Finally, Edwards at this point demonstrates the greatest appeal to Independents beating Guiliani by 13%. Obama wins Independents by 5% and Clinton wins them by 3% against Guiliani 

Thank you Doug, for helping prove my point. When natural closing occurs Edwards will have the current blue states in his pocket (I could potentially see Giuliani making a run in New Jersey, but like I said before, those electoral votes will be more than made up for) and Edwards' superiority among Independents will ensure that he can compete against Giuliani in states Clinton could not dream of competing in.

That is the point in all of this. In an actual election he can keep the blue states blue and expand into a lot of red states that no other Democrat can.

If you are accepting both Survey USA numbers and the national general election polls, then that would mean that Clinton's national numbers are helped by huge leads she has in states that are going to go for the Democratic candidate anyway. That means that in the national numbers, Edwards makes up the deficit Clinton's superiority in blue states gives her, and then ads to that enough support that he consistently outperforms her nationally, in the Midwest and South.

Okay, I said that kind of clumsily so I'm going to try again... Clinton's superiority in solid blue states actually helps the Edwards electability argument. It means that Edwards is consistently outperforming Clinton nationally against Giuliani by a considerable amount because he does well enough in the states Clinton cannot compete in to make up for her lead in solid blue states, and then ads to that enough support to give him around a 5% advantage Vs. Giuliani compared to Clinton.

It is too early for me to be doing this, that much is for sure. Mikie need sleepy...should have gotten some last night. Why am I thinking aloud in my diary?

Where was I?

You can either accept this, or throw out either the national GE polling or the Survey USA polling. You can't accept both and not cede that Edwards is doing extremely well in places Clinton could never compete in.

The "No New York" theory also assumes that national primary polling is accurate, and thus Giuliani is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. People need to remember that only 7-11% turnout for primaries. That means that the vast majority of the sample will not even vote. Senator Clinton and Giuliani both are both more familiar with voters, and especially in Senator Clinton's case, "low-info" voters (that is not a slur, by the way, person who thought I called you stupid last time, that is a commonly used term) think that they are supposed to support her. But they are not very likely to vote in a primary and even less likely to show up and caucus on a cold January night.

Rasmussen, who uses a tighter, but still not nearly tight enough screen on their national primary polling sees a significant increase for Thompson and Romney. Their order is usually Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, than McCain...as opposed to Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney. And that is what an only slightly tighter screen does. Though Giuliani is doing better in NH, he is struggling in IA and SC. And his "firewall" - FL, is up for grabs for Romney (Jeb Bush anyone?) and Thompson as well.

My point is that Clinton supporters try to muddy the waters on Giuliani, but the truth is that not only does Edwards do better against him in a GE match up, but he is far from a lock to be the nominee.

I think it is good that at least this group of Clinton supporters is admitting that Edwards is the most electable against Thompson and Romney. They are two-third off the way there.

Some Clinton supporters have said out that if I don't have maps to go along with the numbers they are "worthless". But there is a major problem with the map requirement. Survey USA is not releasing numbers for every state, so many of those states are going to be, at best, educated guesses.

There is ample proof that Edwards can compete for WAY more electoral votes than Clinton can, no matter who the GOP nominee is, and making a nice little map of just the Survey USA numbers in certain states interpreted by Clinton supporters...or for that matter Edwards supporters is highly misleading.

I have said it a hundred times...look at the totality of evidence.

Another problem is that the Clinton supporters that have been spinning this have their own special methodology. For instance, though the margin of error is around 4.50% it can expand to them depending on who is winning or losing and by how much. If Clinton is trailing by anything less than 6 or 7 she is "within the margin of error". But because Edwards trails Giuliani by all of one percent (with the match up in the mid 40's) they claim that he "turns New York red." If Edwards leads Giuliani by 8% then somehow the margin of error magically expands and "it is within the MoE so he'll probably turn that state red too". Yet if Clinton is leading a Republican by as little as 2 or 3% then she "beats them easily". You cannot have it both ways. 

Some of the Clinton supporters' maps are as disingenuous as the Giuliani campaign's maps. 

Obviously Clinton supporters don't like that I bring this up and they will try to throw any spin out there, just to mitigate the damage. And I am leaving out issues related to electability like being "ready for prime time"(not running from interviews, laughing off hard questions when they are finally asked, and then refusing to answer others), and not having an 800 pound elephant in the room in the form of a personal life that all of us wish would not be an issue, but most definitely will be. 

Debunking your claims is fun, and easy, so please keep them coming. All I can say is that the evidence is overwhelming, and I wish you would actually look at it for once, but I am betting that you will continue your cognitive dissonance. If you have a problem with my averaging out the results against the Republicans at the general election polling review then take it up with pollsters like Rasmussen, because they do it too. And if you have a problem with my pointing out that John Edwards is by far the most electable Democrat, take it up with your fellow Clintonista Doug Schoen.

We need someone who can bring the country with them to do things like making Universal Health Care a reality. 

A wise man once said that John Edwards could "talk an owl out of his tree". That man was none other than former President Clinton. 

So a top Clinton advisor admits that Edwards is the most electable.

President Clinton admits that he is extremely persuasive.

And Senator Clinton has already endorsed his Universal Health Care plan.

Who would have known that some of John Edwards' strongest advocates would be from the Clinton campaign?

Source