i hadn't realized that superdelegates were early endorsers in prior years.  is there a reason why you would imagine they would give up their coveted status of being wooed by all the campaigns?  i know i wouldn't, even if there was someone i really supported...

I will go through your assertions one by one.

But, first, let me just say off topic, one of my core concerns right now is that you offer no proof of what you  are saying- from where are you drawing these conclusions? What races, what data? You offer nothing from which I can judge or gauge the accuracy of your position.

Now, I have more questions than answers to what you wrote because, well, you wrote it so I feel  like you should be the one to provide your own answers.

a) The general thrust whenever one brings up the subject of presidential coattails is denial.  My comemnt addresses that issue. Do you believe or not that presidential coattails exist? That was the central question I asked myself and I answered so as to objectively decide whether those denials are true.  I provide proof that they do. You simply say they do not. Or is that your point? Why? I get your point about polarization, but quite frankly, I don't understand how you think that responds to my point about toss up Congressional districts or too close to call Senate races? Are you saying that Clinton would not be a polarizing figure for some? That her opponents wouldn't be less polarizing? Or, is your point like hwc that campaigning is the magic miracle cure to razor thin margins in toss up races?  I don't understand your point in the context of what I specifically wrote or the links that I provided.

b) You use contrast quite oddly. You seem to think it means just rhectoric. It's not. Sure in a campaign that's all one has to address, but (and I am assuming given your lack of specificity) in 2010, candidates won't be running on her rhectoric, they will running for or against her actions. If that's not what you are referring,a nd you are talking about campaigns, then you I think are missing the point. The discussion here isn't about a single candidate as much as it is about the party. What will people down ticket be able to run on? What will having her on teh ticket do to their messaging, strategies, etc. You answer none of that.  Also, here's a link to a speech discussed by Bowers over at Open Left- this is her rhectoric now, are saying she doesn't mean what she's saying?

For example, what voters think candidates stand for onteh issues:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1177

Or what clinton has been saying in stump speeches:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=1133

What about these two postings suggest the contrast you are discussing here?

c) Here, "Candidates in at risk conservative districts always avoid the national Democratic party brand" You seem to gloss over that I was discussing swing district, not conservative ones. In good years with good candidates- a nominee can help with the messaging.  And the rest of your analysis is well- just a lot of hero worship and generalized talk about progressives rather than about how we are actually going to solidify the gains of 2006. How exactly do you see that happening? In which districts, and how will it work out?

As with the other poster what you do is limited the discussion to only those races of which you think are "relevant." The point is whether coattails are defined by you as only during the year in which the President is running- is that your point? Is that how you are limiting the discussion? Well, if so, that's a pretty niffy trick because it conveniently means you don't address my point at all.

Why? Because my point is about the impact of the top of the ticket or face of the party on individual races. I used Bush for a reason. He's the most recent example we have.

 On its face, to limit the discussion as you have done is well- cherry picking. If you are truly interested- do as I have done- I didn't limit my links to years that prove my point. And if some of them do not work- there are many more which prove it. In many years- the pre-election rap was that coattails do not matter. Post the election- comes the narrative well presidential coattails did matter. I see no difference here other than its happening in a primary from a segment that desperately needs to pretend there is no evidence showing coattails.

Even if you can not open the link to 2004, you can read where I say that it was neutral on the subject, and that this is fact intensive. The problem for example with what you are asking about congressional races is that we won't know clintons full impact until its too late in the summer of 2008 to anything about it. What we have is general understandings of whats happened in the past, her negatives which remain around the mid 40s on average and similar such information. I spend much of my time here dealing with people denying that any of the this information even exists much less that its relevant. It's like arguing with the anti global warming crowd.

I have a quesion- are you seriously claiming that last year wasn't a referendum on Bush, and therefore, there was not a negative coattail?

Because if you are, that would be a surprise to a lot of Democrats. You may want to tell Clinton this as well since this is part of her strategy right now. Since last I checked Bush isn't on the ballot next year. You can not simultaneously use bush's negative coattails, and then claim clinton or any other candidate has none.  To do so, would be absurd. But I expect little from blogs these days.

I provide this data based on a quick search to prove the absurdity of the denial that there was no such thing as a presidential coattail effect anymore. What precipitated my even looking up any data whatsoever was a claim by one poster in another thread that such coattails haven't existed in 20 years- thats right- 20 years.

My thesis in other words is only that coattails exists in direct response to claims that they not. If you want more, look it up yourself, and be prepared to defend it because what your side has been providing up until now is that there are no coattails.

And since the discussion here is not done tableau rasa you again show to me that much of what passes for discussion here is limited. Why? Because you say things like 98 percent of all seats are not in play.

Well, first, I make it clear we are talking about toss ups. That's per se not including safe seats. But no one ever claimed that she would matter there. We said she would matter in places where that leans conservative OR toss ups.  And yes given the lack of clear data anecdotes of real districts and real states are certainly preferable to your speculation and skepticism about my position. Why? because at least its evidence of something. All you did with my post is basically deny it. Again- if you are saying 2006 wasn't about Bush- I thinkt he party would be shocked to hear that. But your argument depends on such framing to survive.

And as for research and analysis - how about this. You provide it. this site isn't my day job. I found this just doing a cusory half ass search without a bias denying concepts like coattails or the impact of negative favorables by the person at the top of the ticket or for that matter favoring them. I haven't worked in politis in years, and yet I knew from this experience that coattails existed. When I got posters telling me that they don't- thats what caused me to bother to check. You can do the same.

by the way- as i wrote that- a point i had never thought of just occured to me- its interesting to watch people who simultanously want to use the negative impact that bush (who is not running) has on people while they deny that clinton has the same impact on other voters. it seems a contradictory position.

"Now, much of this will also depend on things like media coverage, but the idea that we  will get a pass by the press once the narrative shifts to the general seems naive."

That is what is so naive about Edwards supporters on this board.  We get a lot of hyperventilating about the media giving Edwards a raw deal, focusing on this or that, blablabla, which in turn has led to Edwards depressed poll numbers (comically he gets 8% of Democratic support in a labor-state like Ohio, 9% in a labor-state like Michigan, lags behind Clinton in his own home state, etc.)    We are told (and supposed to believe) that once Edwards were to squeeze through the nomination the media narrative would change around completely, and instead of Edwards being made into a quasi-laughingstock (for Republicans) he would come out strong, make a concise case the media picks up just the way he wants, etc.    It is one of the more naive elements of the way "electability" has been discussed on this board.    Unlike the naive spin, EDWARDS will NOT get a pass from the media, in fact the problem he already has with the media (which according to Edwards supporters is the chief reason for his precarious position in state after state) would be magnified x10.   Just because one is a strong Edwards supporter does not mean that one has to be naive to current realities as they exist.  

She DID say that.  See for yourself, plain as day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLXso2HnG wI

Will this change your mind about Hillary?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLXso2HnG wI

p.s. Please don't accuse me of being a liar.  Thank you.