Hillary's Got Base...

[SaveElmer]

Chris Bowers of MyDD jump-started some of my thinking on whether or not Hillary vs. Obama poll numbers have any inherent biases built into them, but Mark Blumenthal ends that discussion here with some smart analysis that suggests there is no difference between national surveys of so-called Dem primary voters.

Bowers postulated that the screens were not tight enough and Hillary had a name ID advantage that was explaining her lead. I believed some version of that for a while as well, but those numbers suggest to me that something very different is happening in the Democratic primary race.

Look at the chart Blumenthal produces: (California polling)



Hillary Clinton has a big-time base of support. She has 38% of the electorate — an electorate that is closely watching this race so far and has not decided to leave her. Edwards and Obama both have 77% name ID in this poll to Clinton’s 96%. That’s low, but couldn’t possibly account for her entire lead, and let me quibble with one point of analysis from their own page:

…Obama and Edwards are more popular among Democratic primary voters who know them.

Yeah, no shit. Your supporters tend to know who you are. It’s a common misconception in polling analysis that the uniformed portion of a poll acts like the informed portion.

Either way, I would think the Obama and Edwards teams need to face a hard fact: primary Dems know Hillary and they’re sticking with her right now. They will need to start identifying ways to peel off those voters if they want to win.

http://www.blogpi.net/hillarys-got-base

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Actually, Hillary is losing support fast. all have some base but, she is losing support.

[Captain_Nemo]

4. Do you think it has something to do with female voters? "Female Voters Set High Standards for...."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/electing.women.ap/index.html

"Female voters set high standards for female candidates

Regardless of how the vote plays out, Clinton must portray several images in her campaign. She announced her candidacy from her living room, a move that virtually invited prospective voters into her home. She has won praise from top military officials who say she has a firm grasp of wartime needs and strategy.

She has also launched a nationwide outreach to women voters and was one of the sponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would close the wage gap between women and men.

"If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women. And I certainly believe in the equality of women," Clinton said recently."

[papau]

62. In one month Cook report poll has Hillary/Obama narrowing from 41/17% to 36/26%

http://www.pollster.com/mystery_pollster/exclusive_new_cookrt_strategie.php


April 30, 2007
Exclusive: New Cook/RT Strategies Poll Results

Here is something of an exclusive (for the moment - and we'll spare you the flashing red light): Our friends at the Cook Political Report have shared advanced results of the latest Cook/RT Strategies survey on 2008 presidential primary preference (conducted over the last three days, April 27-30, among 1,000 adults nationwide).

Their results for Democrats show a tightening national race in the last month. Among 389 registered voters that identify with or lean to the Democrats, the survey shows Clinton leading with 32%, followed by Obama at 24%, Edwards at 15%, Gore at 11% and all other candidates in the low single digits. Without Gore in the race, they show Clinton leading Obama by ten points (36% to 26%) trailed by Edwards at 18%.

On the previous survey (of 355 Democrats) in late March - which did not include Al Gore as a potential candidate - they showed Clinton with a 24 point lead over Obama (41% to 17%), who ran two points behind Edwards (at 19%). The nine-point increase in Obama's vote over the last month on this survey (from 17% to 26%) is statistically significant despite the small sample sizes, although the five point decline for Clinton (from 41% to 36%) is not.

For those watching, four national surveys (NBC/Wall Street Journal, USA Today/Gallup, CNN and Rasmussen) have shown a similar narrowing, while four others (ABC/Washington Post, the Pew Research Center, CBS News and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics) have not.

[blm]

2. They HAVE the truth if they dare to use it.

When BushInc was nailed with CIA drugrunning that dumped TONS of cheap cocaine in black communities all over the country and especially in southern California, what WH chose to downplay and deny it, protecting Poppy Bush?

The year the story came out was 1996. Documents were withheld for two years while the Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter was dragged through the mud and smeared as a fantasist.

The secrecy and privilege of Poppy Bush was protected while the black community was being told it never really happened.

http://www.narconews.com/darkalliance/drugs/start.htm

[Kolesar]

11. I had a "libertarian" coworker who kept telling me Clinton was linked to the cocaine traffic

It sounded pretty hard to believe to me. I was in a mode where I "just didn't want to listen to one more republican story" about ten years ago.

