Despite the months of punditry that the real race will come down to John F. Kerry (D-Heinz Estate) and Johnny Edwards (D-Primary States), it appears the competitiveness of John Edwards is only in fund-raising. In New Hampshire, a new poll has Kerry (of neighboring Massachusetts) and Howard Dean (of neighboring Vermont) tied at 23% each. Next is Lieberman (D-Nearby CT) at 9% and Dick Gephardt (D-Show Me) at 8%. Edwards, who figures to be the candidate who can prove his ability to win in the South, despite a 20% deficit to George Bush in his home state, trails the pack in New Hampshire at 1%, tied with Bob Graham (FL), Moseley Braun (can't even get reelected to the Senate) and Kucinich (D-Marx Legacy).
"But that's New Hampshire," you are protesting. "Of course Edwards will trail there. He's not a favorite son and there are 3." Gary Hart, who had 2% in New Hampshire, withdrew. Perhaps that should be Edwards' plan, considering a recent national poll by The Washington Post, in which Edwards trails even Moseley Braun who has zero chance of winning, and leads Al Sharpton by only 1%:
Joseph Lieberman 29
Richard Gephardt 19
John Kerry 14
Carol Moseley Braun 6
John Edwards 4
Al Sharpton 3
Bob Graham 3
Howard Dean 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
So why is Edwards still in the race? He's raised more money than the leaders (though not always legally) and has practically made Iowa and New Hampshire home, yet he can't seem to make a dent in the polls despite the media's constant push. I suspect he has a bigger agenda that involves resigning from the Senate and remaining in the race long enough to get something for getting out. But more on that later.
