Kentucky is still a conservative state, but the Republican corruption scandal has really hurt the GOP brand, comparable to what happened in Ohio last year.  The difference being, in Kentucky the unpopular and scandal-wracked governor will actually be on the ballot again, so he'll drag down his party even more than Bob Taft did in Ohio.

That's not so hard, though. That just means they always voted for the incumbent if there was one or the Republican if there wasn't. Bill Clinton in 1992 would be the only exception.

In fact the only two Dems to win the general election without being an incumbent since FDR are Bill Clinton and JFK.

How about self serving bias.

Majority do not think so according to polling data.

So you talking to your friends , who most likely think like you is not scientific.

Its like me saying I talk to a lot my dem. friends and most of them think Edwards is a fraud hence majority of Dems think he is a fraud.

She's led in quite a few polls that I've seen, or been within a few points. Perhaps you just haven't looked closely enough.

Whether these are the first or eighteenth polls showing her with a lead doesn't matter. If she can poll ahead in red states, then enough people are willing to vote for her that there is a path for her to win those states. And with her savvy and her rivals' lack thereof, I'm tempted to conclude that it will actually play out that way.

Not convinced, of course. The deep red states will go Republican absent a spoiler candidate. But I'm encouraged by what we can extrapolate from this about swing states--if she can compete in the South, then she (or any Democrat) can compete anywhere in America. This is looking like a potential blowout.

In New York and New Jersey, they know all about Rudy! I doubt that they will just forget about his "antics." And his 15 9/11 minutes were up long ago. There are 9/11 volunteers all over the country who despise him. Of course the Repugs would hire people to say otherwise, but it wouldn't work. The antipathies simply run too deep now.

I lived most of my life 60 miles from NYC. The Giuliani reign was like an endless circus of horrors. And you wouldn't believe all the weird domestic fiascoes of Rudy. I think it would be insane to let him run.

Plus, I think Kucinich, for example, could easily win. A lot of people view his supposed "negatives" in a very positive light. By the time of the elections, the economic situation will probably be so dire that even the Chinese won't be able to bail us out again. Then people will want a man like Kucinich.

Let's see the good old reliable Wikipedia (snark):

Regina Peruggi (1968-1982) (divorced/annulled)
Donna Hanover (1984-2002) (divorced)
Judith Nathan (2003-Present)

See: (divorced/annulled), (divorced). Oh yeah, he's rock-solid alright! He was (divorced/annulled) after 14 years. How could uncle Rudolph lose?

Proof?

Which people don't seem to understand. The GOP is going to hit hard at any Democrat on top of the ticket. They are not going to cower away because Edwards or Obama is the Presidential nominee. They will attack them and attack them hard.

Of course they will get swifboated, but you bet it will work even more on her because the material they have on her goes back a LONG TIME, has been tested and has worked before.

She has spent the last few years in relative obscurity until her presidential run--a lot of people have forgotten the Clinton wars of the 90s, all it takes is one simple ad recapping everything in those red states to inflame the populace once again and I'll bet anything that you take the same poll again in Alabama or Kentucky and the result will be quite different--especially when they get acquainted with the whoever the GOP nominee ends up being.

that will undoubtedly motivate more money, more activists, more intensity and more revenge against her than any other nominee.  as one reporter said, it's the difference between half a trillion dollars being spent against you and $50 million.

but, you know, she could always pull out her pink dress...

Aren't those two kind of contradictory?

who remembers what happened in the 1990s?  certainly not the electorate.  and what gets used will depend on hillary's message and her perceived strengths.  the billing records -- which voters didn't pay attention to because she wasn't an elected official -- would only be useful if hillary starts promising open and transparent government.  i don't think even her supporters expect her to head an open and transparent government, so.

republicans will use hillary's words against her.  first she's for X then she's against it, except they have the video.  she says, they respond.  she says something else, they respond.  she is the perfect candidate for the kind of oppo that republicans like to use...

showing him shaking hands with arafat.  he was never a credible candidate afterwards (he said he would never, ever shake hands with the arafats after hillary went to the middle east).

hillary has run against two weak, relatively unknown republican candidates.  lazio's name recognition was in the 50s statewide, and only in the high 60s for republicans.  yet given those advantages, she still drew fewer votes than gore or spitzer, both of whom faced much tougher (and more well-known) opponents.  you may think her campaigns are instructive, but i think they are a cautionary tale...

no, the swiftboating of hillary has not begun.  outside of rove, republicans seem to be holding their fire.

you'll know that it's begun when you see negative ads up on tv from some unknown, nefarious group, making outlandish charges.  you'll know when you see the major media scoffing and then covering the story.  and you'll know when talk radio has one subject, and one subject only.

otherwise, you're just degrading the term to mean general opposition.  we've already established that about half the country opposes her.  it's when they start going after the undecideds that we call it swiftboating...

its a democratic blog

Tell your Hillary-loving Mom that she raised a guy with a good head on his shoulders.   :-)

It makes absolutely no sense to see Clinton strong in these states and argue with the "downticket race" canard.  

Now that the main bloggers appear ready to dismiss the Hillary "electability" issue as invalid, and it looks like several states that we usually don't consider winnable seem within reach with just Clinton at the top of the ticket (with a VP choice of, say, Mark Warner adding even more appeal in red states,) look for the "final stand" of the "down ticket drag" theme.   As illogical as that actually is.

Yes, these numbers are making me think the "hurting downticket races" thing may not be true. That was only going to happen if Clinton polarized the country, winning in blue states and northern purple states but tanking hard in red states. In that scenario then yes, Clinton could have won but still hurt downticket races in the red states.

But man, if she's really polling 44-48 in Alabama, I think that fear can be laid to rest. Local Democrats in red states can be assured of doing significantly better than Hillary, not worse; so if she's posting solid-but-not-high-enough-to-win numbers, they ought to be in great shape for their local races.

I think Clinton would even put NC in play this time around.  

was always based on a fear that she would be unelectable and kill our downticket races. I have never had any problems with her on the issues.

Her campaign has been very impressive so far and the more I see her, the more I think that she might be a strong GE candidate after all.

I am only happy to see her favorability numbers improve. I want a Dem in the WH no matter who that Dem is, and right now Hillary has a quite commanding lead in the polls.

I still think that Obama is a bigger political talent (as well as more progressive) and that he will be president one day, sooner or later. But he is young and he can wait, if he has to. He will be unstoppable once the "inexperience" issue is gone.

I don't give shit bout the polls. I carea bout what I know and have seen in actual voting patterns. as I mention below in an outter southern state, at the height of the wave last year, with a racist incumbent, we still barely won the state by 7000 votes or so. These polls are fantasy.

my point is that the numbers in the southern states are sheer fantasy. look at the actual outcome for Dems in the last few elections in those states. they weren't even close.

the only state that is even remotely believable as a swing state is VA- and after macaca, at the height of the wave last year- Webb still won by only 7000 votes or so.

by the way- at the end you point out why i have a problem with these numbers. if they aren't credible for you in some states, then why are you trusting them in others? does that no indicate to you that the numbers can't be trusted since its the same pollster using the same methodology.