<p>
</p>
<p>In other news McCain is the most electable Republican, and Huckabee performs miserably. Being a Jesus freak only works in Iowa and the South. Who would have known? :)</p>
<p>Well first, Edwards will have to get the democratic nomination. I would love to see it happen, but I don’t think so.</p>
<p>There are many in the health care field who still have problems with his personal injury case history and the millions he made suing doctors in the name of “injury,” given that many of the plantiffs had complications and outcomes that were not on the basis of negligence or poor performance by the hospital/docctor/provider.</p>
<p>Sunny Florida:
</p>
<pre><code> Well they get polled like everyone else , I guess there weren’t a big enough of group to change the polls. Still better than Clinton , since 50 percent of the country already hates her.
</code></pre>
<p>And I think there are too many racists in this country for an African-American to be elected. The right-wing groups have already accused him of being a Black Panther and a crypto Muslim.</p>
<p>UCLA, you’re right about Obama being accused of being a crypto Muslim, but you’ve got the wrong groups behind it. It’s operatives in the Clinton campaign and Mrs. Clinton had to broom at least one of them today because they got caught. </p>
<p>I believe the person was terminated because they got caught, not because they were making the connection between Obama and the Islamic faith (smiley face goes here).</p>
<p>Wouldn’t put it past her.</p>
<p>My preference is Obama, but I think ucla might be right. I too think Edwards is the most electable. I think the Dems really mis-read how much antipathy there is to Clinton. My exMD H has managed to put aside Edwards former occupation–it’s issues that matter, now more than ever.</p>
<p>I’d love to see an Edwards/Obama ticket. I think it’s the Dems best shot (I’d prefer it the other way around, but again, see above.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like a source? Scratch that I found it. [Clinton</a> campaign asks volunteer to resign - Hillary Clinton News - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22181497/]Clinton”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22181497/) Well you cant push anything pass the Clintonistas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now i have my problems with Edwards. I wish he didn’t vote for the war, but I don’t think its prudent to attack him for being a lawyer. Most of our presidents and LAWmakers are well, lawyers.</p>
<p>Nominating Edwards will take the health care issue right off the table. Plan on seeing countless commercials of small towns that no longer have access to specialists because they can’t afford the malpractice premiums.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And right in time you have the far-right attacking the “evil lawyers”. This last president wasn’t a lawyer. How did that work out?
You’ll more likely see ads about how right-wing free trade politics have destroyed the economies of small towns or how Wall Street Republican fat cats ruined the housing industry for another Savings and Loan Bail out.</p>
<p>FF, you do realize Edwards takes the Republicans down in all head to head matches. That’s why the right wing is HOPING for a Clinton nonination. Or scratch that I’ll just ask you FF, who of the Democratic candidates will be able to take down the Republicans most effectively? Who the least? I am discussing the top 3 of course.</p>
<p>“You’ll more likely see ads about how right-wing free trade politics have destroyed the economies of small towns”</p>
<p>You mean NAFTA which was strongly supported by Clinton. Or Edward’s votes in support of trade with China? I’d say “bring it on” with that assertion.</p>
<p>Edwards is the Huckabee of the Dems - he hasn’t been enough of a factor to have been really tested yet, so it’s no wonder that he polls well. I’m sure if he were to actually get the nomination he would no longer be the stealtrh candidate. Actually, if he comes close to getting the nomination the Clinton attack machine will take him to pieces before the Republicans even have to lift a finger. </p>
<p>I personally suspect that Obama would be the strongest candidate against the Republicans because he presents less of a target given that he has no record. He would be particularly strong against Huckabee and to a lesser extent Romney since his inexperience will be less of an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No dice on that one. Huckabee is polling MISERABLY compared to other Republicans and he is relatively unknown. So your assertion doesn’t fly. [Poll: Huckabee would lose to top Democrats by double digits - CNN.com](<a href=“Poll: Huckabee would lose to top Democrats by double digits - CNN.com”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/10/poll.head.to.head/</a>? Howeveiref=hpmostpop&eref=yahoo&partnerID=211911) However I do agree that both Huckabee and Edwards are running populist campaigns that may work in Iowa.
