Edwards' support limited in state

Almost half of North Carolinians think U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., is performing well in his position but do not support his decision to run for president in 2004, according to UNC's Carolina Poll.

Experts say this anomaly could be a result of North Carolinians' desire to keep the senator in-state.

The poll, conducted Sunday to Thursday last week by the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, asked a random sample of N.C. residents how they rate the job Edwards is doing as a senator -- "excellent," "good," "only fair," or "poor." The poll comprised opinions of 615 people and had a 4 percent margin of error.

Ten percent of the people polled said excellent, 39 percent said good, 24 percent said only fair and 11 percent gave Edwards a poor rating. Sixteen percent of the people polled did not have an answer.

According to the poll's final results, Edwards received a positive rating of 49 percent. UNC political science Professor Thad Beyle defined a positive rating as the combined percentages of "excellent" and "good" responses.

Overall ratings of elected officials are declining because of the economy, and Edwards' rating falls within the 40 percent to 60 percent range common for senators, he said.

But for North Carolinians, Edwards' popularity as a senator does not translate into approval as a presidential candidate. When asked whether they support or oppose Edwards' decision to seek the Democratic nomination for president, 35 percent of those polled said they support it, 40 percent said they are opposed and 25 percent didn't have an answer.

Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a nonprofit public policy research foundation, said he is surprised by these results.

Considering the high rating of Edwards' performance as senator, the lack of support seems to stem from a desire to retain him as N.C. senator rather than from a question of whether he's qualified to be president, Basham said. Good ratings as a senator might do well for Edwards' self-esteem, but they don't help his bid for president, he added.

But Edwards' campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said she has seen support at significantly greater percentages in other polls, crediting inconsistency to timing. "Opinions are not that well-formed yet," she said. "I'm not surprised to see the numbers move around."

Palmieri said she is confident that as the campaign progresses, Edwards will win state support.

But support won't shift anytime soon, Beyle said. "Other things have people's attention right now."

Aside from a potential change in sentiment, Beyle said, he thinks the Carolina Poll is an accurate representation of the state's view.

But Basham said the poll results, accurate or not, are unhelpful for Edwards because he would like to present himself as a Democrat able to win the support of a conservative state such as North Carolina.

Even some of the pathological left are dissing Edwards:

EDWARDS UPDATE( ref.:http://markarkleiman.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_markarkleiman_archive.html#200049658)

Todd Morman of Monkey Media Watch is displeased with my criticism of him and others for breaking up the John Edwards fund-raiser. He seems to endorse someone else's remark that he might have been "hyperventilating a little," but is upset that I used his account to accuse "unnamed liberals" of "massive hypocrisy."

First, to set the record straight. I didn't accuse "unnamed liberals" of anything, or accuse anyone of hypocrisy. I tried to make a point --and Morman's fury suggests that I succeeded -- about how and and others on the left would have reacted if it had been Republicans who decided to disrupt a fundraiser for a Presidential candidate by shoving and making noise in ways that made people afraid. In that context, I pointed out -- as I and others certainly would have pointed out in that hypothetical case -- that shoving and making noise in ways that made people afraid were the very same tactics used by Republican goons to shut down the Florida vote count. I didn't say that shutting down the fundraiser was as bad as shutting down the Florida vote count. It wasn't, because the stakes were so much lower: a vote count is much more important than a fund-raiser. What I did say is that it worked on the same principle: that the right to protest includes the right to disrupt.

But as to whether the protest did in fact break up the meeting by means of intimidation, I'll let you be the judge, based on Morman's own description:

The event, held at the Raleigh headquarters of the N.C. Democratic Party, was effectively disrupted by a crowd of about 200-300 using little more than drums and chanting (ok, and some shoving).

[snip]

For some reason, a large group of protesters was trying to stop police from closing the driveway's main entrance gate. Much shoving and yelling ensued, none of it pretty.

[snip]

While the police were able to keep the crowd off the Democrats' property, the escalating noise and confusion clearly rattled the folks inside, who were staring out the windows in growing numbers. Donors began to leave, confronting angry chants as they walked out.

[snip]

After twenty minutes of this, a wedge of police officers suddenly burst onto the scene at the back of the building. I didn't realize at the time that North Carolina's Democratic Presidential hopeful was in the middle of the flying V that zoomed past me, inches in front of my nose. I quickly learned it was indeed John Edwards who'd just been rushed past angry Democrats into the back entrance of his state party's headquarters. Not exactly a positive sign of Edwards' North Carolina support.

Now it's entirely possible that Morman's account, and the parallel account in Indymedia, were largely fictitious, and that nothing more happened than an ordinary protest where people gathered together and waved signs to let other people know they weren't happy about something. (Though Morman doesn't retract his earlier gloating assertion that Edwards had to enter the meeting under police guard.) If so, my post wrongly criticized the other people at the demo, and they're entitled to an apology.

But if the events happened as Morman said they happened. I repeat that what was done ought to be viewed as intolerable. Fundraising is, alas, a necessary part of politics. If you can break up fundraisers, you can stop a campaign cold. If the left establishes the precedent that doing so is fair play, we will regret it, sooner rather than later.

[Earlier post here.]

posted by Mark Kleiman at 9:51 AM

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.