Are cross-tabs available so we can see that Clinton's support is mostly comprised of people not paying attention.

I'll like to see more Iowa,NH and S.C polls because they are much more important then national polls....

I would love to see a NH and S.C poll to see whether the ARG numbers are in fact accurate on that front.

If you're Hillary, you have to wonder why you're gaining  momentum on the national polls but yet,can't duplicate those gains in the early states?

Edwards still leads in Iowa and Obama is in striking distance in NH/SC...I personally think Obama slightly leads Hillary in South Carolina because there's a lot of young African Americans that are registering to vote in droves to vote for the first black president and these polls aren't counting them.

If the Obama people are smart,they would launch a massive voter registration in South Carolina and lock up the state...Target those young black men and women that aren't registered and im sure Obama is probably the only candidate to convince them to register..

If Obama can register 10,000 new voters in S.C, then i don't see how he losses South Carolina even with a bad showing in AI and NH.

Typical criticisms already lining up.  Clearly, this bodes well for Clinton. There is an obvious intensity to this race and increasingly by nearly two to one Democratic voters are going with Hillary.  Sorry, I'm just as "informed" as anyone else here and the more I learn, the more firmly I back her. People should stop denegrating voters who prefer Hillary.  It makes them sound like pompous asses.  

Jerome, do we know how it breaks down by Party or gender?

Hillary is in a very strong position obviously. Obama and Edwards are really struggling with the women vote which is crucial in Democratic primaries and caucuses. But we still have about six months to go. They have enough time to make their case.

All of this punditry and prognostication is nonsense with only 25% paying attentioni and many fewer having made up their mind. That said, I am glad Hillary is looking better in the general election match-ups. I am not a fan but if she turns out to be the nominee, she damn well better win.

The Rasmussen poll mirrors the movement and trendlines the NBC/WSJ poll has been showing.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_2008__1/weekly_pres idential_tracking_polling_history

Here is the trendline:

04/30/07 Clinton 30%  Obama 32%  Edwards 17%

05/07/07 Clinton 34%  Obama 26%  Edwards 16%

06/25/07 Clinton 37%  Obama 25%  Edwards 13%

07/30/07 Clinton 41%  Obama 24%  Edwards 14%

Basically, Clinton has gained at the same clip Obama has lost steam.  If the current daily tracking polls are any indication (in which Clinton has a 21% lead today, had a 19% lead yesterday, and an 18% lead Monday) the trend is bound to continue.  

What drives these numbers are the internals.  

Clinton is viewed favorably by 84% of Democrats, her unfavorables amongst Democrats are in single-digits.   In contrast, Obama and Edwards don't fare nearly as well with Democrats, both in the favorables as well as in the unfavorables metric.  In poll after poll we have seen Clinton ahead by about 25%, 30% in the net numbers for favorables/unfavorables.   Obviously, that big difference amongst Democrats in the "who do you like best" area reflects in the polls.  

Secondly, she is always regarded as the candidate with a major lead on a host of important metrics.  For instance, on national security she is seen as the best candidate by 47% of Democrats, only 19% picked Obama, 10% Edwards.  Clinton always wins out big when it comes to questions like "Who has the best experience to be president," the same with "best crisis management," "competence," and the like.  

There are very few internals in polls that don't  favor Clinton.  I already discussed the favorables/unfavorables amongst Democrats, but her unfavorables in the general population have been generally falling as well.  39% in this NBC/WSJ poll is quite good, as is her head-to-head result against Giuliani.

Clinton has the inside track to the nomination, but there is always the possibility that she commits a major gaffe, a gigantic misstep.  

Those two reasons are partly why I dismiss the notion that totally dismisses the polls as they stand in the race now.

But don't these numbers actually confirm the idea that the number of people paying attention is going to surge in a few months?  The 2004 election saw periods of relative stability and then a surge for Dean in the fall and especially December.  No one is dismissing the polls as they are now, but it's clearly the case that a lot more people are going to start tuning in.

Look at that huge spike in viewership at about ten months from the general election.

There's also a problem with the graphs that I think Blumenthal was getting at: it compares elections relative to the general election and not relative to when primaries are being held.

I think Chuck Todd made the point that this election isn't actually all that early, given the fact that the primaries have advanced so far forward.  We're going to have a campaign this time around that will no doubt end on Feb 5th, which is a full eight months before the general election.
Todd argued that we would all be better off if we just started considering the primary and GE as totally separate elections.

A question for the Hillary boosters here at mydd: Do you guys worry that these meaningless national polls are building up expectations for Hillary so that if she loses in Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire (or fails to win convincingly) the media will fall in love with the underdog insurgent?

I think people are paying more attention because of these marquee names and the huge news coverage they generate.  You'd have to be living under a rock not to see some coverage of this race.

Furthermore, I think because people already fairly informed opinions (not that they can't change once they learn more) of these well covered people - and McCain certainly fits in here - that the numbers are a little more solid, and less prone to some big shift in the weeks and months to come.

I don't think we are going to see another surprise like Edwards in '04 coming out of nowhere to place second in Iowa.