[blm]

34. Clinton didn't do the bizness - Poppy did. Clinton WH downplayed the matter

when the story came out in 1996, which dragged the further investigation down till it was completely off the radar screen with the CIA doocuments verifying the story were finally released in 1998.

[Kolesar]

59. Ok. Thanks. eom

[mtnsnake]

64. Clintons aren't the reason why Junior is in the WH. Kerry is the reason.

If he ran a campaign with a winning theme instead of a war theme...and if he didn't look the other way when the swift boat liars were attacking him 24/7...he might have impressed a few more voters than what he did. Instead, he caved to an imbecile of all people.

[blm]

66. You want to claim that Bush2 would be running in 1999 if CIA drugrunning story

and IranContra and BCCI and Iraqgate had been pursued by Clinton WH?

Kerry was further from Bush on Iraq than either Clinton was, and so Kerry was actually opposing Bush's invasion in 2003-4 AND the Clintons who were both supporting Bush on his military strategy.

Are you mad that Clinton didn't defend himself on draftdodging charges in 92 and left it to other Dems like Kerry to publically do it for him?

Are you mad that Kerry expected that other bigname Democrats would do the same follow through for him once he initially countered the swifts?

[wyldwolf]

67. yeah, but if Kerry had fought back we wouldn't have GW now

[blm]

68. If Kerry hadn't been fighting Bush1 throughout his 1st term, Clinton wouldn't have won.

If Clintons HAD been fighting Bush2 along WITH the 2003-4 Dem candidates instead of siding mostly with Bush2, it would have helped almost as much as Kerry and Gonzalez' efforts helped Bill in 92.

[wyldwolf]

69. but if Kerry had fought back we wouldn't have GW now

[blm]

92. If Clinton hadn't let Bush1 off the hook there'd be NO Bush2 in ANY office EVER.

Not as Gov. of Texas, Gov of Florida, or POTUS.

Since you KNOW that is true you keep attacking with a lameass point about 2004 as if 1993-2003 NEVER HAPPENED.

[fooj]

95. Don't let these people get you down.

I think they KNOW the truth. That's why they are always on the attack. Let's just be grateful that we don't have to use these ridiculous tactics to prove anything. We know the score. Gratefully, many Americans are learning the truth.

Funny...if I post something on this thread I'm responded to in record breaking time. Guess it's all part of "the job", eh?

There's so much going on right now. I've noticed how some are ONLY on specific threads. Guess PROPAGANDA, TREASON, and outright thuggery (not to mention an illegal and immoral war) doesn't bother some members. So be it. Makes it easier for us to weed it all out, eh?

The truth will set u.s. free.

[blm]

100. They don't. They merely give me OPPORTUNITY to keep the TRUTH spoken while they

show they have no real answers in regard to serious matters involving crimes of office, secrecy and privilege.

I doubt any one of them would run for office on the platform that the country should move past serious crimes of office.

[wyldwolf]

97. blm, you know, if Kerry had fought back, we wouldn't have Bush right now

[mtnsnake]

71. "Kerry was further from Bush on Iraq than either Clinton was"??

That's funny, blm! Maybe you should take time to go back and re-read Kerry's feelings about Iraq and Saddam BEFORE the war ever happened. Maybe you should go back only to 2004 and watch Kerry's brutal campaign again...where he told the nation over and over how he'd be a better killer of the terrorists than Bush would. Maybe you should listen to his rhetoric how he'd run the war so much better than Bush would in Iraq.

Kerry was no further from Bush on Iraq than the Clintons were and you know it. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.

[blm]

78. Kerry opposed the invasion - and his plan was to be tougher on TERRORISTS, not Iraqis and

his focus would have stayed on exposing the terror networks.

And Kerry called for Rumsfeld's job THREE TIMES in 2003-2004 and especially after Abu Ghraib, while the Clintons would not side with him on that. They also stayed silent on Tora Bora while Kerry was attacking Bush on that since early 2002 with NO BACKUP from the Clintons, so whose side did that help?

Pretending anything different is just more silly game-playing from you. The Clintons' silence on Tora Bora, Abu Ghraib, and Rumsfeld's firing benefitted Bush, not those speaking against him on those matters.

