it is also:
- how long it has been since that has been seen on TV (5+ years for Gore, 1+ years for Kerry/Edwards in an election, and some regular TV presence; Hillary is presented well in the media for the last year or so)

- what was the last impression left (for Gore, it was Republicans bashing him, while Democrats were abandoning him; and that he "lost").

- constant negative and gratuitous jabs that MSM bozos take at him. For example this.
(they'll start hearing back from some of us if they continue their ways).

Your own personal anti-Gore bias is incredible:

• if there is anything negative about Gore, you make sure that it gets attention (eg. the NBC/WSJ poll with that stupid question sometime back), and this poll
  
• if there is something positive about Gore, like the recent Michigan poll where Gore pulled with in 10 points of Hillary (HRC: 28%, AG: 18%), you make sure that you avoid it.

Unbelievably, you avoided mentioning his rather important and potent MLK-Day speech altogether.

More later.

Chris:

As much as you and I agree on most things I think you 'mis=phrase' the comment on Senator Clinton.

First, the notion that Clinton is somehow "unelectable" because she is too polarizing a figure is clearly bunk.

She may be the leading candidate to be nominated however she is unlikely to be elected without nearly a civil war in the streets.
Why?

Back on November 8, 2004 (? might have the date wrong)I posted 7 New Rules for Democrats!

The Opposistion has hours and hours and hours of clearly and easily used Opposition material. If they can take documented military records and nearly destroy one nominee what makes you think they can't take another that isn't as well documented and is, in fact, much more controversial.

Does this impact her abiltiy to fulfill the office? No.

Does this mean she wouldn't be an agressive Candidate? No.

But with her inability to say, "My support for this damnable war was based on a series of lies...." combined with the Swiftboating that will start the moment she even appears to be headed for the nomination....is she electable?

It's very iffy if the other sides uses their head and puts up a Chuck Hagel or someone similar.

Can she win the nomination? If that's what these polls of Democrats only are about...then yes she has a good chance if she wants to give up a very powerful post on the long chance she can survive the Swiftboating experts.

Personally I wonder if she will run...for the good of the Party if a qualified field steps up without the 'baggage'.

It's time as Wes Clark as said time and again for, Country over Party, Selflessness over Political Gain

Let's concentrate on 2006 and taking back the House.

The Hillary Clinton polarizing tag must be discussed in context. It is in the context of a general election that such a tag will be used and used to great effect. The Senator is weak from the "potential" of polarization from the GOP, not the actual polarization expressed in pre-election polls.

In my opinion, there are two facets for electing Democratic presidential candidate; upholding progressive ideals and elect ability. The first comes from base power projection. The second forms as a result of long-term GOP propaganda and no coherent defense/attack against such a brand attack. One can argue that to give in to such propaganda is giving credence to its message. This is true. However, until there is a unified rage and a larger social counter to these tactics, they will be effective. And if they are effective, in the short term they must at the very least be neutralized. I believe the only way to counter this issue is by having such strong candidates that the GOP is forced to fight within the policy arena.    

I just don't believe that some possible incremental step forward in polling methodology for '08 means we should have any confidence in current results.

I would say this even if the prospect of Hillary '08 did not make me sick.

These "temperature" gauges are still pretty close to name identification stats, and the playing field will be changed a bit by whatever happens in the midterms and their aftermath.

Ask yourself this question:  if you had had this data in March of 2002, do you think it would have told you anything about the dynamics of the 2004 Dem nomination race?

Right.  Of course not.

Serious players who may not win the nomination but whose presence will influence the outcome have not made their forced entries yet on the national scene.  Feingold won't win but he will command a lot of the debate and will own a block that the winner will have to bring along.  Warner has yet to make his entrance, and the media likes him.  He will get some headwind before they try to take him down, if he threatens to win.

I really don't see how the '08 primary season won't be ugly.  It will boil down to the establishment DC Dem Hillary vote and the outsider anti-Hillary vote.  Leading candidates for that honor will likely be Warner or Clarke, with Fenigold in a strong position to influence that outcome.

Dem primary voters may be hesitant to go with a softer image based on "electability" this time around.  Timidity may not be de rigeur next time around, especially if the freshman Dem class of '06 is a bit aggressive and shows that aggression wins.

The '08 primary will pit the DC establishment "New (third way, "old") Dems" against the truly new progressive wave, just as it did last time around in Dean versus The Usual Suspects (Gephardt, Kerry).

The grassroots state party people put Dean in the party chair position, however improbably.  They like what they see, no matter what the DC dems leak to Ryan Cillizza and AdNags.  '08 will replay the grassroots versus the establishment dynamic, and after the '06 midterms and with the choice to make again, I really don't think the "safe" choice will again be the foregone conclusion among primary voters and state party machines.

These numbers don't reflect those probable realities.  It's just too early to conclude anything from them.

