...on Hillary's polling numbers: Hillary and the Seinfeld Curse

Basically, the point is that in some cases you can't count on people actually voting for who they say they will. Of course, we saw that in 2004 also.

Thats because he's not running.

!1 !2 !3 !4 !5 !6 !7 !8 !9 !10 !11 !12 !13 !14 !15 !16 !17 !18 !19 !20 !21 !22 !23 !24 !25 !26 !27 !28 !29 !30 !31 !32 !33 !34 !35 !36 !37 !38 !39 !40 !41 !42 !43 !44 !45 !46 !47 !48 !49 !50 !51 !52 !53 !54 !55 !56 !57 !58 !59 !60 !61 !62 !63 !64 !65 !66 !67 !68 !69 !70 !71 !72 !73 !74 !75 !76 !77 !78 !79 !80 !81

Some of the other polls have been including Gore who appears very unlikely to run. It is good to see a poll with just the most likely candidates.

For what its worth -- the Democratic race this cycle feels a lot like the 1984 contest.   Vice President Walter Mondale was the odds on favorite at this point -- but there was a "hot" candidacy by John Glenn.   Everyone was convinced that the two big names were going to be the two that fought it out the whole way.   The movie "The Right Stuff" came out in 1983 chronicaling John Glenn's days as one of America's first Astronauts -- one of the few with "the Right Stuff".   Operatives from the other campaigns went to the movie and came out with their knees shaking.   Glenn would go on to take dead last in Iowa and never be a factor.   Mondale won Iowa as expected -- the surprise was Gary Hart running as a fresh face new thinker -- beating Glenn and the rest of the field to come in secound and become a rocketship that almost took Mondale out.  I ran Iowa for Mondale that year -- we got 49% of the vote and beat Gary Hart's 19% by 30 points -- no one cared.   All anyone cared about was that Hart had emerged as the anti-Mondale not Glenn.

History does not repeat itself but it does rhyme from time to time.   Is Hillary 2008's Mondale?  Is Obama the rock star -- John Glenn's movie standin? Who is the Gary Hart?  Obama? Edwards?

My point is expect the unexpected.  2004 did not really go as planned -- 1984 did not go as expected and the odds are that neither will 2008 regardless of what polls say today.  The only primary that went along the way it was supposed to from beginning to end was 2000 with Al Gore.

You're right Jonathan, these are impressive numbers for Hillary.

People here can spin it all you want, but numbers don't like. When Hillary is getting those numbers from Southern Conservative South Carolina, to "Red leaning" Southwest Region of  Nevada, to Middle America in Iowa, to New England's predominantly White NH- Those are very good numbers!

And she hasn't even spent the expected $150-$200 million dollars that is expected to be historic & the highest ever for any U.S. Candidate( even beating Bush Jr's dollars in 2000)

I am Not a Hillary supporter but I find it funny that many here in the netroots are almost in Total Denial about the strength of Hillary Clinton among all Democratic voters.

Many here refuse to face reality that HRC is very popular among many Democrats across the country.

With all the "Absolutely Positive 24/7 Free Press" that Barack Obama has been getting in the last 45 days in Print, TV, & Online Mainstream Media, Hillary's numbers cannot be ignored as mere name recognition.

With John Edwards as the 2004 Vice Presidential Candidate who Never Stopped running in the last 2 years, Hillary's numbers show real strength.

As I've said many times, the sentiments of the progressive netroots is Not Necessarily the sentiments of most Democrats "outside" the net.

Many here forget that the netroots community is a "small minority" relative to the all Democratic voters across america. Furthermore, the netroots community is dominated overwhelming by progressives which is like preaching to the choir.

As I've said before, if the views of the netroots mirrored the rest of the Democrats out there, Howard Dean would have won the 2004 nomination by a landslide. ( instead of a 4th place finish)

Hillary will only gain even more strength as the unlimited millions of dollars start coming in from everywhere.

I'm starting to think Newt is a real playa here.

John Edwards run for National office just two year ago as Vice President. He also has never stopped running since then.

Obama has been getting non-stop 24/7 Free Positive Media coverage for the last 45 days.

From Print, TV, Radio & Online- Its all the fascination with Obama.

Com'on. I am not a Hillary supporter But Let's Not be in Total Denial.

