What does a guy like John Edwards do now in order to remain on the scene as a future White House contender?
A little background:
- His Senate seat was won by a Republican.
- He spent much of his Senate term either officially or unofficially campaigning for the White House, which generally put off his North Carolina constituents.
- Before politics, Edwards was a formidable trial attorney.
- Our next Senate race is in 2008. The incumbent is a very popular Elizabeth Dole.
A lot of folks here believe he is "toast" as a national candidate; he put all of his eggs in one basket and they cracked. What do you think? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-03-04, 04:50 PM Koz His only shot is to win the Governorship of the fine state of North Carolina. (When is that election anyway Fuse?) From what I have heard from some friends that live down there, it is not likely he would be elected to a high position though.
Stick a fork in him, he’s done. (That’s my opinion anyway Roll Eyes)
11-03-04, 05:13 PM coldfuse Mike Easley, a Democrat, won his second term as Governor on Tuesday. The next gubernatorial race is in 2008 and we have no term limits (I thought Jim Hunt would never leave).
Don't count on Bush appointing Edwards to the Federal Bench Big Grin
11-03-04, 06:10 PM EBknowsBUBBA I think John Edwards has his sights set for the White House. Any other office would be a waste of time for him. He now has name recognition. He also has time. He has looks. He has 4 years to go around the country to sell his ideas. Don't be surprised that he might come out with a book during the next couple of years. Also is the fact he is not tied down to an office or a job. He can travel at his own leisure for speeches and photo ops. And I am sure he has some very powerful connections developed as a result from his being on the ticket with Sen. John Kerry.
When it comes to 2008, I definitely think John Edwards hat will be tossed in the ring. Whether his campaign can take off, remains to be seen. Especially when a certain woman is being very heavily looked at for the nomination as well...
11-03-04, 06:19 PM CincyOnTheRoad He's rich, right? If I were him, I'd spend the rest of my days with the family, putting a dent in the world's beer supply, and fishing. But that's just me. Wink
11-03-04, 10:08 PM honilov Stick a fork in him? Funny!! Edwards are not done by a long shot.
Fuse, why the sudden interest in Edwards? Aren't Republicans your cup of tea? But, to answer your question, he'll probably gear up to run for president in 2008.
11-03-04, 10:31 PM teeceeum I think Edwards made a huge political blunder and said so at the time. Before that, actually. He should have used the primary as his introduction to the voters in this country and been content with that. Instead he cast his lot with a virtually unelectable (in my opinion, and that of history) presidential candidate and has branded himself both a loser and a member of the left wing. Not attributes that are attractive to most of the populace.
He practiced his craft here for ten or so years so I have heard some other unattractive things about him (as well as some positives). But that is baggage that he wouldn't have taken to a national campaign for president (just as Gore didn't). I think he screwed up. I put him in the "toast" column".
11-03-04, 10:38 PM coldfuse
quote:Originally posted by honilov: Fuse, why the sudden interest in Edwards?
He's from my home state and has had his eye on the land's highest office!
And though I tend to vote conservatively, I am unaffiliated and pushed the button next to several Democrats this year. One, in particular, is a feisty liberal woman Eek (don't tell my friends I vote for her)!
11-03-04, 10:40 PM notinmyname Edwards has a lot of get up and go. He'll figure something out I'm sure.
11-03-04, 10:45 PM notinmyname "virtually unelectable (in my opinion, and that of history)"
Bogus-o-meter is being pinned here. Virtually unelectable? he gave it a good run and was about 140,000 votes short in one state. That's without the provisional ballots and the overseas ballots.
Absolutely dominated in the educated and affluent areas of the Country.
11-04-04, 03:33 AM honilov TC, screwing up actually has little to do with any candidate, so even if Edwards did screw up, it didn't taint his political future. Bush is living proof...he has screwed up big time, and was elected again. It's not how you screw, it's who you screw. Toast? That seems to be what's popular. Wink
11-04-04, 08:34 AM teeceeum Drag out all the meters and Latin phrases that you like. I can have an opinion and that is mine. But how many MA senators have been elected president?
11-04-04, 08:56 AM coldfuse
quote:Originally posted by notinmyname: Absolutely dominated in the educated and affluent areas of the Country.
Is this the latest of several comments meant to imply that stupid people voted for Bush and smart people voted for Kerry?
If so, I wish someone would say so plainly.
11-04-04, 09:45 AM notinmyname TC - JFK was a MA liberal, wasn't he elected?
And perhaps Bobby, had he not been assinated like his brother was.
11-04-04, 09:46 AM newnickname
quote:I wish someone would say so plainly
Hey, I already said 'rednecks' and 'city slickers'. How much plainer do you want it? Smile
How about 'traditionalists' and 'sophisticates'? 'Good ol boys' and 'decadents'?
There have been several polls suggesting that significant numbers of Bush supporters believe that Hussein was involved in, or planned, 9/11. This would obviously colour your ideas on the Iraq fiasco and on how to vote.
Maybe it's the 'not-particularly-interested-in-foriegn-affairs' versus the 'brainwashed-by-the-evil-liberal-media'. 'The misinformed' versus 'the broadsheet readers'?
11-04-04, 09:48 AM notinmyname Being smart is not the same as being educated or affluent.
Education president?
11-04-04, 12:40 PM teeceeum Newnick, may I respectfully suggest dispensing with all of the labels completely? Both the candidates said as much in their speeches yesterday. How about we just give that a shot for right now.
11-04-04, 03:22 PM methos
quote:Originally posted by teeceeum: But how many MA senators have been elected president?
At least 2. Not so bad odds considering that there are 50 states and have been only 43 presidents (and that 15, or a bit over 1/3rd of those served as senators). As far as senators becoming president go, my guess is only Virginia has done better. As far as residents becoming president go, I suspect MA is in the upper quarter at least.
