There's a benefit to having our eventual nominee gain such strong support this early.

[calteacherguy]

A majority of Democrats believe Hillary Clinton is the best choice, and will be our nominee. This aura of inevitablity will have benefits in the general election. Watch how the perception that Hillary is the inevitable nominee becomes a perception that her election as President is inevitable. Watch the Republicans lose faith, lose heart, and in a significant number of cases fail to even go to the polls in the face of the Clinton steamroller.

So you see, even if you are a Clinton detractor, steamrolling has it's benefits.

:-)

[babylonsister]

1. Speak for yourself. She's not 'my' eventual nominee. nt

[saracat]

2. Yeah but the down side is a lot of Dems will also lose spirit and decide to not vote!

[emilyg]

13. Not this time. Just don't think so. Lines will be long.

[Lerkfish]

3. I really don't understand how this magical thinking works for anyone

I can also predict that if she is the eventual nominee, the right will come out in droves to oppose her and the left will feel abandoned by her.

I see a squeezing down of potential advantage, not an increase of one.

we both see the same data and come to different conclusions. If she is the nominee, sadly, I think that will mean a republican president, regardless of the polls.

[calteacherguy]

5. Consider this...

POLL: Clinton Advances, Strong in Base; Giuliani’s Lead has Less Oomph

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3680555&page=2

[Lerkfish]

12. Well, I'm also recalling when Dean was the front runner

and was not the nominee.

a lot of things can change.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. There is an immense advantage to running a general election campaign while your eventual opponent

is running a primary campaign.

That's a fact, whatever anyone thinks of any given candidate.

That's much of the power of incumbency--being able to run to the center while your opponent is running left or right.

If Obama or Edwards were at 53% it would be exactly the same advantage.

[calteacherguy]

6. Excellent Point. nt

[EST]

7. Doesn't do it for me.

I think I would be even less likely to vote for what I see as a moderate republican in dem shoes. I have said before that I would support the eventual nominee no matter what. I was wrong.
I will not vote for Clinton for the nomination, and I so thoroughly resent having the big business candidate forced on me that I have decided, should she take the nomination, I will not vote.

I won't vote for the puke nominee, but I will not vote for her.
This would be the first general election I have missed since 1972, but, if necessary, so be it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. All that is required for evil to triumph... (you know the rest) n/t

[EST]

11. You are right, of course.

I don't plan on doing "nothing." I plan on not voting for someone who is only "maybe a little better than the pukes" and proclaiming loud and long to anyone who'll listen to my reasons for doing so.

[saracat]

14. I am fearful that is the direction I will be forced to as well.

And it will also be since 1972 for me as well.I will vote down ballot but I do not think I can pull the lever for Clinton.I just don't think I can do it.

[FlaxieB]

9. Don't believe the media push and skewed poll numbers for Hillary

That's what they want you to believe. It's shameful how the mainstream media is showing their bias in support for her. Daily, there is a new revelation about poll numbers. These are only well crafted snapshots of a particular group being polled to acieve a planned result so don't take much stock in it. Plus since she won the $$$$ race this quarter, the media is really ramping it up, calling her unstoppable. Grass roots is where the real reality lies and come election time, Americans will be heard and Obama wins.

[calteacherguy]

10. There is a major flaw in your analysis.

The grassroots support Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Let's not delude ourselves since not a single vote has been cast.

Here is a possible scenario: Assume Hillary wins the nomination. It is late September or early October, when a news flash comes saying that Iran has launched a massive missile attack against Israel and our bases in the Middle East. Bush orders a retaliatory strike consisting of a bombing campaign of Iran's military bases and nuclear facilities. The US strike is long term. Hillary throws her support to our "boys" that are bombing Iran, and she speaks of defending Israel. A few days later the British press reports that it was Israel that struck Iran first in hopes of eliciting a response. When Iran responded, Israel gave Bush the pretext to have his long-sought war. Hillary ignores the British reports and sticks to her talking points.

Under the scenario which I just described, which closely follows the one we read in Sy Hersh reports on Cheney's plans for war, how long can Hillary hold her coalition together?