[mtnsnake]

79. "Pretending anything different is just more silly game-playing from you."

I love it when you attack me like that on a Wednesday in early May! Spring is in the air! :evilgrin:

[wyldwolf]

18. yeah, but if Kerry has fought back against the swift boaters, we'd be rid of Bush now

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553167,00.html

[bigdarryl]

3. One opinion by a former Clinton aid talk to me in Feb. 08 when the vote starts

[MannyGoldstein]

Rasmussen - Who Has Been The Most Accurate Predictor...

Says that Mrs. Clinton is not having an easy time these days - Mr. Obama has stronger support, and far lower negatives.

On the other hand - who knows. Long way to go.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Rasmussen - Who Has Been The Most Accurate Predictor...

Says that Mrs. Clinton is not having an easy time these days - Mr. Obama has stronger support, and far lower negatives.

On the other hand - who knows. Long way to go.

[ClassWarrior]

6. You mean Hillary the Housegirl?

That's what always comes to my mind when people toss around the Senator's first name.

NGU.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Funny, That

The other day I was called out as sexist for NOT calling her Hillary.

Tough crowd!

[ElizabethDC]

12. No, it's because you use "Mrs. Clinton"

no one calls her that. She's Senator Clinton.

[Colobo]

She promotes herself as Hillary, just as Sen. Obama

promotes himself as Obama.

[ElizabethDC]

39. Indeed.

which is why I don't have a problem when people call her Hillary. But I think that calling her "Mrs. Clinton" is a deliberate attempt to be disrespectful. We don't call Obama "Mr. Obama" do we?

[ClassWarrior]

43. Our elected leaders need to recognize the influence of framing.

Just because she promotes herself as Hillary, that doesn't mean it does her campaign any good - or women in general, for that matter.

NGU.

[ElizabethDC]

49. I really think it has very little influence overall

whatever name she uses, she's still the same person/candidate.

[ClassWarrior]

51. The real person has little chance of coming through the media intact...

...without at least a little help. Framing, framing, framing.

NGU.

[ElizabethDC]

53. But I dont think her name has that much to do with the framing

I mean, is anybody going to say, "I'm not going to vote for her because she uses her first name"? I mean, Jeb, Rudy, etc. use their first names in campaigns. I know it's different for her because she's a woman, but I think that, of all the issues relating to a candidates image, this is among the most minor..

[ClassWarrior]

56. No, but it makes her seem subordinate... to my mind at least...

I dunno, maybe she uses it because she wants to warm up a decidedly cold image. If so, that's fine. But that's not the effect it has on me.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

58. By the way, framing's impact is seldom that overt. It works at...

...a deeper, more fundamental level.

NGU.

[fooj]

96. NGU.

Ever.

[Clark2008]

46. But her own bumper stickers call her Hillary!!

That's from her website.

So - does it matter if she markets herself that way? Just wondering.

[ClassWarrior]

52. See 43. Then read "Don't Think of an Elephant." Just because someone markets...

...that doesn't mean he or she's a marketer.

NGU.

[jcrew2001]

109. I think it reminds people she's a woman and not

her husband the other Clinton.

[David Dunham]

7. Obama's trailing Hillary and Edwards big time in IA and NH

[MannyGoldstein]

No Way NH Votes For Clinton

There are few things in life that I'm sure of - but I AM sure that my neighbors to the north will not pull a lever for a Clinton. Any poll that says otherwise is definitely screwy.

[SaveElmer]

15. Don't you mean...

EVERY poll that shows this...as they all have...


Yet another version of the "I don't know anyone that likes Hillary, so the poll must be wrong" argument...a little twist with yours!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

16. I Might Buy The Other Ones

But not NH. No way.

[rinsd]

25. Pssssssttttt

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1277

"She has made a strong move since January polling, edging fellow Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois to gain a narrow 29% to 23% lead. Clinton added two points since last month, and nine percentage points to her column since Zogby’s January New Hampshire primary election survey in January, while Obama stayed steady. Former Sen. John Edwards also gained since last month, winning 23% support in the latest poll, as everyone else in the field faded almost from view."

http://www.wmur.com/politics/10945818/detail.html

"Hillary Clinton is also very popular -- 74 percent of likely Democratic primary voters have a favorable opinion of her, 15 percent are unfavorable, 9 percent are neutral, and 1 percent don't know her. Her net favorability rating is +59 percent."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/schneider.nh.polls/index.html (same poll as right above with more info)

"Hillary Clinton is still in first place among New Hampshire Democratic primary voters with 35 percent naming her as their top choice. But Barack Obama has vaulted into the number two spot with 21 percent, and former Sen. John Edwards is at number three at 16 percent."

