« Caption Contest | Main | Fred Thompson's New Iowa Mail »

Unusually Dark, Edwards Sees The Light With Debate Performance

14 Dec 2007 12:52 pm

Before yesterday's Des Moines Register / Iowa Public Television debate, John Edwards was dark. Not pessimistic. But in the lingo ad buyers use, his campaign had almost no ads on the air in Iowa. The reason wasn't related to money -- the campaign insists it has enough to stay on the air through the early states -- it was, somehow, strategic. No further details have been tendered.

But today, the campaign, basking in the sun after a lauded debate performance, is rushing two new ads to TV stations.

One of them, according to an Edwards spokesman, was ordered by the candidate himself after he watched recorded segments from the CNN and Fox focus groups. The undecided voters in them really liked what Edwards had to say about the economy, and so Edwards asked his team to produce one on the subject. The other ad is a health care testimonial.

The campaign spokesman said the new ads will run at full capacity.

It's interesting to note, as Edwards advisers always do, that the campaign was basically dark until seven weeks before the caucuses, whereas rival campaigns had collectively spent millions on TV before that point.

The point is used to further the argument that Edwards is super-strong in Iowa after spending four years cultivating Iowans.

Comments (14)

Edwards was good yesterday, but not great--even the Kos folks thought Obama won (and they routinely pick Edwards as their favorite candidate).

Edwards will win Iowa. The Clinton Machine will do whatever they have to to cut Obama down.

Edwards won the debate according to focus groups, and is hitting his stride just in time.

The Fox focus group thought Obama won, the CNN focus group thought Edwards won (CNN can never say anything postive Obama. I think Edwards did very well, he stuck to his stump speech talking about the economy and corruption and he seemed a little more passionate and less lawyerly. But I still don't think he is a true and blue populist. Obama looked very presidential and in ways steered the debate especially in vouching for Biden. Clinton looked tired and off kilter. She needed botox like she had in the Las Vegas debate.

A new Research 2000 Iowa poll just released gives Obama his biggest lead yet, trouncing Clinton by 9% and Edwards could very well take second-place.

Oh please, Daniel. The Research 2000 poll has ZERO TO DO WITH YESTERDAY'S DEBATE.

That poll just like every other poll this week is 100% influenced by the MEDIA BLITZ of Obama and Oprah from last week.

Polls reflect news coverage, and only tell you what people were thinking after watching the news before the poll were conducted.

What they were thinking at the time the Research 2000 poll was conducted? "OBAMA/OPRAH, OBAMA/OPRAH."

As far as the kos poll is concerned, many of the people who voted in that poll HADN'T EVEN WATCHED THE DEBATE with it being at 2pm EST. They were just voting for Obama as they dropped by the site.

I'm an Edwards supporter and I didn't even vote in the poll because I hadn't watched the debate. Most of Obama's childish supporters didn't care.

Believe Edwards will be the surprise on Jan 3rd - its not about polls only 'caucus goers' per precincts. What I can gleam is Edwards is well organized with long-time caucus goers. Also, likely a large percentage worked and went to caucuses in 04 for Edwards.
His performance in debate was very good. Plus for his workers and supporters to get out friends and relatives to their precinct. Couldn't have come at better time. About time he returned to his strongest point - middle class and matters pertaining to the control of corporations, not just in business but media and political. This is also part of 'two americas'

It was my understanding that Edwards won both the CNN & the Fox undecided voter focus groups. Here are the comments from the Fox group.

Focus Group of Iowa Voters Declares Edwards the Winner.

Frank Luntz: “I want you to raise your hands if you walked in here with John Edwards as your first choice. One, two of you. How many of you thought John Edwards won the debate? [Majority of crowd raises hand.] What was it about John Edwards – you didn’t pick him – but what was it about John Edwards you thought stood out?”

“Very believable…He came in there with answers”: Democratic voter #1: “I had John Edwards coming in number three, and he was very believable, he didn’t beat around the bush, he talked about the strong interest groups that he’s been fighting for all the time, and he has a plan. He came in there with answers.”

“Refreshingly authentic…I was very moved”: Democratic voter #2: “I thought he was refreshingly authentic. I didn’t expect it and I was very moved by many of his words.”

“I was really moved”: Frank Luntz: “Susan, you weren’t an Edwards person when you walked in…” Democratic voter, Susan: “Edwards was my third choice when I walked in.” Luntz: “And yet you thought he won.” “He was concise, he got to the point, he answered the questions without beating around the bush, and I was really moved when he talked about how he has worked all his life like David v. Goliath. That impressed me.”

“He was my third choice, now he is my first”: Democratic voter #4: “That was my line exactly. Authenticity, number one. I think he would go after the corporations that are causing much of the trouble in the world today. He was my third choice, now he is my first.” [Fox News, 12/13/07]

Iowa Focus Group Gave Edwards’ Answers Two of Their Best Scores. Frank Luntz said about a focus group of Iowa voters watching the debate: “Well, the Democrats, and this has been consistent from when we started, the Democrats are happier with their candidates today than the Republicans were with their candidates yesterday, and so it's very tough to choose the top dial scores - John Edwards had two of them.”

