is that the common man/woman would vote for her while the liberal-elite votes split between Hillary, Obama and Edwards almost equally. Hillary still leads whichever voter model you choose. More importantly, she leads with women (black or white). This is important because women are more likely to vote than men.

If you had to guess, based on past experience, who should we listen to in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

How does this stack up against with what happened in the Ct Senatorial primary where because it was a hotly contested race, it seemed produce an incredibly high turn out?

Okay, now correcting this might be an interesting task for a MyDD poll. We could really bring something new to the table.

With the "inevitability" theme shot, these polls that inflate her numbers do no favors for Clinton in the expectations game.

This is a really great analysis and makes an important point.  I like the idea of using an MyDD poll to get better numbers (wasn't the suggestion to poll likely caucus-goers in Nevada?).  I don't think the major polling operations are going to do anything much different from what they're doing, because their mandate is to produce results that the general public can understand.  You're right to point out that in this instance what they're doing has a (probably not deliberate) pro-Clinton bias.

To do it right, you'd have to poll two people in Rhode Island, three in Wyoming, twenty in Texas etc etc, all in keeping with the local wrinkles, and then factor in changes due to moving the primary to Feb 5 and so forth.

And after that, you would have an accurate, but meaningless, poll.

Pity poor Chris and all his anti-Clinton company.  

When an occasional poll indicates upward movement for either Senator Obama or former Senator Edwards, it must be accurate.  When longstanding, many would believe far more reliable polling outfits, such as America's grand-daddy pollster Gallup indicates substantial leads for Senator Clinton, such polling must be inflated.

I am ever reminded of some regional GOP activists and their skewered logic.  When President Bush 43 was enjoying high ratings in the aftermath of 9/11, that polling was said to reflect true public sentiment, and must have been accurate.

When for almost all of his second term, President Bush 43 found himself mired in middle thirtieth to high twentieth polling percentiles, such polling could not have been conducted properly.  The grand-daddy pollster Gallup proclaimed the GWB slide, and has consistently maintained those low ratings.

The unreality of bloggers is astonishing.  When Senator Obama reveals amazing fundraising prowess, he is said to be not merely formidable but prohibitive.  After all, more of his revenue could be utilized for the primaries, could it not?

When Senator Clinton raised an astonishing, indeed unprecedented sum, not much prior to Senator Obama's release of his monetary figures--her sums were regarded by both the Netrooters and by the ever anti-Clinton punditocracy with suspicion, and thus needed to be parsed as to the nature of her actual cash-on-hand.

It is inconceivable to many Netrooters that there is actual enthusiasm for her.  

It is inconceivable both to many Netrooters and established anti-Clinton forces that she could have a most substantial lead based on many citizens believing she is simply the most supremely qualified.

Why, they ask, and here of course they point to accuracy in their cherry-picked polling results, would citizens want to elect Senator Clinton when SOME polls suggest she cannot be elected?  

Of course, they disregard those polls--including recent Rasmussen polls--which prove that she certainly can be elected, whether that is against Giuliani or McCain.

Senator Clinton has been a political force and a progressive voice at least since her days as the star graduate at Wellesley in 1969.  

She has had nearly four decades in the social arena, and some three decades in the political arena, and at least two decades surviving the thrust of reactionaries which would have made politicians less steadfast have gone into hiding.

She is married to the politician many regard as the most gifted of the past half century--another true political survivor, in every sense of that phrase.

I believe that Senator Clinton will do far better than even her two-to-one advantage in the current Gallup poll might suggest.

Although for Chris and his anti-Clinton minions it is inconceivable, it just might be that against a fine orator but very green Senator Obama and a most principled but not as savvy former Senator Edwards, Senator Clinton is viewed as supremely experienced and supremely focussed.

I believe she will be the nation's first female President.  And she will leave her GOP opposition--whether Giuliani or McCain or Thompson or Romney or whomever--in the political dust.

She's for real--and so are her Gallup numbers.

"The reality is if he were the candidate in a general election campaign, he would be fortunate to carry his home state of Illinois."

I live in Illinois and I'm not even supporting Obama in the primary, but this statement is utterly ridiculous.  Gore and Kerry both won Illinois rather easily in 2000 and 2004.  Obama is still well liked in the state and he would have no problem winning it in the general election.

As to her electibility, no one is even near her negatives (with the possible exception of Gingrich).  The latest Time poll has her negatives at twice as much as any Democratic or Republican candidate.  Also, if you look at the numbers in that survey, the percentage of "probably will not vote for" (14%) and "definitely will not vote for" (36%) is already at 50%.  No one else is even close to that.

http://www.srbi.com/4105-Q15%20Registere d%20Base%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%202007 -04-10--11.45am.pdf