The Edwards Endorsement

By now you’ve heard that John Edwards finally has endorsed Barack Obama. Greg Sargent speculates why Edwards made the move now.

Clinton supporters still are arguing that Clinton’s support among white working-class voters makes her the stronger candidate in the fall. However, a recent Quinnipiac University survey says otherwise. Foon Rhee of The Boston Globe writes,

…both Clinton and Barack Obama lead presumptive Republican nominee John McCain nationally. Clinton leads 46 percent to 41 percent, with strong support from women and blacks. Obama leads 48 percent to 37 percent with strong backing from independents and blacks.

But while Clinton is trying to argue that she holds greater appeal to blue-collar voters essential to a Democratic victory in November, she and Obama face similar deficits among non-college-educated whites in the poll — McCain leads 48 percent to 41 percent over Clinton, and 46 percent to 39 percent over Obama.

And Clinton continues to have the lowest favorability rating. While 47 percent of voters have a favorable view of her, 44 percent have an unfavorable view. Obama’s spread is 49 percent favorable to 43 percent unfavorable, and McCain’s is 45 percent favorable to 31 percent unfavorable.

This is just one poll, but it suggests that Clinton’s “advantage” among white working class voters is a mirage. And the mounting hysteria among some people that the Dems are doomed without the white, small-town, working-class voters seems odd to me, considering that Dems haven’t had those votes for a very long time. That they are suddenly so essential now seems a tad irrational.

9 thoughts on “The Edwards Endorsement

  1. The interesting number there is the McCain unfavorable. There would seem to be a lot of work to do on a very easy target

  2. Why has this Quinipiac poll been such a highly guarded secret. I’ve been arguing for months that the so-called Reagan Democrats don’t vote for Democrats, even white ones like Hillary. That’s why they’re called Reagan Democrats, duh.

  3. Pingback: THE GUN TOTING LIBERALâ„¢

  4. Assume for the sake of argument that Clinton OR Obama can beat McCain. The question becomes who would best bring about the kind of change we want in the next 4 years. That’s the significant question – not who can beat McCain – but who will change the country for the better.

    I agree with Obama; Clinton or McCain are more of the same, with a different brand on their ass (or elephant). I can’t promise anyone that Obam WILL be better, but I prefer to give him a chance than to continue the way we are.

  5. It’s ironic: Bill and Al’s anthem was Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.” While the latest incarnation of Team Clinton motors around singing “Don’t Stop Thinking About — Yesterday.” How sweet it was . . . .

    This current cycle is turning into a choice between “mourning in America” for the lost glories of the past, versus picturing ourselves in a greatly altered world (due, in no small part, to our own behaviors) and figuring out how to just deal with it. Our politics swim in a vast flotsam of 3rd-world imports, crumbling infrastructure, militarism, and memories of cheap energy — that most of our leaders simply refer to as “our American way of life” that “we will fight to defend.”

    And nobody who actually thinks that way is going to be voting for a “change” candidate. No matter who their running mate is.

  6. “That they are suddenly so essential now seems a tad irrational.” It’s Hillary who is a tad irrational, In tandem with her tad irrational husband, the couple together are flat-out bonkers. It’s time for the consumate narcissist and his nurse Ratchet to be put out to pasture. Their ‘racing’ days are not-so-sadly over.

  7. This is just one poll, but it suggests that Clinton’s “advantage” among white working class voters is a mirage.

    The key thing is, her advantage is among white working class folks *who are voting in the Democratic primary deciding between two Democrats*. Plus, her better polling in the primary just means that, if they’re choosing between her and Obama, and have chosen/are eligible to vote in the Democratic primary, they prefer her.

    It’s partially self selection, partially a non-random sample, and it’s partially the wrong statistic. I mean, all of them are choosing to vote in the Democratic primary (self selection), some don’t have a choice which primary to vote in (non-random sampling). And, the measure we want is “will win more votes (from this demographic) when John McCain is the other choice”, not “who wins when (Clinton or Obama) is the other choice.”

  8. How about Elizabeth Edwards as Secretary of Health and Human Services in an Obama administration? I like the idea.

Comments are closed.