How You Know Edwards Must Be Gaining in the Polls
EmailIn Spencer, Iowa, this morning, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois — narrowly leading in some Iowa polls of likely Democratic caucus-goers — said this:
"The reason now that I raise this issue of the special interests is because everybody now in the campaign talks about how I am going to fight for you. Like Senator Edwards who is a good guy, he’s been talking a lot about ‘I am going to fight the lobbyists and the special interests in Washington.’
"Well the question you have to ask is: Were you fighting for ‘em when you were in the Senate? What did you do? Because I did something, immediately upon arriving in the Senate, despite the fact that it wasn’t a popular position to take."
– jpt
UPDATE: Just to clarify matters — I don’t know of any polls showing Edwards ascendant. But the campaigns at this point are doing daily polling and targeting their messages accordingly. Obama seldom acknowledges Edwards, but has recently begun discussing him, unprompted, which says to me that he must be doing that for a reason.
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Close, Jake, but in your title “How You Know Edwards Must Be Gaining in the Polls”, you forgot to add: “…at the expense of Obama”.
And that’s logical. There are Democrats who don’t want to vote for Clinton but who are now torn between Obama and Edwards, with the splitting question being the electability of Obama. People who are worried about that, if only slightly, will allow Edwards back into the picture again.
That will in turn split the anti-Clinton vote between them, making Clinton the one who runs off with the prize.
Sorry, Obamaians, Clinton is going to win Iowa thanks to J. Edwards. How ironic.
(And just to be sure: again, I’m no Clinton supporter.)
Posted by: Kaj | December 17, 2007, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
Once again, let’s clarify. Obama has little record of doing anything that would prepare him at this time for being president. That is not to say he does not hold some good core values. This comment is not about being negative towards Obama; it is simply the truth that he has almost no experience to lead a nation. Obama should spend eight years in the Senate and work hard- not to pay his dues- but to prove he can accomplish major initiatives. Obama makes a faulty analogy when he likens himself to Bill Clinton in 1992 and his borrowed “good experience” and “bad experience” mantra. In 1992, Bill Clinton was a multi-term governor. If the run for the Democratic nomination were like a job interview, Obama would have been disqualified due to a serious lack of experience for the job.
Posted by: Christopher C. | December 17, 2007, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Interesting. No mention here of WHICH polls John Edwards is doing better in. Where’s the factual details ?
Posted by: jstip | December 17, 2007, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
The question should be “How You Know Edwards is Jake Tapper’s favorite candidate?”
The answer: look at all his recent posts. Numerous slights on Obama and Clinton, while defending Edwards repeatedly.
This post is a great example of trying to pretend Edwards is moving up in the polls when there is no evidence of that. Edwards has been attacking Obama on this point throughout the campaign but more so recently, so why is it a big deal when Obama responds?
Edwards had been leading Iowa for a long time before Clinton took a small lead and now Obama. They’re all very close. So it shouldn’t be a surprise when they try to point out differences between each other.
Posted by: Mike | December 17, 2007, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
Great news. Edwards will win Iowa, Hillary will finish third and it will be a two person race.
Posted by: DW | December 17, 2007, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
Jake,
Your logic is based on Obama’s comments. Do you not know that Edwards has been attacking Obama’s positions that he is the only person that is strong enough to fight against interest groups? What makes you think that Obama’s comments are not in response to Edwards’? It that was the case, how would it show that Edward is gaining in the polls?
Senator Obama is leading because he has better and more effective ground game that is deep and extensive and was built during the summer and fall. If you are in doubt, find out how many mock caucuses Edward or Obama has conducted to date? For instance, Obama’s campaign had 1000 house parties through out Iowa in one day at the same time. Think about it.
Posted by: Edmonsky, Sacramento, CA | December 17, 2007, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
Edwards is really strong in Iowa. He had built up a huge following in 2004 and continued to add to it in this campaign season. Polls don’t reveal his strength because few poll just caucus goers in Iowa. Don’t be suprised if Edwards wins in Iowa. I’m not sure, however, if a victory in Iowa would propel him forward in the rest of the primaries.
Posted by: JadedSage | December 17, 2007, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
You’re an idiot. Edwards sucks. Obama rocks and Hillary’s the devil.
Obama 08′
Make it Happen Iowa!