Here's ARG which has taken a NH polls every month http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhdem8-705.shtml

[SaveElmer]

28. All bogus...

Because he knows people in New Hampshire and they hate Hillary...

:sarcasm:

[rinsd]

29. We even have the return of the Lieberman canard down thread!

Its a trip down memory lane from 2 months ago!

:evilgrin:

[skipos]

9. I have no doubt Hillary has strong primary #s. It's her gen elec numbers that scare me

a bit, along with her mediocre fav/unfavs.

[fooj]

10. Hey! We're in agreement this time around.

Hillary Clinton has a big-time base of support.

She certainly does. The 1996 Telecommunications Act that deregulated radio stations and allowed for the government controlled Clear Channel to monopolize the airwaves may be one of many reasons that Hillary gets so much air time. It's good to hear that her friend and supporter, Rupert Murdoch is attempting to purchase The Wall Street Journal. That should tie up any random loose ends, shouldn't it?

Bravo, Hillary.

[JNelson6563]

14. Oh it's on now...

:popcorn:

[AtomicKitten]

23. Murdoch is hardly her friend or supporter

... although it is no doubt fun for you to say so ...

Murdoch is a businessman who held a fundraiser for HRC with Democratic attendees and donors. Now, if he holds a fundraiser with GOP attendees and $$$, get back to us for the outrage.

I prefer real outrage to faux outrage, but that's me.

[fooj]

41. I prefer FACT to FICTION.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Rupert_Murdoch.php

$2100.00 Primary 07/06
$2100.00 General 07/06

That makes $4200.

It really has NOTHING to do with outrage. It's all about FACTUAL TRUTH.

Truth will set u.s. free.

[AtomicKitten]

42. So now you want to talk about Murdoch's personal donations.

As you can see from your own link, he has contributed the limit to all kinds of people as many, many wealthy people and corporations do. There is nothing unusual about that.

You were previously slamming her for the Murdoch fundraiser.

You apparently are outraged, me not so much so. Having worked in politics a long time, this is not unusual and quite frankly is pretty much a stretch to slam her over, but you go right on ahead.

[fooj]

45. Project all you want. Apparently, it comes naturally.

Try truth on for size. It's all the fashion rage lately. Schumer received a contribution in 2003. Kennedy received one in 1999.

I'm actually not outraged at all. I've been reading your posts for years now and I'm accustomed to seeing the perpetual projections. No biggie. I guess you feel compelled to do what you have to do.

Truth is what ultimately prevails.

[AtomicKitten]

50. actually what you were doing was bait & switch

You know, changing the subject when your argument isn't gaining traction.

But, that aside, some of the "roots" need to grow up a little and take a look at the whole picture of campaign finance and how that impacts elections currently.

IMO this is simply being used as ammunition; yes, I have read your posts for some time as well. Your "truth" when it comes to trashing people you don't like almost always amounts to specious material blown out of proportion.

FTR: Projection = attribution of an individual's own feelings, or attitudes to others. I don't think you really know what that means because I am very careful and adamant about separating my POV from DU's "progressive" types.

Now, we can swap insults or you can change the subject again.

[fooj]

80. PROJECTION.

Blah, blah, blah...

I'm not in the business of trashing people. Nor do I spend my time "diverting" or changing the subject. I'll leave that to you.

[AtomicKitten]

86. you could use a dictionary

Your FACTS have already been proved WRONG downthread and the more strident you get about defending it the funnier it gets.

That's what I call entertainment! :applause:

[fooj]

94. Blah, blah, blah...

:rofl:

[SaveElmer]

57. Ahhh...take a quick look at the FEC site...

Under Fox NewsCorp...

[blm]

103. Except we know how FOX NEWS uses millions of dollars of airtime AGAINST Dems

they don't like, no matter if there is a thin veil of bi-partisan dollar spreading by them.

