Edwards to Endorse Obama

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Kerad

As for the results of Edwards' presidential and VP campaigns, there is no denying how things ended up. But hindsight doesn't alter the reasons Edwards made the choices he made, when he made them.

Oh stop. Do you expect Edwards to say, "I've decided to not run for re-election to the Senate because my poll numbers are down and I probably wouldn't win"?

And he was obviously not polling well because Bush won by 12 points in NC. Not only that, but a Republican won Edwards' Senate seat. Now, it's possible that your definition of "well" means "he wasn't sucking as bad as he could have". But John Edwards was obviously not a popular person in NC.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Oh stop. Do you expect Edwards to say, "I've decided to not run for re-election to the Senate because my poll numbers are down and I probably wouldn't win"?

And he was obviously not polling well because Bush won by 12 points in NC. Not only that, but a Republican won Edwards' Senate seat. Now, it's possible that your definition of "well" means "he wasn't sucking as bad as he could have". But John Edwards was obviously not a popular person in NC.

:sigh:


I have this:

A poll in The Raleigh News & Observer in July showed Mr. Edwards leading the probable Republican nominee, Representative Richard M. Burr of Winston-Salem, 47 percent to 39 percent.

What do you have?

Changing the parameters of the discussion doesn't change the actual circumstances.

Bush didn't face off against Edwards for the NC Senate seat, and Burr didn't run against Edwards for the seat, either.

So far, the only polling numbers showing how Edwards might have fared against Burr are the ones I provided. Numbers that do not make the "he knew he was going to lose to Burr" argument credible.

Why is it important for righties to cling to this argument? We all know how Edwards fared in his Pres/VP campaigns. Why do you have to insist on a minor point that isn't even credible?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Kerad

Changing the parameters of the discussion doesn't change the actual circumstances.

Bush didn't face off against Edwards for the NC Senate seat, and Burr didn't run against Edwards for the seat, either.

So far, the only polling numbers showing how Edwards might have fared against Burr are the ones I provided. Numbers that do not make the "he knew he was going to lose to Burr" argument credible.

Why is it important for righties to cling to this argument? We all know how Edwards fared in his Pres/VP campaigns. Why do you have to insist on a minor point that isn't even credible?

Okay, Kerad, I suppose it could be that North Carolinians were so angry at Edwards for not continuing in the Senate that they not only voted against him in the presidential race, but they also said, "HA!" and voted a Republican into his Senate seat.

That's possible, if not probable.

If you think Edwards failing to bring in his home state is a minor point and not credible, then there's nothing more to discuss.