McCain and to a lesser extent Guiliani poll the best against Dems. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s been in the Senate of the State and the Federal Gov’t so I suppose he has a record. However I’d rather have Obama’s record vs. Romney’s flip-floppity record, He ran to to the left of Ted Kennedy and only started running to the right when he seriously thought about campaigning for President.</p>
<hr>
<p>I won’t play partisan hack and say straight up that If i was A republican I would think McCain has the best chance in a general election if he can stop looking old and tired, although I don’t think he can make it past the primary. Guiliani looks good on polls also but I think he’s personal life will destroy him. He’s more of a womanizer than Bill Clinton. I don’t think he can go far in the primaries because of his weak chances in the early states.</p>
<p>Huckabee and Romney are dreams for the Democrats. They’ll both be smashed in a month.</p>
<p>FF - single payer medical care would pretty much eliminate medical malpractice cases and insurance costs. Imagine that. But then, actually solving a problem instead of blaming it on liberals or lawyers isn’t the right wing way, is it?</p>
<p>“No dice on that one. Huckabee is polling MISERABLY compared to other Republicans and he is relatively unknown. So your assertion doesn’t fly”</p>
<p>Apparently you missed my point. Up until now, both Huckabee and Edwards have been flying under the radar of their primary race opponents. Hence, their negatives have not been highlighted. Hence, Edwards, by virtue of his name recognition appears to be favored in the polls. This honeymoon would come to a quick end if he ever becomes a front runner. At that point Hillary will destroy him. What is left of him after her onslaught will be easy work for the Republicans.</p>
<p>Kluge, perhaps you can explain how if a person has a single payer insurance policy that it will make a hill of beans difference in terms of a lawsuit against her doctor if he is perceived to have botched a medical procedure.</p>
<p>FF:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I got your point and IT doesn’t fly. You claim Edwards is head to heads because he’s under the radar and hasn’t had his negatives highlighted. However, Huckabee who also flies under the radar DOES NOT do we well in those head to head polls.</p>
<p>I am eager for your response.</p>
<p>The reason that single payer health care would reduce malpractice & insurance costs is that it is the cost of medical care that runs up damage awards. The first thing a trial lawyer looks at in considering to take a case is the $ value of the medicals; as a rule of thumb, a garden variety p.i. case is “worth” 3 times the past and anticipated future medical costs – so if there are $20K in medical bills, the case will probably settle for around $60K. So the high cost of medical procedures drives up the value of the case in terms of settlement.</p>
<p>There are many people who probably wouldn’t sue or be inclined to sue but for the need to finance the cost of future medical care. </p>
<p>With single payer there would still be some litigation under extreme circumstances – but a huge chunk would fall away simply because there would no longer be a need to litigate. If my health care is guaranteed and affordable in any case, then why go through the trouble of suing? Or if I did feel a need to sue, I would be able to afford to settle for a lot less – since the need to pay past and future medical bills would not longer be part of the equation.</p>
<p>ucla,
It’s called name recognition. You assume that the polling public is following this stuff and know the positives and negatives of each candidate. Not true. When asked about John Edwards they think, “Oh, he’s that smooth-talking, good looking fellow that ran for VP last time who has a poor wife suffering from cancer.” When asked about Huckabee, they think: “Never heard of him.” The boomers may add, “Isn’t he that cartoon character that used to have a show along with Yogi Bear?” </p>
<p>Calmom, your answer sounds like a theoretical rationalization. For your theory to hold true, current statistics would show that only the minority of people without health insurance would sue for malpractice; those with health insurance whose health care is “guaranteed and affordable” for the foreseeable future would decide, “why go through the trouble of suing?”</p>