Dems they DO like get a whole lot of free and positive airtime.

[SaveElmer]

36. Ask Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Howard Dean...

All received as much or more money from Fox Newscorp and Murdoch...

Ahh, but they aren't Hillary, so I guess there were just trying to bridge the idealogical gap eh?

:sarcasm:

[fooj]

47. Like I said upthread...I prefer FACT to FICTION.

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations...

Kennedy received a WHOPPING $1,000 in 1999. That was HOW LONG AGO? How does $1K equal as much or more than $4200 collected in 2006?

Boxer isn't on the list. Dean isn't, either.

[wyldwolf]

54. FACT: Howard Dean - $20,850 from Murdoch

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

[SaveElmer]

60. *** Crickets***

[fooj]

81. When I've made a statement that has been proven incorrect

I don't have a problem owning it. I wasn't aware of News Corp's contributions. Now I am. However, the contribution was made before 2000. That makes a difference, imo.

Isn't it refreshing to have someone actually "own" their posts? That's why I believe that integrity is important. Some of us believe in FACTUAL information and some of us just ATTACK. Take your pick.

[wyldwolf]

82. Ready to admit ANOTHER mistake?

However, the contribution was made before 2000. That makes a difference, imo.

It was made in 2004.

[AtomicKitten]

87. maybe it's projection ....

:rofl:

[fooj]

91. Great. Thanks for the clarification.

:hi:

[rinsd]

83. That "whooping" $1K was the MAXIMUM allowed by law in 1999

He also gave the max to John Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

90. oh dear

It appears his/her FACTS aren't so factual after all.
Maybe it's fiction.
Or perhaps projection.

Oy vey. :rofl:

[fooj]

93. Some of us have reputations for projection...

Some of us don't.

I'm still waiting for a rational, reasonable response from you regarding ANY post on DU. Manipulating words and hurling offensive insults isn't why I participate in these forums...but that's JUST ME.

Funny...I've never seen you step up and OWN anything. I guess that's hard to do when you are ALWAYS right, eh? Lucky for me...I don't have a problem owning my mistakes. Have a good one if that's at all possible.

[rinsd]

99. Its a tempest in a teapot that means nothing except to those who desire a meme.

:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

102. and behave as if we are still in Junior High School

... and living an episode of Heathers.

:toast:

[flyarm]

13. yes indeed !

her base is probabily larger than we can comprehend!


http://www.trance-formation.com/

[flyarm]

17. yep here comes her base alright!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x799309

[rinsd]

30. Awwwwww, somebody's cwanky

What's a matter? Realize Obama's brief grab at frontrunner status is likely to be shortlived?

[flyarm]

40. i am not supporting obama...so please do not think you can get into my head..

i am not supporting anyone yet.,.

i am waiting for Gore!

period..

[wyldwolf]

55. so... you let Republicans define liberal/conservative for you?

[flyarm]

61. no one defines anything or anyone for me!! period!

i do alot of research on who i will support..and who i will work for ..

fla elected delegate for Kerry here..fly

[wyldwolf]

63. then why did you use a Republican as a source in your characterization of Hillary?

[fooj]

98. Wow. You people never stop, do you?

[flpoljunkie]

19. Lieberman "had base' too. In February, 2003, he led all comers with 25% in LATimes poll.

And we all know what happened after that to the DLC's chosen candidate. Hillary is the last of the DLC's Al From's chosen candidates--the others were Vilsack, Warner and Bayh.

[flyarm]

20. dlc..my definition..

DEMOCRATS LOVE CORPORATIONS!!

i will not vote or support any dlc candidate!

no matter who it is!

fly

[SaveElmer]

21. So what you are saying then...

Is that polls this far out are not predictive of final outcome...and it would be foolhardy to base ones support on the result of polls...

Am I reading you correctly?

[flpoljunkie]

33. I am saying Lieberman's vote came from those in the base who do not follow politics well

enough to know where Lieberman stood on the issues and chose Lieberman based on name recognition--though they soon figured it out.

[SaveElmer]

35. This post is saying the exact opposite of that...

That folks who are most engaged, and have made the decision to go with Hillary are sticking with her...

