...since Cook's Nov. 9-12 poll, with increases (+8 and +7) outside the margin of error.

I agree, Cook should poll Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

I like it when Cook stops by

It is interesting that Obama supporters seem far more drawn to Clinton as a second place choice than are Edwards supporters.

I'd suspect that's because what Clinton and Obama have in common is that they're not the standard kind of candidate - first woman President, first black President. I'd bet Edwards supporters are either more motivated by policy or ideology - seeing Clinton as a DLC-type first of all, with gender less important, for instance - or, possibly, the kind of people who actively want a white male President. (I like Edwards and I certainly don't think he's courting that group but it'd be foolish to pretend they don't exist.)

I would suspect that Clinton would be by far the chief beneficiary of the second-tier Bill Richardson vote as well.    

With the exception of the war, he wasn't in the Senate then, doesn't Obama and Hillary have a similar voting record?  

Let's not get too carried away with the goodness of this poll. Some criticisms:

1. It's a national poll. Anybody polled Nevada lately? Hello?

2. There are only 390 responses. That makes it really difficult to say what's going on below the top lines.

3. Re: Gore, Cook could have put him in this particular poll since it's asking about second choices. Wouldn't that be interesting to know, where his supporters are going?

4. There's a question whether polls at this stage have any meaning beyond name recognition. I'd say they don't. This poll exactly tracks what a reasonable person could deduce about name recognition just watching the TeeVee. How about a poll that digs into the public's understanding (or lack thereof) about the candidates' various issues and platforms, to explore how much they're paying attention? For example, I'd like to see a question which asks the public, "To the best of your recollection, did {Senator Hillary Clinton, former Senator John Edwards, Senator Joseph Biden} vote for or against giving President Bush authorization to use military force in Iraq? (Voted For/Voted Against/Don't Know)."  And: "As you vote next year to select a Democratic presidential candidate, what issue do you expect will be the most important to you? (Iraq/Economy/Healthcare/Education/...)" And: "Please tell me whether you think any of the following people will influence your vote next year: journalists, friends or neighbors, co-workers, religious leaders, family members or relatives, Democratic Party leaders or officials, Republican Party leaders or officials, opinion writers or pundits, foreign leaders or officials..."

about this poll, to the extent that national polls can be interesting at this point, is how close Obama and Edwards are, with or without Clinton in the race. Given that they'll be the last two standing, and that Obama has been getting tons of positive press, I'd say this is good news for Edwards.

As an avid Richardson supporter, I have trouble believing he's at 5%.  I tend to think the small sample size must be affecting things, because given the low level of coverage of his campaign, I can't imagine he's made that kind of jump already.  Most places I've seen having him at 2 or 3%.  But if that 5% starts to show in other Gore-less polls (I agree that Gore in the poll skews things) then that is great news for Richardson.

The fact that 75% of people have their first AND second choice in the top 3 just shows how nationally they are the only ones taken seriously at this point.  If Richardson's number continues to rise, the press will have to give him more attention, which in turn will help his credibility with the voters.

I think before that can happen though, the field has to thin a little bit.  After the Oscars are over, hopefully all the Gore rumors will be put to rest which should shift some focus.  With every day that passes, the entry of Wes Clark becomes less likely, which it should because outside of some sections of the blogosphere I just don't see there being much demand for his candidacy.  Dodd is losing his own state and while he seems like a good senator I don't see what he adds to the race so I think he's probably the most likely to leave next.  I was actually impressed by Biden's Nevada forum appearance, and while he could conceivably make a niche for himself as the foreign policy candidate, I think his loquaciousness will catch up with him sooner or later.  

When all this plays out, I see Richardson standing as the last man left in the second tier.  And if the top candidates keep beating themselves up like they have lately, the public may tire of them, as this is going to be an historically long campaign.  If Richardson keeps emerging above the din of the second tier, then he could really make some noise.

These national polls are worthless, worthless, worthless.  They are nothing but name-recognition contests.  The ONLY thing that matters is Iowa.  And everything will be shifting around so much from now until the Iowa caucus, there's just no reason to start paying attention until maybe 3 weeks before.

In fact, don't even waste your time watching polls in the other early primary states.  Whatever happens in Iowa will completely determine how every other state votes.