We had a few registered independents come to our caucus in 2004 and re-register as Democrats.

I don't think large numbers of independents will do that, though. You've got to be very engaged with the political process to take more than an hour out of a weekday evening to come participate in the caucus.

dynasties are annoying

Obama is more liberal than Sanders?

That's part of the appeal of Obama- that he can turn independents into Democrats.  In the next few months, Obama has to keep HRC from claiming the inevitability tag (which they take every opportunity to try to do- I would do the same thing if I was them) - and then in the Fall and Winter make the move to win (as the best change candidate in a change election).  When people actually believe that Obama can win, then HRC's baggage will be in full view.  

When Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire because of Indepedent voters the joke will be on you.

Sir, many states including NH have open primary.

Democrats will vote for Obama when it counts the most. I predict that when all the votes are counted Obama will be only one standing.

You know as well as I do that there are two contests at hand.  One is for Iowa and New Hampshire and other early primary states.

The other is more like a stamp of approval from the American public.  The better Obama does in the polls against HRC the better chance he has as being the logical and acceptable alternative to HRC.  

Polls help create a portrait and in this poll the story is:

Obama is and remains a contender.

It seems that Obama is thinking in part about New Hampshire, where some 40 percent of voters are indie. In this sense, he's running not against Clinton and Edwards but McCain and Guliani. I wouldn't want to rely on indie support to get the nomination.

Doesn't all of this feel a little similar to anyone else?  Anyone who followed the GOP primary in 2000 saw the same thing.  Republicans were breaking for G.W. Bush and Indies were breaking heavily for McCain. McCain only won or was able to compete well in states that allowed independents to vote.  Well, we all know how that turned out in the end.

I wonder if 8 years later the Democrats will repeat GOP history.

Does that then mean the party isn't as progressive as we hope or think it is... given that Clinton is the least progressive of the big 3?  What do you think Matt.  

Either way, a lot can happen before January... Obama could start taking Hillary's Democratic support, She or Edwards could take his indie support... All three could crash and a guy like Dodd or Richardson could take off... and of course there is the Gore possibility... He seems to be gaining in support in polls (unless I have misread something)... A lot can happen.

I disagree, I think Obama draws his support from the younger or more politically aware Democrats and Hilary draws her support from the older or less politically aware Democrats and of course from the party's DLC machine.

Independents are allowed to vote in the primaries in 22 states. Independents are also politically influential beyond their "outsider" status nationally. It was independents who "swung" the midterm elections to the Dems. Independents didn't make this happen in isolation, but rather as a leadership force that insisted that the war in Iraq be The Issue of the 2006 elections. By forcing this issue onto the national agenda, it allowed lots of people to go to the polls and make the statement that we need to change directions. If Obama is serious about getting the support of independents in this presidential election, he will have to step out of the box on who is allowed to say what about national policy. It's the American people who need to be heard, not the big shots of the Dem party, even if they're saying the right things. Talk, as we know, is cheap. Political rhetoric will change nothing.

And that's why we use averages

Nope, well maybe in 08...but for the time the Gov will appoint one of three R's recommended by the party

Be wary of polls this early showing only 4 % un-decided. It means that the pollster is pushing the respondent to make a choice which means name ID has a big advantage.. This is usually done much closer to the election.

Hit the archives.LOL.

Matt and that other dude have done extensive posts on this topic. It's a combination of a few different things. Mostly, people pick Hillary when pressed to answer.

There are women who want a woman to be president, period. That probably gives Hillary a floor of support at around 15-20%. You've also got people who are nostalgic for Bill, and since he won twice they also tend to associate Hillary with winning. Also, African-Americans in particular viewed Bill positively, and some of that appears to have transferred to her. That softer support makes up the rest of her national numbers, which average about 35%. In a three- or four-person race, 35% might be enough.

However (you knew there'd be a 'however', right?) her negatives among the general public are ridiculously high (near 50%), with a recent poll finding that 47% of voters would definitely not vote for her, while only 28% definitely would. For someone who has been in the public eye for 15 years, those numbers aren't likely to change. This obviously makes winning the general election unlikely -- she would have to win over 9 out of every 10 undecided voters -- unless the Republicans were foolish enough to nominate someone with equally hardened negative numbers, such as Newt Gingrich.

This creates an interesting dynamic: A lot of Democrats like Hillary or at least have a generally positive view of her, but they have good reason to doubt that she can win the general election. If those doubts are reinforced by early setbacks in the primary campaign, the softer 15-20% of her support could evaporate rapidly.

