I don;t like Yepsen, but I think he's right about Edwards.  I like him much better when he's not always on the attack.  A month ago I was nearing the point of Naderism if he were to be the nominee, but he's slowly winning me back.  (I never would have actually voted for someone other than the Dem in the GE, but he was really irritating me).

The signs are everywhere: Obama is slow and steady moving up, up, up and Hillary is on the verge of free fall.

Read MoDo and Frank Rich in Sunday's NYT.  See the polls for NH and Nat'l closing to single digits, after months and months of 20+. As Bowers points out at Open Left, momentum can equal victory.

We are in the middle of some serious Obama mojo.

Yepson writes: "His populist themes and indignant style smack of class warfare and haven't moved numbers in Iowa."

Why is it only class warfare when someone points out that people with less money are being screwed by people with more money?

What do we call it when certain wealthy people and their corporations take advantage of the rest of us?

You know the internals of the rasmussen poll which is remarkably similar to the dmr poll , granted their final outcome is just a little different but the polls are very similar paints a different picture than the baseline results are painting.

The internals of the rasmussen poll points to a big victory for John Edwards , I was actually tempted to write a diary about it but I just decided against it , he is not my candidate so why bother.

But if I was an Edwards supporter I will be ecstatic and obama/clinton would kill to have his internal numbers in Iowa.

If I was to predict who would win based on the rasmussen internals , it would be John Edwards.

Now who comes in second would be a toss up , it could be clinton or it could be obama.

Just like the dmr poll says , Rasmussen shows Obama is absolutely dominating from 18 - 39 range , while clinton is absolutely dominating among the 65+ and above crowd , just like the dmr poll.

Edwards numbers are solid across the board.

Edwards is basically the second choice of everyone across the candidates by a really solid margin and his favorable ratings is just great . He comes in at 83% , with almost 45% viewing him very favorable.  

Those that are overlooking Edwards including Yepsen would probably be shocked on election night.

So fasten your seat belts.

So, there's a poll where the percentage of younger voters included in it has increased by 5% compared to the previous poll and support from that block goes overwhelmingly to Obama and Edwards STILL manages to hold steady in that poll anyway?

Seems to me that Edwards is at such a high level of support even when the demographics of the poll are changed in a fashion that benefits Obama (that isn't likely to reflect turnout on caucus night) should be the real story here. How much would Edwards have gone up in this poll if the under 35 crowd would have remained at 9% of the sample rather than 14%? I don't see how anyone could say that Edwards wouldn't have seen at least a few point increase in the poll.

Well Dean performed poorly in the last debate, I think that was one of his main problems. Gephardt, Lieberman, and Dean all kind of brought themselves down.

And considering how much money Hillary and Obama have spent in Iowa and how little (virtually nothing) Edwards has spent. He's spent almost nothing and he's been either holding steady or increasing his level of support in the polls. Wait until Edwards makes the big push to the finish.

I sure hope Chris Bowers is loading up on those Obama contracts at Intrade.  20 cents a share is a great price to get on the "favorite" for the nomination!

1) We don't know who's going to win Iowa.  Five points between first and third, a month out?  Too close to call.  Period.

2) Let's assume for sake of argument that an Iowa win propels Obama to the nomination.  Same for Clinton.

3) What happens if Edwards wins Iowa?  Given that he's further back in a race that has unusually low volatility, one can't say the same thing about Edwards.  It might put him on the track to win the nomination, but a lot of things have to break his way.  Even as an Edwards partisan, I doubt it will happen.

What an Edwards win in Iowa will likely do is one of the following: (a) leapfrog Edwards over Obama as the anti-Clinton in the race, or (b) muddle the picture sufficiently that anti-Clinton voters don't know who to choose.

4) 3b almost certainly leads to Clinton's winning the nomination.  3a probably does too, although Edwards might be able to break through.

5) Conclusion: assuming the three main contenders have roughly equal chances of winning Iowa, and assuming (somewhat insanely) that an Obama win in Iowa gives him a 100% chance of winning the nomination, Clinton's got around a 60-65% chance of winning the nomination.

She's the frontrunner.

Yes, but the RCP average for Obama has risen.  RCP (and othe rpolling averages in general) has shown to be extremely accurate in showing the winners in elections.  To say he isn't rising is ignoring the facts of the situation.  

Now is he a clear frontrunner?  No.  Will he win Iowa?  I'd say he has a 33% chance, as does Edwards and Clinton.  Its anyone's race, but to say Obama hasn't risen or is rising at all is ignoring most of the other polls out there and frankly is creating your own frame and spin.  

Just wanted to make that clear. There is no viability threshold on the Republican side in the caucuses.