the primary and the general. If he's the Democratic nominee, that will allow him to size up the Republican nominee to determine if he should take public financing in the general, too. One could read this as either hypocritical or judicious. I see it as the latter. If he can win the nomination with less money than Clinton or Obama, that indicates that he's really speaking to Democratic voters. There will be few defections by these voters for a Republican candidate due to any Swift-Boat type smear campaigns against him. On the other hand, if he opts not to seek public financing, then he's more able to take the gloves off himself against the Republican candidate, and flood the market with his own message.

While I will vote for whomever the eventual Democratic nominee is, I will vote for Edwards in the California primary. He is the only candidate speaking seriously about addressing poverty in this country. He is the only candidate who has achieved the American Dream in the private sector on his own two feet. He's willing to admit a mistake (if only those who run our government would be willing to do this more often, or at all). And he's committed. Every time he speaks it is clear whom he cares most about: the People. Not some well-organized, or well-financed, portion of the People, but the People as a whole. That speaks to my head. And to my heart. It's been a long time since a presidential candidate spoke to both.

I refuse to put down either Clinton or Obama. Both are far more qualified candidates than any of the Republican candidates. Both, just by the nature of who they are, symbolize the kind of change I would like to see in America. But from a policy perspective, I simply believe that Edwards has described the best vision for positive change in the country.

Posted by Erik | December 19, 2007 6:57 PM

I have read every poll, checked every trend line, and calculated for the experience of Edwards' caucasers, and I still can't see him winning Iowa. For all the sincerity and compassion he brings, I don't believe Populism is a resonant message this time round. This is a change election, and there has been only one change candidate. However, the fact that he is still in the race is a testimony to the apparatus he created and the length of time he has spent in Iowa as well as the terrible campaign run by the so-called, establishment front-runner. All, however, are good people. Any one of whom would be a welcome change from what we have now, and Democrats of all persuasions should be thankful to all of them for the time and energy they put into this arduous race.

Posted by Elinor Miller | December 19, 2007 7:30 PM

Erik, I hear and respect your view. I, too, am in California, but I will be voting for Obama (for many of the reasons you cite for your support of Edwards). While there are differences between them, I find these two candidates to be far closer than any of the others.

I admire Edwards' willingness to admit a mistake, and think that is something that immediately disqualifies Clinton. Another "give no inch" candidate is the last thing I (and we) need.

However, I place more emphasis on judgment than any other attribute, and on some of the issues where Edwards now gets it right, Obama had it right from the beginning. It isn't about "never making a mistake" as Bill Clinton argues; it is about having the judgment and political courage to get it right the first time, especially on an issue as critical as that of war and peace. And, it isn't just "getting it right", but the reasons why you get it right. On the war, Obama reasoned his way through the likely costs and benefits, accurately predicting virtually everything that has happened, and came to the right conclusion. That counts for a lot in my book; and certainly outweighs the lack of Washington experience that some accuse him of.

Moreover, I do think that changing the tone in Washington is necessary. I have zero confidence that Clinton can move anything but an incremental agenda, and while I think Edwards would be better (than Clinton) I think that Obama is head and shoulders above all other candidates in his willingness and ability to find common ground.

Believe me, I'd love to be able to implement and Edwardian "we're changing healthcare THIS way, insurance and pharmaceutical companies be dammed", but I there is just no chance that this would work. The bully pulpit of the presidency is great, but it cannot sway 535 members of Congress who are bought and paid for by the corporate interests. Much as I hate to say it, buy-in from these companies is a necessary component to meaningul change, and I think Obama rightly sees this necessary evil.

I hope you change your mind and consider supporting Obama, but if not (and if Barack doesn't win it) I surely hope your man gets it over the competition!

Posted by Leo | December 19, 2007 7:34 PM

(Note: HRC and Edwards's universes don't overlap too much, so it's not that surprising.)

Is this really true? I thought they both shared in the same pool of older Democrats in Iowa.

Also, Insider Advantage is a GOP pollster, and their screen includes 1/8 young people when the 2004 caucus had around 1/4.

Posted by bob | December 19, 2007 9:09 PM

Erik,
I like Edwards's pitch, but let's remember that Edwards is essentially moving away from his Senate record, which counts against him. i find his regrets genuine, but take away that record, and what does Edwards have? Only his message. It is true that all three front runners have made regrettable concessions (Clinton having defined a career through a neurotic shift between conservative and liberal positions), but Obama was the only one against the Iraq war. Sure, he was a state Senator, but even local politicians capitulated and beat the drums.

Let's not have cloudy memories. Thirty percent of Senate Democrats and one Republican voted against the war. That is a lot of Senators. None of them are in the race at this moment (a shame), but we can at least penalize Clinton and Edwards for their spinelessness.