 31. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE, 08DEM1) Do you support
(NAMED CANDIDATE) strongly, or somewhat?

		       Strongly       Somewhat
Hillary Clinton 	  53		 47
Barack Obama		  43		 56
Al Gore 		  60		 40

Trend:

Hillary Clinton 	   
6/1/07			  53		 47
4/15/07 		  59		 41
2/25/06 		  56		 44

Barack Obama 
6/1/07			  43		 56
4/15/07 		  51		 49
2/25/06 		  60		 38

This is so so nice to wake up to.

Everyday I pray that HRC is not returned to the White House--it is an outcome that makes me want to drop out of politics.

I went to bed depressed thinking that Obama might just be too different, and too principled for national politics.  Watching CNN for two days you would think that she had already won.

Obama is going to have a hard time winning over the pundits who are looking for sound bites.  I thought that the debate and the faith thing really showed his strength but the pundits don't know what to do with out the attacks and the meaningless sound bites.

Polls like this show that the public is listening.

Mark Penn?  He's gonna dump on anything that doesn't reflect well on HRC.  He's a paid lackey after all.  A hired gun.

Weren't we having the same conversation in 2006 and we were wrong about them then?

Yes this is just one poll. I knew you would say it is an outlier.

You kept complaining about my talking about the Rasmussen poll. I bet you find his poll much more palatable today.

Again, I say all of these polls are national polls and we donot have a national primary.

What this poll does is help Obama raise money and with the african american community in which they want to see if an african american can win before they commit to him. Gallup's poll will get a lot of national attention by the MSM. However, I have been saying for years that they are highly over-rated.

George, It shows that Obama is going to give her a run for her money.  It shows that she is beatable. And it shows that a lot of us don't want the Clintons back on the front page of our newspapers everyday.  

Independents are a key voting demographic. If they already have a set view of a candidate--in spite of how wrong the characterization is-- they're not going to change their minds.

This will be Hillary's greatest problem and her greatest challenge. I seriously doubt that she'll be able to overcome her image among independents.

I think it would be risky to have two firsts on a ticket but I would not rule out a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008. It would have historical implications that could potentially greatly expand the Democratic base. When things get to that stage the nominee will likely do polling, focus groups, and get all the input possible to see which ticket selection will work best.

That's because she won't.

Two reasons:

1. She doesn't want her VP pick to outshine both her AND Bill. Bill will be the de facto Vice President in her administration. She'll pick a milquetoast like Mark Warner.

2. Political animals like Bill and Hillary realize if they win and Obama is they're Veep, the Governor of Illinois (I can't spell his last name) will have to pick his successor and there's no guarantee he'll pick another African American to replace him. Members of the CBC including Illinoir Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and others will scream to high heaven over the new pick.

The Clintons know they can't lose their hold on the African American vote so they'll go to someone else (it also excludes Sen. Evan Bayh, especially if Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) is re-elected and picks a Republican to replace him).

I actually agree with Icebergslim here.  I used to think Richardson was the natural running mate for Clinton, but his debate performance and overall presence (Meet the Press) made me reconsider the issue.   Obama would be the perfect running mate to capture the entire enchilada.  Clinton will be bringing tons of women who don't usually vote to the polls.  She'll be strong amongst Hispanics (who will come out in droves because of the Immigration problems) and older voters.  Also, the rank and file Democrats like her more combative stances against the GOP.  Obama would be good for the Independent vote, bring out the youth vote, and combined with Clinton they'll together bring in a record black vote to the Democrats.   I don't see how a Clinton/Obama ticket could lose in the General Election, and the same applies to an Obama/Clinton ticket, should things turn around for Obama in a big way.    

"In short, Obama is courting independents and younger voters but not going through the routine with party building, unions, and activists.  This poll result shows a strategy that is working on its own terms but may not work in the nomination process."

So someone running for the Democratic nomination, thinks it's okay to skip key Democratic functions, but Hillary is the one that gets pegged with the "she thinks she is inevitable" tag, even though she shows up and delivers at each function.  So it's perfectly fine for Obama to dismiss DEMOCRATS even though he is seeking the DEMOCRATIC nomination, because he is going to bring in those independents on election day.  Ah, this makes perfect sense to me.

According to the poll:

Among registered voters, Giuliani leads Clinton (52% to 45%) in a general election match-up.

By your theory then either Gravel, Kucinich, or Richardson should be the nominee. The rest voted for it and Obama has continued to vote the same as Clinton since he has been in the Senate.