Washblog

Please join Paul Berendt, Jon Bridge, Jenny Durkan, Mitch Friedman, Paul & Lita Luvera, T.J. McGill, Ron & Janice Perey, Jim & Jan Sinegal
for a reception & dinner with John Edwards

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

5:30 p.m. Reception
At the Westin Hotel, Seattle

7:00 p.m. Dinner
At the home of Ron & Janice Perey, Seattle

Individual Westin reception tickets: $100

Cocktail Captain: raise $1000
Co-Sponsor: $1000
Co-Host: $2300

Cocktail Captains, Co-Sponsors, & Co-Hosts
are invited to attend both reception & dinner

For more information or to RSVP, please contact Jessica Frahs at jessica@newmanpartners.com

So why support John Edwards and why attend the fundraiser?  In my mind, the single best reason is that he is leading on the issues.  For the first time in a long time, the Democrat that best represents and boldly communicates progressive values, and leads on the issues, is also the most electable.  And that is a very big deal in my mind (who doesn't want to crush the "progressive = unelectable myth?).  I also think that Edwards has shown how "progressive populists" can win all over the country.

I decided to chose the two issues that seem to be most important to Washington Democrats and highlight John Edwards' leadership on these issues.

First...Ending The War In Iraq

For those who missed it, here is a clip of...

John Edwards' very effective response to President Bush's speech from last night
YouTube clip

We all know how the candidates voted when the war began... we want to know what they have been doing and will continue to do to end the war, and end it now.    

Side Note: In case you forgot, Senator Clinton voted for the war, and though she has not used the word "mistake" she does say that if she knew now what she knew then she would have never voted for the war. Senator Edwards also voted for the war.  In late 2005, against the advice of consultant hacks, he prominently admitted that his vote was a huge mistake.  Since then he has spoken about the seriousness of this mistake on numerous occasions. Senator Obama, who was a State Senator at the time, and therefore did not vote on the war, gave a speech and appeared on a television program opposing the war...credit goes to where credit is due...Obama gave a great speech, and rightly predicted many of the things that we currently face. I just wish that he would have used the moral authority that comes from being right from the start, to lead.

So here are 6 examples of Edwards leading on ending the war, while Clinton and Obama were ultra-cautious.

The Kerry - Feingold Amendment (2006)

This amendment was being discussed the same time as the Levin-Reed (RI) amendment.
Although Levin-Reed was a step in the right direction it was not nearly as important as Kerry-Feingold could have been. Kerry-Feingold would have set a timetable for withdrawal.

Clinton: Voted against Kerry-Feingold, for Levin-Reed.

Obama: Voted against Kerry-Feingold, for Levin-Reed.

Edwards: In an interview that aired on ABC's This Week, Edwards told George Stephanopoulos that he supported both amendments.

The Connecticut Senate Race (2006)

This primary pitted a DLC Warmonger, Joe Lieberman, a Senator from Connecticut who was the vice-presidential candidate in 2000 and the first front runner in the 2004 presidential race, against Ned Lamont, a grassroots candidate if there ever was one.  This race was not even supposed to be close.  But due to grassroots support, everything changed.

Clinton: Endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Many believe that her husband's odd speech  in favor of Lieberman right before the primary kept him from losing the primary by such a large margin that he would have had to drop out of the race.

Note:  The speech was odd in the sense that Lieberman, blasted President Clinton for the Lewinsky affair much harder than any other Democrat...though this is to be expected as Lieberman has not only bought into Wingnut lies and frames about foreign and economic policy, but also social issues.

After Lamont won the primary Senator Clinton endorsed him. She sent his campaign a check and gave the Lamont campaign use of her communications director, Howard Wolfson.

Obama: There has been a lot of talk about Lieberman was Obama's "mentor" in the Senate.  In the interest of fairness it is important to point out that apparently freshmen Senators are assigned "mentors", so Obama had no say in the matter.  If anyone could be identified as Obama's "mentor" I think that most Obama supporters would agree that Senior Illinois Senator Dick Durban would be considered the closes thing to Obama's "mentor."  And Senator Durbin is a great Senator and a great Democrat.

Obama endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Obama campaigned for Lieberman, telling Connecticut Democrats that although Obama understood Lieberman's views of foreign policy, he hoped Connecticut Democrats would have the "good sense" to re-elect Lieberman. After Lamont won the primary Obama endorsed him, and sent out a fundraising e-mail on Lamont's behalf.  He has  received some criticism for not campaigning for Lamont.  