Hillary's impressive numbers is much more than just "name recognition".

And we haven't even gotten a taste of the historic record $150 million to $200 million dollars that they expect her to raise & spend easily.
( both republican & democratic politicial gurus agree that she will easily Break Bush Jr.'s money record)

Pretending or ignoring reality will not help Edwards or Barack.

Iowa too, back in September (and again a month later).

I was expecting her to be ahead in NH and SC but not IA and NV too. She is in good shape before even starting to spend the tens of millions she will spend before the first vote is even cast.

 When?

 She stands for absolutely nothing. She encapsulates every single negative stereotype of Democrats among swing voters. She doesn't miss a single one.

 She's the very definition of "unelectable" -- and I don't toss around that word lightly.

 She might yet get the nomination, because a lot of Democrats are stupid, and because the media has an interest in the Democrats nominating the weakest possible candidate, and thus will promote her incessantly. But if she does, get ready for four more years of a Republican in the White House. And a pug Congress to boot.

On the other hand, Clinton is relatively weak for being the presumptive front-runner. I think people are pretty set on Hillary, while Edwards and Obama have room to move.

It took her 4  years finally to express that she would do things differently now. Still she took no responsibility for her mistake. Even Edwards expressed more regret and I considered him to be one of the more clueless foreign policy candidates in the last election.

Hillary Clinton has more foreign policy exposure than Obama and Edwards, thanks to her very good tenure as first lady where she did a pretty good job traveling the world, meeting some world leaders, and leaving a good impression. So of all people, for her to put her political career over the good of the country is bordering on treason. Oh please, i can see some of you defend her as going with principle. Do you seriously think she is dumb enough to believe that this was the right thing to do? Maybe she did not expect this to be such a big fucktacular failure. But she definitely has stayed away from taking part in vigorous debate until it became way too safe for her to do so. And even now, she is making statements that would not be considered edgy even 2 years ago. It's like she is 3 years behind.

I'm glad you also see what is happening here.

Despite of the Obamamania, despite Edwards running everyday since 2004- Hillary's numbers are just astounding.

Can you imagine once she starts spending the record breaking $200 million dollars that she is expected to raise?

Many here are in Denial big time.

They think that HRC will somehow disappear & that people will flock to an Edwards, an Obama.

Not to mention, as Hotline & NYTimes have said- Hillary Clinton has the ABSOLUTE BEST TEAM of Political CONSULTANTS Ever Assembled in history.

And I'm leaning Clark but I am very aware of reality!

I think the first reason for Richardson's perceived strength is the high number of Latino voters in NV. And, whether related or not, Richardson already has some institutional strength in NV. IIRC, Richardson has some major Reid folks already signed up for his campaign.

A combination of prohibitively strong Latino support (who make up a large percentage of service unions, btw) and developing institutional support in the state seems, from the outside perspective, to be why Richardson is favored in Nevada, not geography per se.

I'm not well-versed on NV politics, though, so don't take my word as gospel ... just my thoughts on how that impression is out there.

Well, no one ever said they voted based on what Brian Williams reported.

Romey appears to be weak everywhere.

Dear shmolnick:

I found the following on another blog and thought it might help you understand why people admire Hillary Clinton.  It mentions only a few of Hillary's accomplishments over the past four years:

Just for starters:

1. Senator Clinton JUST salvaged $100 Million for AIDS victims in New York state - after fighting a long battle to get the federal gov't. to agree this money was needed.

2. She was recently successful in acquiring the funds needed from the Federal Government to treat all the first-responders; New York citizens and many other victims of 9/11 toxic dust illnesses.

3. She won, this year, a prestigious award for her work on behalf of war veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. This health and financial assistance will go directly to war veterans and their families, who live in New York state, but also war veterans across the country. Senator Clinton was chosen for this award, over all other Senators, by the veterans themselves.

4. She literally badgered the FDA until PlanB, the over-the-counter birth control medication was made available to all women over the age of 18 - a major accomplishment.