The Lieberman comparison is simply not apt in this case

[flpoljunkie]

38. I've read that much of Hillary's vote is coming from those not engaged in the process.

[wyldwolf]

77. Even if that were so, those votes count as much as any votes...

[Alexander]

84. Not after 6 months of campaigning, they don't.

And the comparison with Lieberman is quite apt, if you are indeed conceding that many of HRC's followers aren't very astute politically.

Her support is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's obvious many Democrats resent the idea of the primary being a coronation.

[wyldwolf]

88. yes they do. MY vote is as good as YOUR vote which is as good as the next persons

[rinsd]

27. The old Lieberman canard still makes the rounds!

Lieberman never had base. He had name recognition and slid from the lead as campaigning truly began that summer.

Why do DUers re-write history to suit their BS memes?

[Czolgosz]

22. Hillary is this year's Gephardt - she's the early front runner with support of the party machine but

she can't rest on her front-runner status or she'll lose.

Obama is this year's Dean - he's got the most momentum and tons of good buzz and brings new voters to the party and a new base of campaign contributors but he has to lock down that poll support with debate performances confirming the specifics of his views on key issues and turn that great buzz into early caucus/primary votes.

Edwards is this year's Kerry - a strong third place at this early stage as the most electable progressive candidate with the best grasp of the issues and a good ground campaign plus strong appeal to voters concerned about the front runners electability.

Richardson is this year's Lieberman - a centrist with a long resume running to the right of all the other candidates.

Biden is this year's Edwards - 4 years away from having a good shot at heading the ticket but generating some VP buzz.

Dodd is this year's Clark - a great guy with rock-hard values whose campaign is not yet on fire but remains highly combustible and in need of a spark.

Kucinich is this years Kucinich - he's one of a kind (in a very good way).

Gravel is this year's Sharpton - keeping the other candidates honest.

[polichick]

24. I like this...

..very insightful.

[Nederland]

26. Nonsense

Hillary will do way better in Iowa than Gephardt did. Bank on it.

[Czolgosz]

31. Look back 4 years ago. Everyone was saying Gephardt was a LOCK to win Iowa because of his labor

support and because of his deep roots in nearby Missouri.

That aura of inevitably faded as Dean's star rose.

I'm not saying that Hillary will do worse than Gephardt did in Iowa (in fact, four years ago I would have predicted that Gephardt would have done better in Iowa than he ultimately did), but I'm saying that she has the same early front runner status that Gephardt enjoyed and this status can fade when a candidate with huge momentum and tons of new excited supporters get behind a challenger (like they did with Dean and like they are doing with Obama).

I'm not saying Hillary will win or lose (I'm saying she's the front runner so it currently appears to be her race to lose), I'm not saying Obama will win or lose (he's definitely got the momentum), and I'm not saying Edwards will win or lose (he's got ideological clarity and an effective message and a strong following in Iowa), but I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone else won (unless Gore gets into the race).

[wyldwolf]

32. Yes.. I see Obama as this year's Dean, as well

And, like Dean, I predict he flames out.

[fooj]

101. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...

I predict the cycle flames out.

[SaveElmer]

104. Or the equivelent...

Failure, Success, Failure, Success...

Lets hope you are wrong!!!

[blm]

105. Let's hope Clinton2 doesn't let Bush2 off the hook for his crimes of office the way

Clinton1 benevolently did for Bush1.

Will YOU be doing anything to pressure Clinton2 to pursue accountability and open those books that have been long closed, so another Bush puppet cannot regain office and another major terrorist act doesn't occur?

[Tejanocrat]

LOL!

[Tejanocrat]

37. dupe deleted

[Clarkie1]

44. I don't entirely agree with your analysis. Perhaps Obama will "peel" some Edwards voters.

United we stand, divided we fall and all that.

[PATRICK]

48. This seems like a good bet

Hillary is well known and the people that like her have been doing so for years as a presidential contender. She has a formidable base in the women's vote and strong organization with roots just as long.
She is no fluke despite any argument about being the First lady and having schmucks to run against in NY.
her candidacy is legitimate rock solid and negatives also well established with not much more of a place to go.