Edwards: Refused to endorse Lieberman in the primary. Was the first person to call and endorse Lamont after he won the primary. Edwards was also the first major Democrat to come campaign for Lamont. While campaigning for Lamont both John and Elizabeth Edwards made it clear that they believed that because Lieberman had ran in the Democratic primary he needed to accept the will of the party and drop out of the general election race. Until that moment only one other major Democrat had made a similar statement.

Stopping The Escalation of The War in Iraq

Clinton: Stopped short of calling for funds for the escalation to be cut off.

Obama: Stopped short of calling for funds for the escalation to be cut off.

Edwards: Vocally supported cutting of funds for the escalation. Repeatedly called for Congress to stop the escalation by cutting of the funding, and bought an advertisement to encourage Americans to urge congress to cut off the funding for the escalation.

The Gregg Amendment

This was viewed by many as a de-facto pledge to not cut off of funding for the war.

Clinton: Voted for it.

Obama: Voted for it.

Edwards: Made it clear that he supported Congress using it's funding authority to end the war.  Edwards cast a controversial vote against funding for the war back in 2003.

Reid (NV) - Feingold

Clinton: Had to be prodded into supporting it by Chris Dodd and others.

Obama: Had to be prodded into supporting it by Chris Dodd and others.

Edwards: Supported Reid-Feingold as a first step but wants to go further.

The "Capitulation" Bill

Clinton : Waited until after Obama had voted, then voted the right way, against the bill.

Obama: Waited until many others had voted, then voted the right way, against the bill

Edwards: Made it very clear from the start that he was opposed to the bill, and any funding bill without a timeline for withdrawal.

Coming Soon... The "Capitulation" Bill - Part 2

Once again, the fight against any bill that does not have a timeline for withdrawal is being led by Edwards and Dodd. Clinton and Obama, at least at this point, have failed to show any leadership, even though they move in the right direction rhetorically.

Now for the another issue that is very important to Northwest Democrats...Environmental Action

Grist Magazine's "How Green Is Your Candidate?" - Updated
How Green is Your Candidate

The League of Conservation Voters' "The Heat Is On" Chart of the Candidates' Positions on Important Environmental Issues
The Heat is On

A recent diary from Daily Kos...

Al Gore has Called for Action - John Edwards is Taking a Stand to Meet That Call
Edwards is Taking a Stand

MoveOn.Org Virtual Town Hall - Climate Change
MoveOn Virtual Town Hall

In case you are interested in reading it, I thought I would post an e-mail I sent to the activists on my mailing list so that you might be able to see why I am so excited about this event.

If you want to join the "Activists for Edwards" mailing list, e-mail me at EdwardsSupporterCentral@gmail.com

Activist involved in all sorts of pro-Edwards groups are involved.  I am personally involved in a few efforts...

The Edwards Supporter Resource Center -
Edwards Supporter Resource Center

is my personal blog, meant to be an information resource blog for supporters.  Other activists from OneCorps Online also contribute.

If you get a chance, check out the LNCFE (Labor-Netroots Coalition For Edwards) blog -
Labor-Netroots Coalition for Edwards

The LNCFE is a joint effort that I'm involved with, along with "philgoblue" of Michigan for Edwards and Dave Lester of Blogs for Edwards.

There are a lot of people that are very excited about Senator Edwards' candidacy, and I hope I've helped communicatte why his candidacy is such an important opportunity for the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

So here is the message I sent (it talks about some polling and some other things, but it's mostly about the fundraiser...  

I haven't slept in quite some time but there is a lot of good news for the community of Edwards Supporters, so here goes nothing.  I apologize for any typos.

If you can hang with me past a little polling mumbo jumbo I think you'll be as happy as I am right now.

However, If you are sick and tired of polling (I can't blame you), please skip down past the line to...

JOHN EDWARDS IS COMING TO SEATTLE - THE MUSICAL

First off...

The "Game Over" Bounce

You all know how I feel about national primary polls.  The turnout for presidential primaries is 7-11% (I assume the turnout for caucuses...as in Iowa, Nevada, and Michigan...is on the low end, if not lower).  Yet most national primary polls simply ask people if they are a "registered" voter.  The problem is that the vast majority of registered voters don't vote in primaries.  We also know that "low-info" voters love Senator Clinton, and to a lesser extent Senator Obama.  When polled they simply answer "Hillary" or "Obama", because those are the names that they are most familiar with (they might be able to identify the names of the top 3, but they are more familiar with Clinton and Obama).  Part of the reason why they chose these two is because, especially in the case of Senator Clinton, they think that they are "supposed" to chose her.

