Agreed. What polls have shown Richardson getting close to Obama? The last Mason-Dixon poll Had Clinton 22, Edwards 21, Obama 18, and Richardson 6.
American Research Group had Obama at 11 and Richardson at 8, but they also had Clinton up 6 on Edwards and they appear to be the outlier of the early polling so far.

Sounds like they made sure to hit some Richardson houses when they were conducting this one.

is not a top tier candidate. He's barely a serious one. Go watch his appearance on Meet the Press or the debates if you don't believe me. The guy is a bad candidate, with a bad record to boot. Here's just one thing:

In that same book, Richardson recounts how his proudest achievement in the House was the starring role he played in helping Bill Clinton pass nafta. As the Democrat in charge of gathering votes for the pro-nafta side, he was so devoted to its passage that he actually set up a joint whip operation with Newt Gingrich's team. "Nafta, in my view, was critically important," he writes in his memoir, which was published just two years ago.

Exactly.  From all the polling from pollster.com and what georgep has provided, I don't see it.  And I wrote about the rumor that he may be raising more monies than Edwards.  But I would like to see some more current polling numbers.

he should pack it in now.  The campaign is over.

Okay, that's a little snarky, but c'mon, are you serious?  Obama still has a nice benefit of low expectations in Iowa, for some reason.  Nobody seems to think he has to win there.

Oh, please, like you are concerned?  don't fake, please.

or put it out there to spoof folks, into thinking that, to get the rush for cash.  We will know this next week.

RCP averages often include outdated polls; for up-to-the-minute info look at recent ones.

It is campaign material from such sources, yep, I confess, I post things here that are political-junkie motivated, yep; I got an email this morning from Obama, but all it talked about was his movement... not much news there, but his TV commercials are interesting, especially about the bipartisan one, as that's an interesting segment in Iowa to go after for a caucus.

In 2004 Kerry's internal polls showed his rise before the state polls did. People practically laughed when he released some of them saying it just was not possible.

I would doubt Richardson would go far out on the limb on the poll numbers or fundraising without some hard numbers.

"I love how another anti Obama post from Jerome makes the front page."

As far as I can tell, Jerome Armstrong and Jonathan Singer run things here now.  A post from either does not have to "make" it to the front page.  

Actually, all reputable polls have Edwards with a solid lead and nothing like a "three way tie" for the lead. It's pretty clear that ARG, R2k, and slightly less so, but still noticeably Zogby--also recently mason-dixon who are good, but only did their first Iowa poll so need to refine their likely voter screen--are outliers. DMR is the gold standard and agreed with the vast majority of other Iowa polls that show Edwards up by about 6 points and then it's a matter of whether second is Hillary or Obama and normally it's Obama in third. I can see Richardson peeling off supporters from Hillary in Iowa and nationally.

Jerome Armstrong?  Can't you just discuss the story?

have asked for the poll first in exchange for posting it.

cause now they have no incentive to send it if it's cooky.

That is key here.  How could that be overlooked, Jerome?  

And "The Governor has rocketed up 10%...in just three months" is so obviously spin it makes me cringe to think it would just get slapped up on the front page.  Polling at 13% in a highly selective sample, while being the only serious candidate running TV spots, does not make you a "Tier 1" candidate, even if it is Iowa.  

If you think he seriously has a chance, just watch him in an interview or a debate.  It will make you hope he's not.

I wondered if I was the only one that noticed how many qualifiers were there.

In fact, amongst the likeliest caucusgoers (those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus) the Governor has overtaken Senator Obama for 3rd place.

I will grant that it does appear he is ahead amongst the likeliest of likely to vote who have been involved in Iowa Democratic politics for at least 4 years, but they won't be the ONLY ones showing up.

I basically post whatever I feel like posting, if it's interesting. This was, and so would the hypothetical poll that you speak of too... I really don't give much regard to those that think they should tell me how/what to post, but they can say so if it makes them feel better.

Be careful...you will receive a banning warning for a comment like that....I did.

attack on Jerome Armstrong?  I just do not understand the reaction to any of the slighest bit of bad news.  Jerome did not criticize Barack Obama here.  It's a story.  It's interesting.  It's news worthy.  Is Jerome supposed to just post items off the Obama blog all day?  

These kind of personal attacks on front page bloggers bug the hell out of me.

Nah, not at all about Warner, and I would never work for the gov't, much better being a hack. I'm not too worried about what the Obama fans think.

Richardson can't win in08.The reason being the same reasons I've been reading about Obama.If the country not going to vote for a black man,what makes you think there going to vote for a mexican.Sorry just face the facts this is still a racist nation even though we like to think it's not.

The exit polls that showed Bush's success with Latino voters were actually wrong. The 44% figure came about because they sampled suburban, rural, and urban areas proportionate with numbers in the general population, not specific sub-groups. There are very few Latinos living in the suburbs, and those that were did tend to vote for Republican, but they were grossly oversampled. In reality, another exit poll that came out months later showed Bush's support in the mid to  30s, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the mid-upper 30s.

That said, having a diverse field is never a bad thing. While California damn well better be solidly in the Democratic camp if we want a prayer at this election, I see your point about the Western states. I don't see Richardson gaining the traction needed to get him the nomination, but maybe he'll impress sufficiently to get a spot on the bottom. He needs to turn around his debate performances, though. He's been a little disconcerting in those, and that's not helping his case.

For one simple reason: he's a bad performer as a candidate.  He hasn't been able to handle himself in debates or on MTP - imagine him going head-to-head with slick Romney or Rudy.  

I love Richardson and think he's a great guy.  But he's not a great candidate.