Of course, 200+ years of historical elections don't mean that it's easy for a north-eastern Democrat to get elected today.
As for dispensing with labels, I'm all for it, but I find it ironic that the president is suggesting it considering how he seized on the National Review's statistic (which they say was completely misrepresented and point to their ignored figure placing him in the mainstream of Democrats over his career) and even its exaggeration to the point that ads were running criticizing Kerry as "the most liberal person ever to run for president."
11-04-04, 04:10 PM coldfuse Who is the most liberal person ever to be a major party's nominee for President?
This narrows the field and responses might be interesting.
In my lifetime, George McGovern might take the cake over John Kerry, at least in relative terms.
11-04-04, 05:19 PM juanruiz As regards presidents from MA, I believe there are the Adams (pére et fils) and Kennedy. Now as to most liberal, if that is defined as who got the Federal government more involved in peoples' lives, it would have to be FDR. If you are talking about candidates and their stated platforms, though not a majority party, probably Huey Long.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 7612 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
As for Edward's future, that will be determined by what the Democratic Party decides to do. Will it look to attract voters by seeking a moderate, or will it follow its current approach? If the latter, Edwards and H. Clinton fill the bill. If the former, they may go with the senator from Indiana. In the meantime, Edwards may well have to do what Reagan did after 1976: get used to indigestion from many rubber chicken dinners across the country. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1-04-04, 07:01 PM teeceeum First of all, I never used the term "liberal". I said MA senator. The point being that, in my lifetime, there has only been one candidate from MA and one senator elected president. They are one person - JFK. And it's not very difficult to make the case that all other presidents since 1948 have come from either the South or the Midwest (uh... those would be the red states). Which is why I said that history (I should have said recent history) supports my opinion that Kerry was a very long shot at best. I lamented his choice by the Dems from the start. And I think that if you consider that in recent elections no one has scored a majority of the votes, 51% is a relatively impressive win. It definitely precludes any theories pointing to the "Nader Effect".
I didn't vote for Bush and I still disagree with a very large part of what he has done while in office. But I'm willing to give him a shot over the next few months to try to bring us back together. And I join DG (from another thread) and John Kerry in asking that we all do the same.
11-04-04, 07:22 PM juanruiz Presidential elections do seem to be characterized by large (Johnson in 64, Nixon in 72, Reagan in 84) and small (Kennedy in 60, Dubya in 00) victories. This may be due to the myopia on one or the other party at the time.
11-04-04, 07:26 PM notinmyname Bush has a lot of catching up to do, he fooled me once. He looked like he'd risen to the job after 9-11 and in Afganistan. Not so, I view him as untrustable, he's either misinformed or lies.
No WMD.
11-04-04, 07:36 PM juanruiz Really doesn't make any difference. He's in for 4 more years, doesn't have to answer to anyone.
11-05-04, 04:41 AM FredPuli "I will reach out to others and explain the decisions I make" President-elect Bush in his post-election news conference. Did not this same man once say words to the effect that one of the advantages of being commander-in-chief was that he did not have to explain anything to anyone? Do those words now reflect a sea-change in his thinking or are they mere words ?
11-05-04, 09:19 AM methos TC -
I didn't say you said liberal. I said the president did. That was in reference to another point you made (the president's newfound dislike of labels), not Kerry's electability.
As for electablility, I did say that 200+ years of history don't necessarily reflect current patterns. However, all other presidents since 1948 have not been from southern or midwestern states. That is true, however, if you only mean Democrats.
11-05-04, 10:50 AM teeceeum Methos, it was someone else who turned "MA senator" into "MA liberal", not you.
And I think it's not so difficult to argue that Bush I had a heavy identy with TX and Reagan was from IL.
11-05-04, 11:10 AM methos Sorry, I assumed Wink
For origins, Reagan, G H W Bush, and G W Bush (moreso the first two than the latter) could be argued either way, but what of Nixon?
11-05-04, 12:06 PM notinmyname JFK was not a liberal? interesting.
11-05-04, 01:25 PM EBknowsBUBBA
quote:Originally posted by notinmyname: JFK was not a liberal? interesting.
During the time JFK lived, he was considered a liberal. By today's standards, he would probably identify more with the conservatives.
11-05-04, 02:56 PM teeceeum Who said JFK wasn't a liberal? Where the heck did that come from?
11-05-04, 03:00 PM teeceeum You're right Methos. I forgot about Nixon. But that's still only 2 out of 11 over 56 years.
11-07-04, 11:20 PM AMoore
quote:Originally posted by methos: Sorry, I assumed Wink
For origins, Reagan, G H W Bush, and G W Bush (moreso the first two than the latter) could be argued either way, but what of Nixon?
It's hard to say how conservative Nixon was. Recall that he was the one who re-opened diplomatic relations with China, strictly off limits to us from the time of the revolution on. Until Nixon, we maintained the position that "China" was the government in exile on Taiwan.
Nixon was also responsible for a major devaluation of the dollar, something no previous conservative would have considered.
He is mostly associated in my mind with the Viet Nam war, however, and in his day, conservatives were opposed to foreign interventions. Eisenhower, who entered the US into Viet Namese politics, was careful to keep that involvement small and quiet. As a war, most people date that conflict to the Johnson administration, when the major escalation occurred that made the war an important political issue here.
Alan Moore
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Fuse - Had he stopped after it was clear he was not going to get the nomination, and ran for re-election as senator again, do you think Edwards would have been re-elected?
Concensus opinion in North Carolina is that Edwards would not have been re-elected as Senator. He alienated much of his constituency by informally running for President for several years before announcing his candidacy. Whether true or not, the impression is that he spent more of that time in Iowa and New Hampshire than he did in North Carolina.
Posts: 7612 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