Edwards’ Answer on Education Was a “Homerun, But It Goes Even Higher When He Gets Specific.” Luntz: “Remember that our yellow lines, our gold lines, those are [liberals], the blue lines are moderates – the higher the lines go the more favorable the reaction. Edwards had begun this clip talking about education and it was a homerun, but it goes even higher when he gets specific, let's take a look. [JRE answer] He is off the charts.”

“When He Is Talking About Health Care, Middle-Class Tax Cuts. ..These Lines, at Certain Points, They Can't Get Higher Than That.” Luntz: “When he is talking about health care, middle-class tax cuts. ..these lines, at certain points, they can't get higher than that. John Edwards also did a clip on education; let's roll that second clip. Again, it was not just the generalities and the principles. When Edwards talked about exactly what he was going to do, it scored as well as anything we have tested in the debates. [JRE answer] Once again, he’s off the charts. The Edwards language was very effective today on all these issues, because he had passion, he had focus, and as our participants said, he had a beginning, middle and an end. Very impressive.” [Fox News, 12/13/07]

Edwards, a lawyer did well in a debate. Not surprising....

But that doesn't mean he has what it takes to change anything. How well did he do passing laws in NC? what's that, Edwards never helped pass a state law? Well, how did he do in the Senate? what's that you say--he abandoned his senatorial duties (and state constituents) to campaign for himself? ....

Really, the only experience Edwards has is debating and campaigning for himself. Not good enough.

Well, it seems that Penn has confirmed that the drug issue was sanctioned by the Machine. See, http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/14/114654/98.

Thus, this is weird. Is there a concerted effort by the Machine to take down Obama.

I was happy yesterday, and now (once again) I am running scared. I want Obama to win (with Edwards as his VP). Will this happen?

Or, is HRC victory? (PS: She has said on 12/13 LA Times article (quoted) that she wins it all by Feb. 5.)

HELP?

eorse - with all due respect, you need to chill out some. Have a beer and watch a college basketball game or something. Your highs and lows in this campaign season can't be healthy.

Yesterday Clinton was a damaged though still strong candidate. Today she's a damaged though still strong candidate.

One thing I've noticed is that few of the media outlets seem to be cutting her any slack anymore. And it seems to be a daily occurrence to see bad news from the Clinton campaign.

Today in the Washington Post I noticed an article about how Blue Hampshire blog had to kick out four registered users. Blue Hampshire is a small blog, but considered influential among New Hampshire progressives, as it seems to attrack a lot of organizers, party activists, etc.

The blog welcomes campaign staffers, but asks that they be upfront about their status when the register. The four who were blocked weren't upfront.

Can you guess from which campaign they came? Yep, Clinton. Blue Hampshire said they got suspicious when they noticed the four working in concert to promote certain items. Then they noticed the four had all registered within a minute or so of one another. Then, they figured out all four registered from the same IP address, which is a Clinton campaign computer.

The Washington Post added that Clinton's campaign said the four were overzealous supporters who were acting without approval from the campaign. Hmmm, seems we've heard that one before.

Oh, forgot to answer your question. If Obama gets the nomination, I don't think he'll pick Edwards as a running mate. No offense, and I like Edwards, but he wouldn't bring anything to the ticket. Couldn't even deliver his own state.

I'd look for someone from the Southwest or maybe Virginia (a red-turned-purple state). I can almost guarantee that Obama will give Mark Warner a call, but I think the response will be, "hmmm, tempting, but I'm running for the Senate."

But what do I know - never saw Bill Clinton picking another southerner.

Paul:

Thanks. How about Obama and Mitchell (George, now the Baseball report author)?

I think Obama can ask Dianne Feinstein?

I think Edwards will be a good choice as he can help to defeat GOP?

Anyway, first thing first. I want HRC/the Machine to lose IA. That is very, very important to me. I will drink, eat, sleep after that...

I like George Mitchell. He's up there in years. And quite honestly, he's become such an at-large statesman, wouldn't VP kinda be a step down?

I don't think Feinstein. Just... doubt it. Not the way I'd go. Besides a California pick doesn't gain you anything and potentially alienates some folks.

If its a female you're looking for, maybe that one from Arizona - the governor. What's her name? Anyway, I understand she's pretty well respected.

There's always Richardson. Right area, right experience, and he's the only cabinet member from the Clinton years who the Republicans didn't fully hate. He's a terrible speaker, so there's that liability. But other than that, he's ideal on paper.

The talking heads are saying the Southwest is next year's battlefield.

John Edwards is the only candidate who offers meaningful change. He is absolutely correct that special interests are holding our government hostage.