OpEdNews » New Hampshire Primary - Democrats agree with John Edwards on the Issues

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): 2008 Election Local Primary; 2008 Election Presidential Primary; Barack Obama; Change; Clinton-Hillary; Democratic; Edwards John; Election-Voting Issues; History; History; (more...) Issues; Issues-Advocacy; New Hampshire; Polls; Presidential Primary Elections; Voting; Zogby (less...)
Add to My Group

January 5, 2008 at 10:06:08

New Hampshire Primary - Democrats agree with John Edwards on the Issues

by Steven Leser Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

Whenever I see a big surprise happen in politics like Obama’s win in Iowa, I start researching to find out why it happened and what are some of the characteristics of the event. With only a few days until the New Hampshire primary, it doesn’t make as much sense to look backward. Instead, I want to know why people are supporting each of the top three candidates in New Hampshire. What is it about each candidate that is gaining a person’s vote?

I found something interesting from the cross tabs of the latest Zogby poll. When we see polls on television or online or in the print media, we usually only get to see one small part of the poll results. Of course it is interesting to find out the overall support at a particular point in time, but not getting to see the rest is a shame because the rest of the responses tell us a lot more about what is really happening that leads to that support.

The latest Zogby poll has an interesting question. It has a question that asks, “Which of the following reasons best explains why you plan to vote for…” And offers the responder five choices plus Other and None Selected. Of the top three Democratic Candidates, only Edwards has a majority who are voting for him because they “Agree with him/her on the issues”. 55.3% of Edwards supporters are voting for him because they agree with him on the issues compared to 38% for Obama and 35% for Clinton. The only other question that received a lot of percentage response for any of the top three was “He/She is the best person for the job”. As expected, Clinton won that response handily (over 50%) as she has been pushing the idea that she has the most experience. Obama and Edwards both trailed her considerably within 10 points of each other.

Its not just ‘Change’ it’s ‘What KIND of Change’

The “Agree with him/her on the issues” is an important question that is particularly critical to Edwards and Obama because they are both running to be the candidates of change. If you are going to be the candidate of change and expect to have people vote for you on that basis, wouldn’t you think that would mean that people who are voting for you are doing so because they agree with you on the issues? If not, might it not be a strong indication that they are voting out of response to hype instead of because of the facts?

For what sort of change are you voting if you are not voting with a candidate with whom you agree on the issues?

This Zogby poll tells me that people in New Hampshire who are voting for someone because they agree with what a candidate will do on the issues are voting for John Edwards. There are a lot of political orators throughout history who have excited people. Some of them have been good politicians, some bad and everything in between. Where people got in trouble is when they voted for someone who was exciting without carefully examining the policy positions behind that excitement. When people in this election examine these detailed policy positions, the person that gets their support is John Edwards.

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

2 comments

57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Andris57Yo m I'm a "been there, done that! Bought the tee shirt,to hide the scars!" type of person Ive workedï¿½many jobs fromï¿½a chicken slaughterer to managing a branch of a multinational and many jobs in between.Raised in colonial PNG Left School 16,Grad Hi school 22 Night School, University 36ï¿½ BBus (majored in Psyche and Marketing), Dip Comp prog and project Mmnt.at 50 I've been in 48 different community org ,23 on board with 18 prez or deputy prez.First social campaign at 17 for the aborigine...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Steven, Well said but

I think you have too higher expectations of average people.

I have said many times my experience in campaign management tells me that people are jaded because 'overload' . Too much pressure... to what ever... too information...too much cynicism of politics... too higher expectations that the right Candidate will provide the silver bullet.

Spectacular, conflict gets peoples attention. The media profit demand and need the above no one watches a news full of garden shows, lost dog stories or how politicians are 60 hr week workers. The message should be simple. The more positively (or negativly) the message the more effective. You should listen to the song by Hedgehoppers Anonomous called 'Good news week' (60's). Very insightful of the media. Little has changed perhaps the bias....Thanks to the Mad Dingo.

As a consequence of the above people want Hope (through change). Emotional issues is the only way to appeal to voters across party dogma. Most of the campaign directors would know this.

Remember two things .

1. Sell the sizzle not the steak.

2. If you're not in the white house you can't affect anything ( even by 30-40% possible).

If its less then thre's something wrong with the system ( Which is what many think... the Constitution need up dating for 21ts Century and the circumstance that the founding fathers could never have concieved of).

All in all your analysis is on the money but.....

by Andris (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 531 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 5:47:03 PM

Steven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of t...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Steven LeserSteven Leser specializes in Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.

Steven Leser writes for www.opednews.com, an internet only media site that has grown to become one of the highest traffic news sites in America, reaching more traffic, according to alexa.com, than all but the thirty largest daily newspapers in the US. Mr. Leser is one of t...

to see more of bio, click on member name

No buts...

I frequently make part of this argument to the Kucinich folks, and it is a good argument to be made regarding a candidate that is not viable and is not electable.

John Edwards is not such a candidate. He is very well liked by just about everyone. He is, in fact, consistently polling better than either Obama or Clinton against any of the Republican contenders.

That all being the case, I think it is a good case to make that one candidate has a firm agenda for change, and one doesnt. Not to mention that if you are talking about a long one on one campaign against a Republican, they are going to point it out if you dont have details behind your change agenda. If you dont have detailed plans, if you dont believe and have strong values and principles behind those plans, you are not going to win. Talking about change in flowery terms is not going to get it done. It might work for a few weeks in the primary season, but it wont work when it is one on one for 5-7 months or so versus the GOP candidate.

by Steven Leser (209 articles, 44 quicklinks, 32 diaries, 1367 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 6:23:44 PM