is that the common man/woman would vote for her while the liberal-elite votes split between Hillary, Obama and Edwards almost equally. Hillary still leads whichever voter model you choose. More importantly, she leads with women (black or white). This is important because women are more likely to vote than men.
I've been talking to a lot of Democrats who regularly attend caucuses (not just regular general-election voters) in Des Moines and its suburbs. I think many of these people would fall into the "liberal-elite" category. The support for Clinton is just not there. A huge number are undecided, and mostly undecided between other candidates. An answer I hear a lot is, "I don't know--not Hillary, I know that."
I am finding a lot of Edwards supporters and Obama supporters, but among that liberal elite crowd even Richardson seems to generate more interest than Hillary.
The low-information voters are generally not going to show up for the Iowa caucuses.
desmoinesdem, Is it your opinion that Edwards is a lock for Iowa? Or is it too early to tell?
... but her lead is dwindling in NH, and does not exist in IA or SC.
And of course, among low-information, low-engagement voters, she also has a far more substantial base of "will never vote for her" developed. Any time she loses ground among primary voters, she has to know that any effort she makes to regain that ground will be instantly seized upon by the radical right wing noise machine to attempt to further entrench her unfavorables. And the higher they can pump her unfavorables, the weaker her position becomes among the "any Democrat as long as they can win" crowd.
Given a strategic inability to make up ground in the primary race when she loses it, the prospect is for a long term slide through the remainder of 2007, with the main question of interest being the rate of the slide ... 0.25% monthly? 0.5% monthly? 1% monthly?
Actually, I have seen polls with Hillary trailing among Black women, so I wouldn't count on that if I were her.