Hitting Republicans hard is what most netroots activists seem to really want above all else.

I agree with this.

First, the notion that Clinton is somehow "unelectable" because she is too polarizing a figure is clearly bunk.

I agree with this as well, even though Hillary is far from my first choice for 2008.

What I don't understand is how the same people who reject Hillary as "too polarizing" can constantly agitate for a "truth-teller" to come to the forefront in the Democratic Party.  If Russ Feingold, to pick a name, establishes himself as a candidate who is willing to tell it like it is, call the President a lawbreaker, establish the corruption of Bushco, etc, etc, do people really think that won't be "polarizing"?

If you like to see fighting Dems, then you shouldn't be criticizing anyone for being too "polarizing."  That's not to say Hillary ought to be your polarizing candidate of choice.  It just means that "too polarizing" is a completely hypocritical criticism from anyone who claims to want a truth-teller who will call out the Republicans for the crooks they are.

Just a quick reminder about the smearing of Gore in 2000.  While the Mighty Wurlitzer was supportive, the smearing was first and formost the work of the mainstream press, especially the NY Times and Washington Post, where the bulk of the phony charges were initiated and spread.  Earth tones, invented the Internet, model for Love Story, found Love Canel, growing up didn't do chores on a farm but lived in a luxury hotel in Washington, all lies and misrepresentations that emerged first from the MSM.

Look, I think what has happened is that Gore has decided to make himself a magnet for that anti-Righ-Wing stuff by telling the truth. I.E. being a decoy and so the others can see the stuff that the other side will throw at them.

to similar data two years out from 2004...

If you really want to examine how well this information translate into actual performance in the primary season.

For example, I am sure Dean did not show up on the radar screen two years out. I would imagine that the number one Dem was Lieberman.

Go back to 1990-1992 and I am sure you could make the case that Cumo was unbeatable (hell, even Biden) until a little known Gov. from Arkansas emerged...

Basically, this all means squat...

Chris,

You and many people miss the point entirely on Hillary. The issue is not whether her "approval" or "favorability" ratings are high now - when no one is paying any attention and she gets mostly positive press. The issue is where it will be after the Republican attack machine gets through with her.

She is such an easy target that I can't see how she wins anything. This may offend some Democrats, but to independants and Republicans it won't matter.

If we nominate Hillary Clinton, we will lose both the Iraq war and corruption as an issue.

Republicans will point out that she supported the war and even advocated increasing the number of troops. We won't be able to make any coherent anti-war campaign a message in the campaign, even though the war is going terribly and many Americans agree that it's time to change policies. It will be Kerry 2004 redux. We'll be forced to argue for a milder version of Bush's preemption strategy. Yet, even despite this, she still won't have any credibility on the issue of the military given her lack of experience on the matter, even though there is room for us to grow on among vets.

On corruption, people will bring up the fact that her husband had coffees. Marc Rich. Lincoln Bedrooms, etc. Clinton sold access to himself and the White House in exchange for favorable consideration on various issues - including letting China enter the WTO and other similar things. There were a great many horrible bills passed between 1996-2000 during the Clinton Administration, such as the Telecommunications Act and others (many very similar to the Bankrupcy bill passed during the Bush Admin), that have a direct correlation between money they raised and policies they advocated. The issue will be lost.

On Social Security, her husband advocated private accounts no different from Bush. So we lose that issue as well. I'm sure some Democrats will cry about it being unfair comparing her to her husband. But to think that she won't be is to live in crazy-land.

So then, just like every other election, the issue will come down to the culture war. Where do you stand on abortion, etc? We won't win over the Perot voters and we'll lose every opportunity that Bush has given us. I've read many of your posts regarding a "reallignment" but this can not happen without the Perot voters. And do not forget that despite Bill Clinton's popularity among Democrats, he never won over the Perot voters - and we lost Congress because they went over and supported Newt Gingrich.

That's why I think she can't win. You never hear about these issues today --- but I guarantee you, you will.

Chris, stop.  Hillary Clinton can not be elected in this country.  It has little to do with positions.  She is the wrong gender at the wrong time, and she sucks as a campaigner on top of everything else.  Take 10-20 points off any poll number she gets ... people will say sure, a woman Prez?  No problem!  Until they face the voting machine.  My office has about 30 people ... 25 are hard-core Democrats who know the score.  AT LEAST six or eight of them will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton; she is simply too annoying, define it any way you wish.  They will just not vote for her; not her opponent either.  The only way this country accepts a woman is if she is completelt baggage-free; the country is at peace within itself and well as in the military sense, and there is a feeling of confidence in the future.  The voters wouldn't even throw over the idiot Bush in mid-stream, for Kerry, who was certainly seen as qualified even by those who disliked him.  Give it up on Hillary ... and pray McCain isn't nominated, because then it won't matter who we run.  

