Edwards just pronounced that Mccain will be the Republican nominee..

I don’t know what John Edwards knows but he just said that Mccain will be the Republican nominee. I guess Romney, (who currently has more delegates than John Mccain) and Huckabee should just pack up their bags and head home..and he now says that he can beat John Mccain everywhere in America and that’s why we should vote him..oh John..Oh John.. “He says that he can go anywhere in America and beat John Mccain..”

Why don’t we all write John Edwards a Dear John letter? lol…

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Edwards just pronounced that Mccain will be the Republican nominee..

  1. That was a great debate tonight – As a conservative white Republican- Obama out performed all of them. Edwards said he would be the best against McCain–not what the RCP polls show.

    McCain (48.5%) vs. Obama (44.5%) Spread McCain+1.3%
    Giuliani ( 38%) vs. Obama (52.3%) Spread Obama +14.3%
    Huckabee (38.8%) vs. Obama (52.3%) Spread Obama +13.5%
    Romney (33.3%) vs. Obama (54.7%) Spread Obama +21.4%

    Obama has the best spreads against each Republican nominee. I may not agree with most of his views but he likeable and could easily draw independents and moderate cross over Republicans.

    Take Care,
    Robin

  2. Hey Jonolan,

    Thanks so much for your comment…

    I can understand why some are saying that Mccain will win the Republican nomination but I don’t think any candidate from either party should be making such pronouncements in public and then go on a rant on how they can beat so and so….

  3. Hey aslansmane,

    Thank you so much for your comments. I know the debate last night was for lack of a better word, forgive me AWESOME!!! LOL

    I’m going to be writing an analysis a little bit later..my computer crashed in the middle of writing it last night as for
    Obama’s appeal I agree with you, he’s intelligent, charismatic and he has crossover appeal and that bothers many of his opponents.

    As for the polls I can definitely understand why Obama would lose in a matchup against Mccain (real experience could trump Obama’s message of hope/bridge building) but of course he would thrash all the rest!

  4. Also: via Rasmussen Polls –

    McCain vs. Clinton – McCain (49%); Clinton (38%) = McCain +11%
    McCain vs. Obama – McCain (46%); Obama (43%) = McCain +3%
    McCain vs. Edwards – McCain (39%); Edwards (46%) = Edwards +7%

    These polls would show Edwards as the only Dem expected to beat McCain in the General Election.

  5. The “Bradley/Wilder” effect [some white voters deny racism in polling but so act at the election] does, sadly, still exist. That is why Edwards — at this point, and consistently so up to this point — performs better in the Rasmussen Poll than Obama in a matchup with McCain. Perhaps the tooth fairy will improve Obama’s numbers between now and the Democratic Party convention; show me.

    Clinton has a similar, even higher, deficit in a matchup with McCain.

    Edwards has exhibited the skill lacking in his 2004 running mate to fight the Republicans’ pseudo-populism with real, persuasive advocacy for social and economic justice.

    Edwards’ up-front advocacy has prompted Obama, then Clinton, now even Bush (only on a $100 billion econmic stimulus) to move off dead-center.

    And only an Edwards campaign has the potential coattails to win enough Senate seats in November to give the Democrats close enough to 60 seats to end Republican filibustering.

  6. Hello WatermelonGrower,

    I appreciate your comments.

    I agree with you that the “Bradley/Wilder” effect does continue to play a role in our politics.

    Obama’s candidacy has given us the opportunity to nullify or at least diminish the effects of this phenemenon.

    Obama isn’t just ‘the black’ candidate he’s the BEST candidate for the job. Period.

    Now, I’ll say this I can identify with the message of John Edwards but I can also identify wth ALL the Democratic candidates who are basically preaching the same thing but have different approaches on how to get us there..

    Clinton wants to work within the system to bring about the necessary changes.

    Obama wants to us to work together to bring about changes that are beneficial to all of us.

    Edwards wants to demolish the system completely.

    Now, these approaches are all needed at some point time in the history of a state and even in our own personal lives as well….sometimes, we have to talk to others we don’t like or with different philosophies in order to get things done, sometimes we need to just accept the things we cannot change and just use it for our benefit and other times we need a revolution!