5. She has helped farmers, vintners, manufacturers and many other small to medium-sized business all over the state of New York, through loans, micro-loans, access to technology. We (my family and I) have relatives in the Finger Lakes region of New York state. These relatives, comprised of a father, two sons and a son-in-law are manufacturers of floating-lid fermentation tanks and other items for the wine-making industry. They were downsizing their business; selling their trucks and laying off employees. Thanks to Senator Clinton, they are now upgrading; building one more building and have purchased an additional truck and they are hiring at the moment. Senator Clinton has visited, personally, with my relatives. They always voted Republican. Not anymore.

6. Senator Clinton wrote the legislation on Election Reform, one of the reasons she was endorsed by the New York Times for a second term in the Senate.

7. She also wrote and fought for; and is still fighting for, the legislation to increase the minimum wage.

And that's just for starters. All of this information is available on Senator Clinton's website and many articles have been written on each of the things I have just listed. Can you google? Read about all the work she has done for improving education (my pet issue, by the way); and for improving the lives of single mothers. There is a reason the largest teacher's union endorsed her.  

The wing of the Democratic Party which insists on opposing Hillary Clinton only stands to lose, in my honest opinion. She's the best we've got and she deserves our support.  What surprises me most is that those who oppose her actually know very little about her.  They read the blogs and the poison articles written by the likes of Arianna Huffington and they are led to believe that ALL Hillary has done is get involved with parental warnings on video games.  Don't expect bitches like Arianna to mention even one of Senator Clinton's many accomplishments. Don't follow the pack.  Find out for yourself.  Try googling HILLARY CLINTON KATRINA - that's a good place to start.  Visit Senator Clinton's official website.

Senator Clinton's Website

She has criticized and condemned George W. Bush and his administration on Iraq; on the handling of Katrina; on the deficit/economy; and many other issues.

You cannot even compare!

When one single candidate,Hillary Clinton is beating other candidates even in their home states for the past year such as:

She :

beating Edwards in SC
beating Edwards in NC in old poll last summer
Topping Vilsack in IA
was beating Kerry in MA in poll last summer
beating Feingold in Wisconsin last summer

That's power!

I would not be surprised to see Hillary ahead of Obama even in Illinois when a poll is taken.

The Only two previous candidates that I've seen beat Hillary in their home state were Evan Bayh in Indiana & Mark Warner in Virginia.

( which is one sign of a powerful Vice Presidential running mate-one who can deliver his/her state no matter what)

Other than that, HRC is ahead of everybody even in their own backyard. That's how strong she is without the $200 million that she will spend to destroy any opponent.

Reality based!

I tend to think you're probably right. But for me the key is the extent to which she can bring new voters, most likely single women, to the polls. If she can find, and persuade several million extra voters then I think she wins.

In the primaries she needs to turn out low information voters who support her. If it is only DailyKos/MyDD who vote then she gets destroyed.

...a very tight screen on likely caucus-goers.

You can't compare percentages in two different polls.  Head-to-head numbers are the only things that matter.  And even then, a lead inside the margin of error is meaningless.

I doubt she'll spend anything like $200m on the primaries though should the race go into April/May she might get close. But she is highly likely to raise far more than everyone other than Obama and even he will do well to get close to her numbers.

Here's how the money situation plays out:

Typically a candidate that underforms expectations, and that might mean finishing 3rd in Iowa when they were predicted to get 2nd, suffers in the media and as a result has difficulties raising additional funds.

Now this alone would not be that much of a problem but for the fact that most cycles, nearly all the candidates have run out of money before New Hampshire. They have no reserves of cash to take them through a tough spell and are in desperate need of "momentum" just to be able to draw in enough money to keep them in the race. 2004 was a classic example of this. Once Kerry got the initial momentum, none of the other campaigns had the funds to do anything about it.

Now looking forward to 2008 we have a somewhat different situation. HRC, and quite possible Obama, will have the funds to keep fighting deep into Feb or early March regardless of the Jan results. They can afford the odd disappointment so long as they can rebound at a later date.  

Of course the winner of the primaries is not necessarily determined by the amount of cash on hand. It is easy to spend a lot while persuading very few. The media can quite easily destroy a campaign that leaves itself vulnerable for one reason or another.

But all other things being equal, the person with the most money has a very good chance of getting the nomination. Put another way, Edwards or Obama (or Gore) are going to have to run exceptionally good campaigns if they are to overcome HRC anticipated financial advantage.