Very simple.

If she gets in, we will enter our third decade of two family rule. At that point, we might as well stop pretending to be a Republic and proudly surrender to Aristocracy.

Democracies always seem to decline over time. Apparently its our turn.

Much like the John Kerry of 2004 and the Al Gore of 2000, HRC will be a relatively easy target for the Noise Machine.  

The problem has nothing to do with her political stances and everything to do with her public personality.  She is a stiff speaker and lacks a warm personality.  Just like Kerry and Gore.  

In short, she looks like a career politician, and since people are already inclined to believe bad things about career politicians, epithets will stick to her.  Gore wasn't really a liar, but the charge seemed plausible because he looked like a career politician, and the public believes they lie.  Kerry wasn't particularly a flip-flopper, but the charge seemed plausible because he looked like a career politician, and the public believes they flip flop.  

Presidential elections are generally won by appealing to politically disinterested non-partisans.  They don't like people who look and sound like Politicians.  HRC is ripe for the taking on this score, and while I have no particular reason to dislike HRC, she is clearly a lousy choice to be our nominee.

Whoever wins the nomination needs to be able to look and talk like a "real" person, not a focus-group produced candidate.  Rather than looking for someone who's carefully planned out their voting record on supposed key issues or who is positioning themselves to the center, we need someone looks authentic.

Remember this:  the public disagreed with Bush on most key issues, and he's been elected twice (or once, at least).  Winning has little or nothing to do with your position on the political spectrum or the brilliance of your 10-point plan to fix issue X. It's your ability to present yourself as a likable person with clear values.

Here's the mantra I've been repeating:  It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you.  

i WILL NEVER vote for hillary!  if she's nominated i will leave the democratic party forever.

many reasons for why this woman would damage both our party and our country, in the impossible case that she would ever make it into office, have already been mentioned.  id like to add one:

flag burning, that's right, hillary clinton recently took a bold stand against flag burning. i guess americans burning flags has been a huge issue lately.... keep in mind that she didn't want to propose an amendment to the constitution to ban flag burning, she simply supported a law that would criminalize it.  how very centrist of her.  
sounds great, right? except for the fact that every american should know that without an amendment to the constitution, any law that criminalizes flag burning would violate our first amendment rights making it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!   thanks for wasting our time again, hillary.  we can always count on you to take a courageous stand against imagined and perceived threats to our republic like flag burning and grand theft auto.

she is not only polarizing to the country, she is polarizing to our party.  anyone that tries to tell me that this is what we need right now can go to hell.

Hillary has better numbers amongst independents than amongst MyDD readers.

I'm not convinced her politics are my politics but I still think she is the outstanding candidate and is highly likely to be the nominee.

Of course most of the netroots seem to hate her with a passion that I struggle to understand. But she has the money, she has the organisation and she has the name recognition - which is normally enough to win the primaries.

And she's a star. In a country that just loves stars. Neither Kerry nor Al Gore had her star quality. If team Hillary gets its act together it can win. Sure it will be brutal, but so what?

Hillary to win in 2008.

(I shall now proceed directly to hell)

I've maintained that HRC is a bad candidate not because of her numbers, but because of her talent.  This is totally 100% subjective.  It's purely opinion, and I don't disguise it as anything else.

Aside from all the points made in various comments above, I think she's not especially likeable as a Prez candidate (remember, I freely admit this is subjective) - I don't think much of her stump speeches and her voice.  And I think she will remain so because she has never enunciated big themes, and never demonstrated big picture message skills.  Name ID will carry her until campaigning heats up, I think.

at this stage nobody has any idea how a given candidate will fare as a Prez candidate....unless they've either done it OR have begun sketching out themes.   HRC has done neither.  (only ones who have:  Kerry has tried, Edwards has, Warner does  currently).    

The NYS experience offers nothing, IMO.  She can win big in a liberal unrepresentative state, just like Kerry can(I'm from NY, btw).  That says nothing about appealing to outsiders.

At this point in 02, who knew who Dean was?  It's fair to say that things shook out in such a way that he was a serious contender for a while, regardless of how he was doing in 02.

I like Hillary but I firmly believe she can't win.  She is too polarizing because of her history and her personality.  She is not warm enough to overcome the feelings of too many people that she is a cold bitch.  I don't think it's fair but politics isn't fair.

It would be better for the Dems if she didn't run and I'm hoping she sees that.  Gore is much better prepared to deal with the Republican attacks--they can't repeat tired old themes.  Edwards also has the experience of a national campaign and is warm and charismatic.  I think these are our best bets, with Clark as a running mate for Edwards and Warner, Obama or Richardson for Gore.

Gore has the stature to contend with any Republican candidate.  No other Dem has that...one may develop it but it's hard to see how before 2008.