Moreover, supporters of Edwards claim "electability" only on the fact that he is a white male. This is bogus. No one today says that "I will not vote for a woman or a black man." Instead, one says, "America will not vote for a woman or a black man." If you make this kind of argument, it simply says that YOU are uncomfortable voting for either.

Posted by jcr | December 19, 2007 9:26 PM

A. The media has been rooting for Hillary and Obama (the annointed ones) for over a year now because they know she and Obama can be easily beat by ANY Republican in the 2008 general election. For example, Chris Matthews has been promoting Clinton for a long time. (This media BS wants to make me puke.)

B. The corporate media doesn't trust John Edwards or his message and they've ignored him and relegated him to third place.

C. Sleaze happens.

D. Why do the Democrats often manage to elect the most unelectable, polarizing, off the wall, slander-ridden, bimbo loving candidates? It's not a fluke, my friends They know darn well these candidates can be beat by ANY Republican.

E. Where are the Obama and Clinton love children? I am still not convinced about Hillary's sexuality. She sounds and acts like a lesbian to me.

As a realist I am well aware that Americans are unlikely to vote for a woman or Aftican American for President.

Posted by sam | December 19, 2007 10:29 PM

Edwards may well win in Iowa. He should win it. As he has been almost living in the state since 2004! If he does not win, what a shame!
HILLARY 2008!!!!

Posted by SeattleLatte | December 19, 2007 11:54 PM

What are you talking about? John Edwards is the most stable individual out of all the candidates! John Edwards is against the war in Iraq too!!! He just didn't like Saddam.

Posted by Mikewee777 | December 20, 2007 12:44 AM

Edwards' momentum is real and tangible and will result in strong showings in all the early primary and caucus states. He's the real thing, folks, and should be the Democratic nominee and the next president.

Posted by Michael M. | December 20, 2007 8:30 AM

While I would like to see an America where Obama or Hillary could win, we are not there yet! If John Edwards is not the nominee, the GOP will win again and we will have four more years of Repuke rule! Obama or Clinton will do the same for the 'crats as George McGovern did in 1972. Sadly the only thing the only thing Obama could do here in the South is make the GOP whiter and the Democrtic party darker.
Alot of people doubt Edwards because of his performance as the VP nominee in 2004, for these folks I would remind voters that FDR was a losing running mate to John W. Davis in 1924, and the wrap was that FDR was such a poor campaigner for VP and he sould not get the nomination later, but looked what happened in 1932! This same case was made that FDR could not win, and now the same things are being said about John Edwards. Some candidates do a poor job running for the number two spot, but later make great Presidents, this was true with FDR and I believe it will be the true with a President John Edwards.
Run John Run! America needs John Edwards in 2008!

Posted by mike evatt | December 20, 2007 2:43 PM

The importance of "independents" appears to be completely overblown in the general election.

Good research indicates that most "independents" actually vote strongly liberal Democratic or strongly conservative Republican.

There is no massive independent batch of undecided moderates waiting to go one way or another.

Decidedly they already break liberal Democrat or liberal Republican.

Posted by El Cid | December 20, 2007 3:22 PM

Edwards is the one candidate with what it takes to beat the Republicans.
His populist message is definitely resonating with voters -- they are tired of the corporate bigwigs running this country, getting richer and richer.
I predict great things.

*****EDWARDS 2008!*****
*****EDWARDS 2008!*****
*****EDWARDS 2008!*****
*****EDWARDS 2008!*****

Posted by Spiralshell | December 20, 2007 7:27 PM

Regarding Edwards' 2004 vice presidential bid, keep in mind that nearly all aspects of a vp candidate's race is dictated by the presidential candidate and that candidate's campaign organization. I agree with Mike Evatt; America does need John Edwards. We need John Edwards "yesterday!" He's our country's greatest hope and the Republicans' biggest nightmare.

To undecided voters, I say this: please take a serious look at John Edwards' policy proposals, his life experience, his priorities and the consistency of his message. He walks his talk. And he's electable! He also can influence congressional races for Democrats.

Go John Edwards! We do need you.

Posted by Lucinda | December 20, 2007 8:22 PM

TIME's Mark Halperin raises the same subject and asks voters to weigh in on John Edwards' Iowa chances in a new polling feature over at the Political Machine.

Want to be heard on this subject? Cast your vote in the poll.

Posted by Kathleen | December 21, 2007 6:13 PM

For Edwards, the really story is not the crowds in Iowa, but the strength of his performance in head-to-head polls with hypothetical general election opponents. With margins of "victory" almost double those of Clinton or Obama , the Edwards campaign really needs to push his greatest strength: "Electablity" in the battleground states.

Posted by PoliticalBrandwagon | December 22, 2007 11:49 PM