So basically, IMHO these polls are worthless as far as an indication of how the race is going.  However, they are important to donors who should know better, and the mainstream media who relies on these polls so they can act like they know what is going on.  

You're probably asking yourself why I'm even mentioning them then.  Good question.  Well, I have a little theory.   In the past month or so we have all felt the excitement in the grassroots for the Edwards campaign.  In my mind he has been on FI-YAH for quite some time, but the "End the Game" speech was definitely a turning point.  It was around this time that Senator Edwards' numbers in national polls began to rise.  Considering that media outlets are still treating him the same (with a few notable exceptions in print) I don't see anything that would have caused his numbers to rise among more casual Democrats.  My theory is that Edwards has gained enough support among those who are more likely to vote that, even though they make up only a fraction of the national primary poll samples, their increased support for Senator Edwards drives up his overall number.  What I'm trying to say is that, I think that John Edwards has gained so much ground among actual primary voters that even when all Democrats are polled and the numbers are skewed against him in a major way, he is still gaining.

I know that, in theory, tracking polls are meant to be looked at over the course of closer to 3 weeks than 3 days.  Instead of listing all of the results for the last 3 weeks I chose these two numbers (they are about 3 weeks apart) that are generally representative of the "Game Over" bounce.  Of course, I am not trying to say that these numbers are accurate, they are national polls after all, and the majority of those who are included in the poll are not going to vote.  But I do think that they back up the idea that Edwards is gaining support from some group of Democrats, and at least, in mind there are a lot of reasons to believe that the increased support is among those most likely to vote in the primary.

Compare...

Rasmussen Tracking - August 19, 2007

Hillary Clinton - 43%
Barack Obama - 23%
John Edwards - 12%

to...

Rasmussen Tracking - September 13, 2007

Hillary Clinton - 40%
Barack Obama - 21%
John Edwards - 18%

When I shared my little theory in the blogoshpere, I was engulfed with angry responses from Clintonistas and Hope, Inc. fans alike.  They had two main points.

• No other national polls back up the Rasmussen uptick.
  
• "John Edwards can't win if he's still at 11% nationally"

Polling Report

NBC - September 10th 2007

Hillary Clinton - 44%
Barack Obama - 23%
John Edwards - 16%

CNN - September 9th 2007

Hillary Clinton - 46%
Barack Obama - 23%
John Edwards - 16%

CBS - September 9th 2007

Hillary Clinton - 44%
Barack Obama - 26%
John Edwards - 17%

Gallup - September 8th 2007

Hillary Clinton - 45%
Barack Obama - 24%
John Edwards - 16%

I don't see "11%" anywhere. Of course this point forgets how irrelevant national polls are.  We don't know where he is among those who are actually going to vote.  I think these numbers are only relevant in the sense that they could back up the theory that those who are actually going to vote are moving in John Edwards' direction.

As to point #2...

John Kerry was at 10% in national polls at the beginning of January 2004.  By the end of the month he was at 50%.  There are two things that, IMHO, mainly fueled his rise.  

- The perception that he was the most electable Democrat.  

When you point out that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat, and people answer back, "Well, so was John Kerry" it's important to remind them that  Kerry's "electability" was 100% perception.  We didn't want a candidate who could be "hawked" to death by Bush and Kerry was a decorated veteran (he still is, regardless of what the Swift Boater Hacks say).  John Edwards' electability has been backed up by so much general election polling it's ridiculous.

General Election Polling-- Review

Edwards' electability is actually backed up by evidence, Kerry's was pure perception.

The second thing that fueled Kerry's rise was...

- A win in Iowa, and the free media that came with it.

Side Note:  Of course the fact that Karl Rove attacked Kerry because they wanted to draw attention to Kerry and away from Senator Edwards helped.  The GOP was, and still is, desperate to avoid the candidate that they fear most, Karl Rove's worst nightmare... John Edwards.

Hmmm...electability and a win in Iowa...sound like any candidate we know?
Not to mention that the free media that the winner of Iowa will get this year could very well match the paid media in the run up to February 5th that Senator Clinton has sold her soul to K Street to pay for.

This little theory of mine could be off.  But I think that there is reason to believe that grassroots support for John Edwards is starting to solidify and expand.  After all, when you think of the race from the perspective of a "high-info" Democrat, there really is no coherent rationale for supporting anybody but John Edwards.  I know that is a very confident statement to make.  But when a candidate leads on the issues, best communicates and represents our values, is by far the most electable, and the best candidate for the future of the progressive movement, organized labor, down-ticket candidates, etc I think that it's a fair statement to make.

