I don't think the Clinton camp wants Gore to run, but I do think that they like the fact that people who don't favor Hillary are currently sitting on the sidelines, rather than getting involved on behalf of another candidate.

Good point.  I realize that Luntz is a GOPer, but I think his focus group on Democratic primary voters a year or so ago (pre-Obama, pre-2006 Democratic win), was fairly instructive.  Democratic voters are inclined to like Clinton.  But the more they hear, the less they like.

The anti-Hillary concept may have come out of this focus group, as the view was that Clinton would flame out early for some reason.  But the problem with that thinking is that people won't actually hear what Clinton is saying until November.  

But more than that, the latest Washington Post/ABC poll shows a dynamic we all knew about.  Clinton has numbers set in stone: 48 approve/47 disapprove/3 undecided.  Who makes up that 48%?  Democrats, naturally.  And Democrats across all factional lines.  So it makes sense that the more candidates out there, the more likely the factions will go for their candidate over Clinton.  But Clinton is the one candidate that's acceptible, at this point, to most Democrats (who are sanely disengaged from 2008 elections at this point).

Interesting analysis.  A couple points though.

First, I think Gore is a completely different beast than Obama, Edwards, or Richardson.  I think it's very difficult to poll whether people would choose Gore in a primary because he's given every indication that he's not going to run.  In fact, if Gore were to jump in, I would instantly support him, but if I were to answer a pollster's questions that included Gore in the equation, I would probably answer 'Obama' at this point.

Second, if it is the case that Hillary doesn't want a specific "anti-Hillary" candidate, why has she been getting into a pissing match with Obama of late?  Wouldn't doing so make Obama the "anti-Hillary"?  It sure seems like the media is portraying the race as Obama vs Hillary, which I don't believe was the case a few weeks ago.

Why should Gore supporters hurry up and decide? I don't mind if they wait until the fall or winter. Most people in Iowa make up their minds during the last month or six weeks before the caucuses anyway.

Total props for this post, Chris.  The Obama-Edwards fights are getting a little crazy already, especially over on DKos.   The Edwards crowd seems annoyed that Obama's getting more traction at the moment than Edwards.  Relax, folks...Edwards is in very good shape in the early states, particularly Iowa.  National polls don't mean too much at this point anyway.

One minor quibble...I do think that Hillary's camp has reason to push the Gore meme in the short-term (i.e. the next couple of months).  They need the largest Q1 fundraising number possible for the inevitability campaign they're running...and the Gore meme helps to keep some money away from other candidates (in theory, anyway) for now.

> The entire concept of the "anti-Hillary" in
> another example of lazy, inaccurate thinking
> cooked up inside the beltway (an all-too common
> flaw for Hotline).

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Duncan Black the first out of the gate with the Hillary/anti-Hillary theory about a week after the November 2006 election?

sPh

I think the debates will push more of the voters in early-voting states (as opposed to the respondents in nationwide polls who may or may not be paying close attention) away from Clinton and towards Edwards, Obama and Richardson. I see each of them having major strengths as candidates.

In Iowa so far, I know a few big donor types who are supporting Clinton, but I don't know a single volunteer/activist type who is. When all the activists start working their precincts and making the case with their neighbors for one of the other candidates, I expect Clinton's numbers to go down.

Government seems to be about a compromise, in most cases. One thing I cannot understand is why we have chosen to shift focus, essentially to compromise - our major initiative to destroy the horrific mistake that the GOP congress and senate created in this war that was waged on an innocent country for illicit reason - to lose focus of the fact that the administration has multiplied the powers of the presidency to include anti-constitutional powers - and to continually return our discussion back to presidential races.

I think Hillary is nice, so could alot of other folks if they chose to run/. Is this site about advertising? Or is it about politics?

I always felt like mydd stood for my due diligence, not "direct democracy" and I take deep umbrage at what seems to be a continual focus on statistical measures made so far away from their area of contextual relevance.

Please understand, your article is nice. but frankly a poll this far away is just plain dumb.

The claims isn't that Clinton is trying to push Gore into the race.

It's that they're so confident that he won't, that they're spreading FUD in the rest of the field by talking up his chances. The longer people sit around waiting for Gore to jump in, the less time the other non-Hillary candidates have to soak up that support.

I think you're wrong on this one, Chris, and it's an issue of game theory: right now, people are free to say whatever they want in terms of which candidates they prefer.  When it comes time to vote in IA and NH, however, then it really does start to become a question of "Hillary" or "not Hillary", just as in 2004 I believe it came to "Dean" or "not Dean", and at that moment, people generally act as if Instant Runoff Voting already existed..  

If you look at the Iowa exit polls and those from NH, it's pretty clear that the late-deciders was where Kerry really cleaned up.  In other words, as it became clear that Kerry was the candidate best able to stop Dean from winning, those people who opposed Dean gravitated towards him.  Of the 40% of NHites who held an unfavorable opinion of Dean, 48% of them chose Kerry in the field.  (Similarly, Kerry also dominated in the "I chose this candidate because he can beat Bush" bracket.)

(There was a similar dynamic in the 1999 Dem mayoral primary in Philadelphia, where John Street became the most viable non-Marty Weinberg in the field.)

I don't think your polling justifies your point at all.  With Clinton the frontrunner based at least partially on name ID, removing any candidate could/should generally increase her performance.  When Democratic primary voters have had an opportunity to get to know more than one or two candidates, these polls could and probably will shift dramatically.

Hillary is the best chance for the White House in '08.   Edwards and Obama would be gutted like fish by the GOP machine.  Neither has the experience or the weight to deal with a McCain or Guiliani.

Barack Obama=Harold Ford.  I really believe that.  Like Ford he will come across as a nice guy.  He will run a nice campaign.  The GOP will kick the snot out of him, he won't fight back, and in the end it won't even be close.  Just like Ford.

Edwards, I worry about other reasons.  I don't think he has or will put the talented campaign staff around him that he'd need to win.