    Edwards is preaching a revolution and to be quite honest the masses aren’t quite at that point yet and that’s Edwards’ downfall.

    I’ll say this millions of people are mad, furious even at the way things are going in this country but I don’t think they are at crisis point and that is why his message isn’t resonating as much as Clinton’s or Obama’s.

    And if race is still a big factor in how many people vote what about gender?

  7. Do we even know if Race or Gender are an issue in this campaign? The media hypes it, but is it really so?

    It’s in the media’s best financial interests to create controversy and to keep the race as close seeming as possible. I’m not sure that we can trust what they say anymore.

  8. blackliberal wrote:

    Hello WatermelonGrower,

    I appreciate your comments.

    I agree with you that the “Bradley/Wilder” effect does continue to play a role in our politics.

    Obama’s candidacy has given us the opportunity to nullify or at least diminish the effects of this phenemenon.

    — cut, cut —

    WatermelonGrower responds:

    One of my favorite slogans is: “Pessimism of the mind, optimism of the will,” coined by a true revolutionary (which neither Edwards nor Obama is). There would be a lot of hard work to unlearn racism to the extent needed for an Obama victory over McCain, imo.

    *****************************************
    blackliberal wrote:

    Edwards wants to demolish the system completely.

    — cut, cut —

    Now, these approaches are all needed at some point time in the history of a state and even in our own personal lives as well….sometimes, we have to talk to others we don’t like or with different philosophies in order to get things done, sometimes we need to just accept the things we cannot change and just use it for our benefit and other times we need a revolution!

    Edwards is preaching a revolution and to be quite honest the masses aren’t quite at that point yet and that’s Edwards’ downfall.

    WatermelonGrower responds:

    I can’t speak to John and Elizabeth Edwards’ familiarity with political sociology, but you probably have them wrong, or they wouldn’t be doing reformist politics so skillfully within the context of the Upper South.

    The Edwardses don’t strike me as even European social democrats; they are pro-labor, pro-middle-class populists.

    I think we will potentially be in a non-revolutionary situation like that of the first and second New Deals, from 1933 – 1937, when the Republican Party had completely discredited itself, and opportunities for relief, recovery, and reform created by Franklin Delano and Anna Eleanor Roosevelt, Senators like Democrat Robert Wagner of New York (author of the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act) and Progressive George Norris of Nebraska, a public power state (author of the Tennessee Valley Authority).

    Do you know what Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas said about the New Deal? It “carried out the Socialist Party Platform of 1932 — on a stretcher.”

    Btw, WatermelonGrower means I stand for compassionate conservation, as well as social and economic justice.

  9. Hello WatermelonGrower,

    Sorry it took so long to get back to you, gotta go to work sometime..lol..

    Ok. The type of Populism being practiced by John Edwards is not and will not translate nationally, I think, as you pointed out in your comments, that Edwards has been successful in the Upper South because of the economic difficulties currently being experienced there, their bias towards the so called “Northern Elites’ and the unique demographic composition of those states.

    His agenda might be successful in ‘those areas’ because of their ‘unique’ unifomity but I’m sure it wouldn’t be able to translate nationally obviously, he has been successful in any primary or caucus.

    I think we will potentially be in a non-revolutionary situation like that of the first and second New Deals, from 1933 – 1937,

    I’m an in complete disagreement with you there..lol..

    The New Deal came about because of a depression..a GREAT depression it affected the US and global masses in ways that we haven’t and probably wouldn’t, knock on wood, ever see again.

    The masses are not experiencing ‘those’ types of difficulties economically, they may want things to be a bit better in certain areas, health care and some parts of the economy but frankly they are satisfied with the way things are…but like I said before if they were I would expect John Edwards to have been the winner from the very beginning of the nomination process.

    I think the system will be tweaked in certain ways in order to develop specific programs to help the masses i.e Universal Health Care but overall the system will remain the same.

    I really don’t see a new, New Deal on the horizons..at all..the masses aren’t happy but they aren’t starving, depressed, frustrated and hoping mad either..