On top of all this, Edwards is the only major candidate who repeatedly talks about his dedication to a "progressive agenda".  He talks about how, with increase congressional majorities that will be possible if he is on top of the ticket, he will be able to "really move" a "progressive agenda".  

What else could grassroots Democrats ask for?

The recent Texas ePrimary poll, which  could have been more representative of the primary electorate in Texas than some statewide polls showed Edwards doing very well (38% to 21% and 20% for Obama and Clinton).  This is more anecdotal evidence that active Democrats are uniting behind John Edwards.

Regarding the recent  LA Times / Bloomberg Iowa poll

It looks to me to have the same flaw as other Iowa polls, though I am far from a polling expert.  Like other first time Iowa polls (R2K, Mason-Dixon, Washington Post,) it includes way too many low-info Democrats who aren't likely to caucus, thus inflating Senator Clinton's numbers.  Though the blogosphere usually avoids looking past the numbers, the front page of MyDD even pointed out that the screen was loose.

This poll actually backs up the point that there are three kinds of Iowa polls.  There are ARG and the first time Iowa 08' pollsters (the Zogby / Newsmax Poll, which was criticized heavily by Political Wire, is in this group).  They give Hillary Clinton an unexplainable lead time and time again.  They are often considerably off of the more respected pollsters on the GOP side as well. For example, the same polls that boosted the more familiar candidate on the GOP side(McCain)over the candidate more reliable polls showed leading (Romney), boosted Clinton over Edwards on the Democratic side.

The second group is made up of Zogby and Strategic Vision.  They show John Edwards with a more modest lead.

The third group actually includes the most respected Iowa pollster, the Des Moines Register.  This group shows Edwards with a solid lead.  Selzer and Co., Hart, Time, PPP, Harstad, and Fairbanks and Co. (the Richardson campaign) are in this group.

This would be a different story if Pollster A showed Edwards up one month and Pollster B showed Clinton up, and then the next month A had Clinton up and B had Edwards up.  It's not like that at all.  It appears to be more of a matter of who you want to believe.

One group consistently shows Edwards with a solid lead.  Then there is the ARG / first time Iowa pollster group.

Maybe these are just coincidences, but if you look at all of the 08' Iowa polling these patterns become very clear.

You can find a review of Iowa caucus polling at...

Why I support John Edwards

There's a reason why I think it is worth explaining why, at least in my mind, these numbers don't add up.  I'm pointing all of this out so that supporters won't get frustrated or discouraged when they see these numbers.  My opinion doesn't cary much weight, but I wouldn't say this if I genuinely didn't believe it.  I am more confident now that John Edwards will be the next president that I have been since the race began.

BREAKING: Quinnipiac Florida Poll

I just double checked Pollster to make sure I had included all of the recent national polls above and I spotted a new Quinnipiac Florida General Election poll that I thought looked good for us.  I stopped by MyDD to see if anyone had covered it yet, and I saw that Clintonistas are already trying to use this one poll to argue that not only can all the polls that show that John Edwards is the most electable be "flushed down the toilet", but that this poll is proof that Senator Clinton would do best in a general election.  

One problem...they forgot to actually look at the numbers.  

They also forgot about the recent Quinnipiac polls showing Edwards doing far better nationally, and in Ohio.  

It's worth noting that against the two Republicans most likely to actually win the nomination (Romney and Thompson) Edwards outperforms Clinton.

Here are the numbers...

Quinnipiac University - September 12th 2007

Florida

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 48%
Romney - 38%

Obama - 44%
Romney - 36%

Edwards - 47%
Romney - 33%

Clinton leads by 10%, Obama leads by 8%, Edwards leads by 14%

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 46%
Thompson - 40%

Obama - 43%
Thompson - 39%

Edwards - 44%
Thompson - 36%

Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 4%, Edwards leads by 8%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 44%

Obama - 38%
Giulani - 47%

Edwards - 42%
Giuliani - 46%

Clinton is tied, Obama trails by 9%, Edwards trails by 4%

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 45%
McCain - 40%

Obama - 39%
McCain -  42%

Edwards - 42%
McCain - 39%

Clinton leads by 5%, Obama trails by 3% Edwards leads by 3%

Averages

Clinton leads by an average of 5.25%
Obama averages a tie  
Edwards leads by an average of 5.25%

So this is the ace up their sleeve?
This is what they want to brag about?

Wow, they really showed us.

I think it is very telling, and a sign of how overwhelming the evidence against their point is, that they do cartwheels when Edwards does best against the 2 Republicans most likely to win the nomination, but Senator Clinton manages to tie him in the average...in one poll...in one state.  