The problem was always getting momentum to move outward and upward. her competition splits a big chunk of her opposition. She can win be increments, by ugly pluralities and perhaps by just not losing while the others are forced to take risks and go after each other. Perhaps someone can actually go after her constituency instead of the non-Hillary vote, but the normal state of affairs early in the race should educate people relying only on her negatives that she is very competitive and will be fairly easily right to the end. Those seeing a decline and fall at this stage are at the least premature, like those on a battlefield shouting victory and fooling no one into a rout.

I would only wonder how many voters saw the first debate at all and only went for the media spin that is playing to the steady state favorite perception(with same old negatives or whatever) because many among both party establishment want her badly. We can always guess about the future- if only the states were not jumping into the early primary date chaos, but we don't have to get into our personal bias to recognize she is in a great position so far. In the past, as was noted, many candidates with natural bases and early poll leads maintained their supporters but went nowhere after that. A few defeats later and the bottom falls out. Now Hillary seems more solid than that, more legitimate a top contender and that could make this a real drama. The very worst scenario, where stagnation of all candidates occurs, means Hillary wins with less than thrilled general party enthusiasm- which means harder work(relative to other candidates) getting campaign workers who feel they have to defend someone they themselves are not all that excited about. If she can destroy some of the RW cant and chant while they lay back and pray that she wins the nomination then we might get somewhere beyond this whole set in stone proposition. Good luck with that.

Being early, it is up to movement among the top candidates who are not getting a certain MSM deference to change the state of affairs. So we shouldn't be looking too much at Hillary and her base if we want to catch change happening. We can hardly even say that anyone is even ganging up on the frontrunner or that there is anything so tough as an "anyone but Hillary" vote. All in all it is rather placid so far.
The placid atmosphere also favors Hillary, I think.

[speedoo]

72. "The placid atmosphere also favors Hillary, I think." ????

While much of your analysis seems solid (even though I disagree with your bottom line) that statement was a glaring exception. What about the current atmosphere is placid in your eyes?

The atmosphere, to me, is anything but placid. There is discontent everywhere... mostly about Iraq, but many domestic issues as well. The wrong track numbers must be at all time highs. You have growing confrontation of Bushco by congressional dems and Bushco scandal after Bushco scandal breaking. Voters are fed up with the status quo.

Where is this placidity that you see?

One other question: in your analysis you did not discuss Hillary's "likability". Do you dismiss that factor? (I think it's a fatal weakness to her presidential candidacy, unfortunately.)

[PATRICK]

75. Just the placidity

in the campaign, but then no one is realy fighting each other and there is no powerful dean-like insurgence to stir things up. Purely the campaign compared to the tremendous angst and multiple crises daily unfolding in the world at large. But that is almost all because of it being an early stage and in comparison to Dean fully unlocking(with great effect) a real debate on the war abd Bush in 2004.

Not much of an analysis also because it is so early. The critical moments have yet to happen no matter what the predictions.

[speedoo]

76. OK, I agree.

Just a matter of time before that changes. Biden's angry comments in the past few days is a sign, IMO. Lots of dems want to hear that kind of anger, and it will be interesting to see who it benefits. Of the leaders, probably not Hillary or Obama. Maybe Edwards.

[mtnsnake]

65. Yes she does

and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply pipe dreaming. The people who run around mischaracterizing Hillary's chances in the primary or the general election are simply trying to plant the seeds of despair.

[ShortnFiery]

70. The Seeds of Democratic Despair ...

will be realized the day after the Democratic Nomination - if HRC snags it. :scared: :(

[wyldwolf]

73. how so? If she wins the nomination, that will mean more Dems voted for her...

...meaning the seeds of dispair will come to two groups not totally unalike - "progressives" and Republicans.

[Alexander]

85. That's a big "IF" right there. 20 bucks says she'll lose.

Something tells me you're not a betting man.

[wyldwolf]

89. Sure. Sounds like a safe bet to me.

[GeorgeGist]

74. One state does not ...

make a serious study of the hypothesis.

[jcrew2001]

106. It sucks that Hillary loses to Thompson in the general election

according to Rassmussen.

[SaveElmer]

107. Yeah funny you felt the need to post this in three different threads...

I guess Hillary ought to just hang it up now eh ... :rofl:

[jcrew2001]

108. Well, I won't be suprised if she loses

is all I'm saying.