  10. blackliberal wrote (quoting me):

    I think we will potentially be in a non-revolutionary situation like that of the first and second New Deals, from 1933 – 1937,

    I’m an in complete disagreement with you there..lol..
    — cut, cut —
    I really don’t see a new, New Deal on the horizons..at all..the masses aren’t happy but they aren’t starving, depressed, frustrated and hoping mad either..

    WatermelonGrower responds:

    You are of course correct as to how bad the Great Depression was — one-third of adult males were unemployed, one out of two were underemployed (or un–). Gross National Product was down from $87 billion to $41 billion. Five thousand banks failed — about 1.6 banks per ocunty. Nonetheless, America at the time of the Great Depression, I contend, was NOT in a revolutionary situation, primarily because its form of government, with winner-take-all single-member legislative districts is so biased against revolutionary change at the polls that the election of any Democrat over Hoover was both inevitable and expected as proper by the VERY FEARFUL MASSES. Roosevelt’s leadership effectively conveyed a partnership with the masses to overcome the fearsome circumstances.

    Contrast that with what happened extra-constituionally in Germany in 1932 and 1933, where the NSDAP (Nazi) share of the popular vote approached 35% and its armed militias out-militiaed the Social Democrats (SDP) and Communinsts (KDP, who were trashing the former as Social Fascists). Hindenburg, the Reichspraesident, in January 1933 invited Hitler to form a government, which then ruled by decree, with decree-enforcement by the German — especially Prussian and Bavarian — civil service, including judiciary and police.

    I don’t see current Democratic Party personalities as obviously Rooseveltian — it’s just too soon to tell. I do see the current economic situation as potentially very grave, and, LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, it is a non-revolutionary situation. Home mortgage meltdown, the continued hemorrhage of American jobs overseas courtesy of the Clintonistas’ fixation on free trade, and the possibility of the loss of overseas-creditor confidence in the economy are capable of generating a VERY severe recession. Clinton says she channels Eleanor Roosevelt; too bad she doesn’t channel Eleanor Holmes Norton and Robert Reich, who are worthy of Eleanor’s legacy. Edwards’ backers see his rhetoric as paralleling FDR’s attacks on “malefactors of great wealth,” and I happen to believe he is capable of a broader social critique. Obama folks point to his cheeriness — a very good thing too, imo; I admit to knowing very little about him otherwise, but I promise to remedy that deficiency soon. At this point, I am not sold on him as preferable to Clinton, btw.

    Did you see Larry Sabato’s comments today? On Edwards, he sees him facing three options: fold, hang in there through the convention, or endorse Obama. Personally, I think Edwards can accomplish most with the second option.

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=LJS2008012401. Sabato, who I think is pretty accurate, says:

    What of John Edwards? It is evident to all that he will not be the Democratic nominee for President. Really, how could the Democrats, the party of diversity, nominate a white male when the other major candidates were a woman, an African-American, and a Hispanic? After South Carolina, the state of his birth, Edwards will have three choices: (1) Stay in through the primaries, collect delegates under the party’s proportional rules, and hope that the Clinton/Obama split is so close that his delegates can make Edwards the kingmaker, with a payoff of the post of Attorney General or another vice-presidential nomination; (2) Drop out before or after February 5th, and endorse one of the candidates (surely Obama, given what Edwards has said during the campaign); or (3) Drop out and save his nod for later. Option three is the least likely, since Edwards will quickly become irrelevant. If the second option is chosen, can Edwards actually steer his delegates and voters to Obama? Will Edwards campaign enthusiastically for Obama to enable the transfer? Should Edwards truly prefer Obama, Edwards may conclude that the first option helps both Obama and himself the most. Many of Edwards’ white, blue-collar supporters may be more inclined to choose the white female over the black male in a one-on-one match-up, no matter what Edwards says or does for Obama. Splitting the white vote may be Edwards’ real favor to Obama.

  11. I should have added: Because of the great structural problems with the American economy, New Deal-like structural reforms are necessary. I believe Edwards could persuade the American public as to the necessity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s