You only need 2 links to straighten this out.

General Election Polling Review
General Polling Review

Quinnipiac Florida Poll - September 12, 2007
Quinnipiac Florida Poll

__________________________________ __________________

I wasn't sure how to get everyone's attention for something that I consider to be VERY important, so I decided to turn the next part of this message into...  

JOHN EDWARDS IS COMING TO SEATTLE - THE MUSICAL

I know, turning e-mails into "musicals" is probably pretty cheesy, and I've never seen a musical in my life so this could be bad.  However, this big of an event warrants a gimmick of some kind.

A couple days ago, Washington Democrats got HUGE news - John Edwards is coming to Seattle.  And I wanted to ask all of you to spread the news to anyone who lives anywhere close to to the Northwest.

The event is on Wednesday, September 19, 2007

5:30 p.m. Reception
At the Westin Hotel, Seattle

7:00 p.m. Dinner
At the home of Ron & Janice Perey, Seattle

Individual Westin reception tickets: $100

Cocktail Captain: raise $1000
Co-Sponsor: $1000
Co-Host: $2300

Cocktail Captains, Co-Sponsors, & Co-Hosts are invited to attend both reception & dinner

For more information or to RSVP, please contact Jessica Frahs at jessica@newmanpartners.com

This is most definitely cause for THE DANCE OF JOY
YouTube clip

I almost forgot, Seattle has its own version of the "Dance of Joy"
YouTube clip

Sometimes people ask me, "Why is the music from Seattle so gloomy?"

To them I say...
YouTube clip

So I guess by "musical" I meant that I would just post links to Milli Vanilli videos.  

If you or someone you know lives near the area then I really hope that you come out.

Even if you don't live in the area, Seattle is definitely worth the visit.  I know that we're mainly known for rain, grunge music, and coffee, but the weather is actually pretty nice around this ti+ me of year, there are all kinds of radio stations in the area, and the coffee is actually THAT good.

There is a lot to do here. It would take a long time to list all of the unique opportunities that Seattle offeres, so I'll just list a few off the top of my head.  For me the biggest selling point is that Art, of all kinds, is pretty much everywhere.

There are tons of independent movie theatres and rental places (including the legendary Scarecrow), record and book stores of every variety, and every kind of food you can imagine. Vegan Thai food might not sound that good, but I sure think it is.  If that is not your style then I highly recommend stopping by Dick's Burgers and Paggliaci Pizza.  You could spend an entire day on just one street in Seattle, looking at / shopping for art, music, litarature, food (University Ave is one example). Seattle also has a breathtaking aquarium, beautiful piers, Pike Place Market, Seattle Center...the list goes on and on.

If you are able to come, I would highly recommend a trip to Seattle.  

As a grassroots Edwards supporter from the Northwest, I know that this a state that John Edwards can carry in the primary and increase the previous Democratic margin of victory in the general election.  Survey USA has Edwards doing far better against Republicans in the Northwest than Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, though this is not a surprise as he consistently outperformes them all across the country.

Edwards' strong stance on environmental action, his leadership on ending the war, and his commitment to working to make Universal health care a reality are a big part of the reason why he is positioned to do well here.  

By the way, if you are a Northwest Democrat, be sure to support Jeff Merkley.  He is challenging Gordon Smith, the so-called "moderate" Wingnut...I mean Republican, who currently holds one of Oregon's Senate seats.  Jeff Merkley is truly a great candidate.  He's very much pro-labor, dedicated to ending the war in Iraq, and he endorsed John Edwards.  That is my kind of Democrat!

Jeff Merkley site

I would really appreciate it if you would help us grassroots Edwards supporters in the Northwest flex a little muscle and pack the Westin Hotel.

I should probably end this "musical" by picking a little Seattle flavored diddy to welcome Senator Edwards to "the other Washington".

So I chose a song by the Foo Fighters (Dave Grohl, the singer for the Foo Fighters, was the drummer for Nirvana, the quintessential Seattle grunge band).   I find it fitting for two reasons.  When John Edwards was introduced at the first Iowa town hall after he announced in the 9th ward of New Orleans, he came out to a Foo Fighters song, "Times Like These".  I also think that the words of the song I picked are reminiscent of something Senator Edwards might say to a certain Senator from New York.

(lyrics from "The Pretender")

What if I say I'm not like the others?
What if I say I'm not just another one of your plays?
You're the pretender
What if I say I will never surrender?

So here is "The Pretender" by The Foo Fighters.
YouTube clip

Everybody take care,
Michael Conrad
AKA "Michael 4 Edward"