Why isn't John Edwards the frontrunner...?

Question

I mean, he does hace the best chance of winning, has the best agenda, and is still pretty good looking... Hillary and Barrack will LOSE, against any moderate Republican for sure, are you kidding? A woman and a Black on the Democratic ticket is too dangerous to run against another Republican. It is about as sane as expecting Ralph Nader to win again...

I say looks and gender are important, only because if Barrack or Hillary lose against the Republicans, they still lose.
I would have thought Nader had the "best agenda", in 2000, that's why I voted for him, but he LOST, and losing means getting zero your way, get it? I doubt you do.

Answer 1

What difference does it make? He has been bought and paid for by the elite international bankers and corporations that own the media. Pick you poison. Edwards, Hillary, Romney, Rudy, McCain, Thompson, and Barrack are all peas in a pod and will do the bidding of the elite.

Ralph Nader has little chance and so realistically the only honest politician with a chance to get elected and that will put interest of the American people above the interest of the bankers and large corporations is Dr. Ron Paul.

Answer 2

Edwards lost a lot of his principle support because of Obama, but... he might get it back from those people as they start to see that he's all sizzle and no steak. That said, John has gone too far over to the angry left to have much of a chance in a broader election.

The problem is that what is feeding Hillary is the nostalgia for the Clinton years on the part of many Democrats. She may be too polarizing to win, but even that is subject to dispute, if she runs a very narrow campaign aimed at winning those states that are winnable.

The fact is that the dynamics of the campaign are really quite simple for John Edwards. And essentially they are the same as 2004. He has to win Iowa, and show well in New Hampshire. If he does, he assumes the mantle of the un-Hillary, and the anti-Clinton vote coalesces around him. I think that structurally, that probably isn't going to be enough to win the nomination, but...

I don't see any way for Obama to end up with the nomination, fund-raising notwithstanding, because he has no natural constituency in the early states, and if he comes in third or fourth in Iowa and New Hampshire, there really isn't any scenario that wins him the nomination. I think that his boosters are hoping for a big showing in the (now earlier) California primary, but that might be a mirage... California was the first state to have a serious black gubernatorial candidate (Tom Bradley 1982, 1986), and despite being vastly more qualified he wasn't particularly close in a state that naturally favors the Democrat. One of the scenarios that I hear idealists float is the idea that hispanics are going to vote in droves for Obama, an idea that ignores the reality on the ground in California, in particular. Hispanics consider themselves Hispanics, not minorities, and California hispanics intensely dislike blacks, in a sense they are more racist in that regard than your typical white-redneck Orange County voter.

If Hillary runs a "safe" campaign, she'll end up with the nomination, and barring an absolutely unexpected change of heart on Iraq by GWB, she probably wins the general, because the so-called moderates that you reference are all strongly in favor of Iraq, a position that has become completely discredited with all but die hard Republicans.

Answer 3

Personally I think he is the best candidate. He seems the most grounded out of the group. And you know how good the Republican party is at mud slinging and so far all they have been able to come up with is calling him gay. If he can stump them I figure he has to be pretty clean. Of course another reason could be that they don't see him as much of a threat and don't want to waste time, energy, and money on him.

Answer 4

First of all: America is not ready to elect a dual minority ticket (Clinton/Obama) - Won't happen. If anything, these two are both strong candidates that face un-necessary adversity simply because they are the minority, and the American voter is usually both impressionable, and narrow-minded.

This Clinton/Obama/Edwards talk will become irrelevant, quickly, if and when Al Gore throws his name into the ring.

If Gore runs: He is the next President of the United States, otherwise (as a Democrat) - I fear that Clinton or Obama are so un-electable to the impressionable general populus that the GOP candidate will waltz in and take the election.

Answer 5

The presidential election is a distant second to the House of Representatives. Focus on that first instead. I would also suggest not voting in ANY attorneys this time around as well. They want to be involved in government, let them work that out in the judicial branch. The PEOPLE obviously need to control the legislative branch.

Answer 6

John Edwards is not a frontrunner because the voters perceive that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are better then him with regards to solutions that beset the country.

VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know who will likely win.

Answer 7

A woman and a black are too dangerous and John Edwards is still pretty good looking? We're going to be voting for someone who will reunite this country and have to deal with and make decisions about life and death issues. Your qualification criteria is looks, gender and race? Lord, help us all.

Answer 8

I guess Edwards doesn't have the charisma Clinton and Obama do, and they would both be historical firsts if either one of them got the nomination so he's never going to get the attention they would for that reason alone. This is as much a popularity contest as it is a presidential race, and Edwards just isn't that popular.

Answer 9

He needs 2 B. He is what America is about.

Answer 10

He can't raise the money that Obama and Hillary can.