Frankly, if a couple of future polls show Clinton's unfavourability is dropping, she will likely to be crowned as the nominee before the first shot is fired in Iowa. Since many folks like you who care about electability will likely embrace her in no time.

I do believe Clinton will have a blowout victory. I was a supporter of her, but still surprised by how charming she was in the debate. Obama to me was just bland, I can never understand why he could draw big crowd. Sounds to me like a dotcom candidate.

stopped attacking hillary for the time being.

I have zero doubt the second she's the nominee we will see something like the swiftboaters on steroids

I wonder if FP included the indies who usually decide primaries in NH for one of the parties. Any way I posted this in another thread but I think we see why Penn is pushing back so hard on the Usa today poll showing Obama ahead and indies pulling Obama up,the poisen for Penn is the notion that dems that nominate Hillary are commiting political suicide because exept for establishment dem voters Hillary goes over horrably with the general public. If enoough dems start to see that they will switch from Hillary to Obama for that reason alone in my opinion. She may not like it but Obama must and will make Hillary's toxic image with the public overall a big issue, it must be done delicately but i have first hand knowledge that it's the most effective way to take Hillary down.

is the same reason HIllary does well.

People have no real tangible idea on the issues..

they can hear Richardson say he won't raise taxes in one ear , and promise every program possible in the other and NOT realize the 2 can not possibly be true.

I would love to see a poll asking questions very basic questions about health care plans between the top 3 candidates

Isn't he?  Someone help me out here.

Consider where the trendlines are from. 3 months ago. Since then, Richardson's been putting ads on the air and other polls have showed him hovering around or just below 10%. Very few people seem to think he won the debate, so I don't think there's a correlation between the debate and the rise.

On the other hand, Biden's numbers went up. Granted, it's within the MoE, but if it's a genuine rise then I don't know what could have created it besides the debate. Which is weird, as very few people thought he won it.

Maybe the only people you talked to are MyDDers or Dailykossers?

Her crowds in NH are quite large, larger than Edwards'.  In addition, NH is in her reach, geographically.  NH is not far removed from NY.  Also, the type of campaigning that is typically done in NH is more up her alley, the retail politics.  

Sounds to me the same 'cell phone polling error' of Dean youth theory in 2004.

Do you have a link?

You are saying that 1/2 of the people who attended were unregistered?  If so, I would not count on a great many of them in the long run to show at the polls.

Don't watch those stupid 'focus group' TV shows for long time. Those are not scientific polls. Kerry always converted lots of 'undecided' in those sorts of polls last time around.

I wholeheartedly agree - we see these events, and the election in general, through very different eyes than the average voter.

be positive to Hillary.

REad the last part of the new poll...

the pollsters said the media declaring Hillary won reinforced and/or helped create perceptions.

Further it showed the jump in HIllary support is directly correlated with the jump in voters who perceive her as "inevitable"

I sincerely doubt that any of the debate back and forth between Edwards and Obama supporters on the blogs is being reflected in the national and state polls. An impact will be made by the blogs and larger netroots community on the race, but what you seem to say is blatantly rediculous. A unified netroots behind one candidate would hold value at building grassroots on the ground, rapid response to attacks and other messaging, and also obviously directing our large fundraising ability behind one candidate so they can plow it into other activities to raise their profile in the larger electorate. Dean raised what, $50 million in small donations before he was done? Edwards raised a good amount online, Obama did too, Hillary wasn't bad, but I believe combined it's less than $10 million. That's a far cry from $50 million and frankly I think the right candidate could raise two or three times as much in small donations over the primary. The movement has grown a lot larger since 2004 and is very engaged.

I don't want Hillary to poll ahead in IA. I want her to lay low there, and just beat the expectations. She will be unbeatable after that.

It's SEXISM if men dont want to vote for Hillary because she is a woman BUT  it's not SEXISM if women support Hillary because she is a woman?  Hillary is running a campaign that says vote for me because I'm a woman AND if you dont, you are a sexist.  That's no reason to vote for Hillary.

Do you have link about Winterof's move? I hadn't heard of that; I'd love to read more on it.

with Democratic primary voters. Iowa Democrats have nominated women for many offices, and several of them have won statewide elections. It is true that Iowa has never elected a woman governor or a woman to Congress, but we have nominated two women for governor, and at least five for U.S. House seats.

Sexism is not Hillary's problem among Iowa Democrats. Her problem is that many Democrats do not like her (the former Wal-Mart board member, the favorite of corporate lobbyists), and many Democrats who do like her think she has too much baggage to win an election.

The baggage doesn't come from being a woman, it comes from being a Clinton. Notice that the right-wing hate machine is holding their fire now, because they are so desperately hoping that she will become the nominee. She is radioactive to independents.

I don't believe Chris deleted your post.

Exactly. I found this is truly amazing. Just like sports, Hillary clinton learns, practices, improves and then wins. All her opponents are crawling in a cocoon to whine about how 'unfair' the game is.

The end result, she will be the final winner.

those coaches can do something about her unnerving laughter. I don't like it when she tries too hard to be relaxed and funny, like when she laughed at a question about her Iraq vote. I think Hillary is best when she is serious, professional and focused. That is when she shines.

I agree with this. Dodd is every bit the senator, but a president he's really not. The recent debate crystallized this to me--totally unmemorable.

Clinton is going to easily win the nomination if things keep on going in this way. Edwards and Obama will need to pull out something truly miraculous if either wants to overtake Clinton. Contrary to Chris Bowers, at this point I really think the most viable way to beat Clinton is to coalesce around one anti-Clinton candidate. As long as it's a three-way race neither of the two challengers will be able to draw enough oxygen or energy to crush Clinton: hell, they can't even crush each other.  

In all likelihood Edwards and Obama are both going to keep trucking through Feb.5, after which the Iron Lady sings (that's Hillary), and the jig is finally up. Of course Obama could end up being VP, and if worst comes to worst he always has his day job and can run for Governor of Illinois in 2010. Edwards is the big loser in all of this.

What are the chances Edwards is going to save himself some time, drop out of the race now, and endorse Obama? :DDD  

Ok, so here we have another anecdotal reference to how terrible Clinton would be for that person's state based on nothing but a personal feeling or "hunch" while the claim is made that Obama would bring the Democrats into contention in, of all places, Texas.  

Why are these types of posts written mostly by Obama fans?  Are you REALLY that presumptious to claim that you know BETTER than anyone else what is going on in a huge state like Texas?  Is your personal circle of friends and colleagues REALLY representative of state voters in the state of Texas?  

The interesting thing to me is, I seem to remember that around March 11 the prevailing narrative on the progressive blogs was that Clinton's lead was superficial and would erode as soon as the voters got a chance to really look at her. I find it interesting that she's if anything only gone up since then, to the point that the question of why she's going up seems like a secondary concern.

It's very hard to buy the fact that you're a woman with a statement like that.  I'm not saying you aren't, but I would ask if you are aware that most women don't have the voice of Lorraine Bracco and are somewhat shrill when they laugh and/or say things loudly?

My mom and dad once disliked Hillary, but have said they never expected her to be that likable in a debate.  They said that they did judge her without ever hearing her talk at length about the issues.

I thought Clinton did well, have no idea why anyone thought Richardson won though.