Posted by: Malik | December 17, 2007, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
Remember this is Iowa and at the caucuses if a candidate does badly in the first round of voting, the push begins for people to change their mind. My guess is that it isn’t so much that Edwards is doing better as Obama is trying to convert Edwards voters to make Obama their choice after they see on caucus night that Edwards isn’t going anywhere. In 3rd place Edwards has the biggest block of caucus attendeees who can be converted.
Posted by: Gil | December 17, 2007, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
Edwards is the only one that gives us a chance to win the White House. There is no was Obama and Hillary can win in the South. Edwards is the only one that can win the south. Edwards is the only one that can kick the corporates out of Washington. Go Edwards all the way to the White House
Posted by: Rick | December 17, 2007, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Edwards has had the chance in 2004 and he lost it. He couldn’t even deliver his homestate. So, why risk it again? He was given the chance and he blew it. We cannot afford to loose another one. Let’s be smart democrats with our choices…..
Posted by: Mary | December 17, 2007, 4:13 pm 4:13 pm
Edwards has the best chance to win a general election. He is thoughful and he can win in the South.
Obama can not win in the South. Now he
can not even win in the North, after Bob Kerrey Mentioned his “Hussein” middle name. His poll numbers are come down fast, really fast. Poor Barack Hussein Obama.
Posted by: JL | December 17, 2007, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Jake – you’re a trouble maker ;-)
Posted by: Jen Q | December 17, 2007, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | December 17, 2007, 8:38 pm 8:38 pm
Black people would be crazy to vote for HRC.First, she said Obama was too ambitious.Second,she used drug references to imply maybe he dealt drugs.Third, she implied he should wait his turn and let her coronation take place.
As far as I’m concerned I don’t see how electing a white lady would be change in a country that has never had a minority as president.That’s pure insanity to think people will not wake up and understand that only when we elect a minority can we talk of change.
Posted by: joseph pierre | December 17, 2007, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
Hillary is the one with her finger in the wind. This sort of speculation makes more sense in Hillary’s camp. Hillary’s journalists, i.e. Paul Krugman, Taylor Marsh and Lynn Sweet are using John Edwards. That’s all that Obama’s comments signifies.
Posted by: jdr | December 17, 2007, 9:53 pm 9:53 pm
I don’t know about polls showing Edwards on the rise but looking at most of the ones we do know about, I can think of a second reason. My guess is it’s more just a matter of arithmetic.
As of this moment the percentage of Iowa voters listing either Clinton, Edwards or Obama adds up to around 80%. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson account for another 10-12%, Kucinich and Dodd maybe 1% each. You will note that we’re already over 90%. Not too many, under 10%, are undecided.
Given the above, consider that:
Polls may be overstating Barack Obama’s support a little and underestimating John Edwards’ a tad based on where there supporters are and they are and who they are.
Biden and Richardson are likely to split pretty evenly between the big three, perhaps with a nod to John Edwards in Richardson’s case. Biden people might tend to favor Clinton more.
There’s no reason I know of to assume undecides will break more heavily for one candidate than another.
Any outcome that can be written off as a tie probably benefits Mrs. Clinton.
Both Edwards and Obama have been going at Hillary Clinton pretty heavily for the past month or so but have not been able to drive down her numbers significantly (and now she’s angry). Obama still needs another chunk of votes from somewhere to pull of a convincing win. Where’s he going to get them? Same is true for Edwards, BTW.
Posted by: CalD | December 17, 2007, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
I have always thought and complained about some “writers” who masquerade as journalists, like Lynn Sweet, who may actually be Hillary Clinton moles in the various media outlets. I knew there was something strange about how tainted the articles by Lynn Sweet have read.
It is a professional disgrace, when news outlets like Chicago Suntime, employ the likes of Lynn Sweet, whose articles lack fundamental objectivity.
Posted by: Ignatius Anyanwu | December 17, 2007, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
Obama has held elected office for 11 yrs (4 more than Hillary, 5 more than Edwards). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois Senate (8 yrs). He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 yrs. He sponsored law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2004. In his first yr (before his presidential bid) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with Republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the Senate. There are 890 bills in Obama’s name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096.
Posted by: Katy | December 18, 2007, 12:10 am 12:10 am
“During his time in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored 203 bills. He cosponsored Lieberman’s S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq,[16] saying on October 10, 2002 that “Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility.”[17] He subsequently apologized for that military authorization vote. Edwards also supported and voted for the Patriot Act.” Wikipedia
Posted by: Katy | December 18, 2007, 12:13 am 12:13 am
Poll: Electability key among Democrats
“USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama fares better than New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton against prospective Republican rivals” … “Obama was somewhat stronger, besting Giuliani by 6 points, Huckabee by 11 and Romney by 18. Clinton had an edge of 1 point over Giuliani, 9 points over Huckabee and 6 points over Romney.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-17-prezpoll_N.htm
Posted by: Katy | December 18, 2007, 12:16 am 12:16 am
In the last Democratic debate the moderator asked each candidate what their New Year resolution is going to be.
In a very honest moment Obama said he had a problem of being to “timid”.
The GOP in a general election will go after Obama using Obama’s own words against him. A timid candidate to the Republicans is a weak candidate they would just love to go after him. Is Obama to timid to stand up against special interest groups, lobbyist ,bad trade deals, and other nations who would love to do us harm? Wait a second maybe that’s what the multi- national corporation want a timid president? The way I see it, it would be a win win situation for the multi- national corporation. If a Republican wins they would have one of their own like Bush in the White House or if Obama would win he would be to timid to stand up to them.
One thing the Democrats do not need is a timid candidate, going up against the Republicans’ attack machine.
John Edwards has proven he is not timid and would be a strong candidate for the Democratic Party. The last thing our nations needs with all the Problems we have here at home and abroad, is a timid president.
Here is a quote From Senator Obama from the debate transcript: “And so I have to constantly remind myself not to be timid, not to be distorted by the fears of losing in order to make a real difference in the lives of the American people
Posted by: Mark | December 18, 2007, 1:25 am 1:25 am
You are right Kaj,
Anti-Clinton voters would go for either Obama or Edwards. This will backfire and make Clinton ‘run off with the prize’.
Sean
Posted by: Sean | December 18, 2007, 2:32 am 2:32 am
the Obama express can’t be stopped…Obama is the Tiger Woods of presidential candidates in 2008…He can and will win in IA, NH, SC and beyond…the Obama train has left the station and he is the best candidate to unify our country and solve the tough problems — no doubt about it.
Posted by: techinvestor | December 18, 2007, 3:08 am 3:08 am
Edwards did not win his own state which is NC in 2004 because it is a red state.
Posted by: Smoo | December 18, 2007, 10:25 am 10:25 am
I like John Edwards I am from his state and I will vote for him.
Posted by: Smoo | December 18, 2007, 10:26 am 10:26 am
John Edwards does indeed seem to be a good guy.———
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 18, 2007, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Your Mama! | December 18, 2007, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Actually,
Edwards made some comments about Obama first. Saying that he wasn’t a strong enough fighter. That’s why Obama made those comments.
I don’t think there is anyway to get past your bias, but at least keep up with what is really going on.
Thanks.
Posted by: Uzoma | December 18, 2007, 6:09 pm 6:09 pm
Congrats, Jake. Unless you were fibbing and had access to a poll we hadn’t seen, today’s news bears you out, as Edwards has vaulted ahead of his two rivals in an Iowa poll.
I’m an Obama man, myself, but this is exciting. I think we have three very strong candidates. I’m very worried about Hillary Clinton’s high negatives and also about her principles, which seem to shift with the winds of expedience, but she’s a far shot better than any of the doofuses on the Republican side, and I’ll work my arse off for her if she’s the nominee. Same for Edwards or Obama.
It’s a race!
Posted by: Matt Weiss | December 18, 2007, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
American politics? Anyone intelligent knows this is a race to win. I read about Edward’s rise in Iowa after the last debate. So,it would be dumb to not point out differences between himself and Edwards if Obama truly desires to win. He, Mr. Obama, is definitely not dumb.
Posted by: Kathryn N | December 19, 2007, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
I am a black woman who support Hilary Clinton. My politics have always been to support the candidate who will do the best/most for the U.S. I become suspicious when someone makes it to the top as fast as Obama. Who is backing this individual? I’m not talking about recent contributors, but the individual who came forth with up front money for his campaign. What was their purpose. No one knew him. Look out America, we might be sorry if Obama comes out ahead. It’s time for a lady to show the world how this country should be run. America give her a chance.
Posted by: Thelma Williams | December 20, 2007, 1:11 am 1:11 am