Whats really interesting to me is that his populism in many states appeals not only to those who consider themselves independents but "conservatives." A lot of people I've spoken to about politics here in NV consider themselves "conservative" which to them means anti-elite.

The right has exploited this sentiment for a generation by defining "elite" as cultural rather than economic-political. I feel like I've been waiting all that time for a Democratic candidate who can make the case convincingly that the real elites who have too much influence are the financial and political elites that have run this country into the ground, not with but against the will and support of a majority of the American people.

I heard JRE's stump speech on C-SPAN this am and it confirmed for me once again that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportuntity for a country to elect a real populist progressive.

America rising, indeed.

All of the precinct captains I know are having a hard time getting a handle on the number of HRC supporters who will show up to their caucus.

If she turns out tens of thousands of women who have never caucused before, she could win this thing, and I would give her campaign a lot of credit.

I think Edwards will close strong no matter what the turnout is.

I agree with you that third place would be a big blow for Obama, although it would depend on the margin. If the top three candidates were bunched closely together (which I do not expect), that's very different from third place by 10 points or more.

Sen. Clinton has far more money, more staff, a two-term president and two-term governor campaigning for her. If all of that's not enough for her to come in first, you have to wonder what it would take for regular Americans to ever support her.

I've heard a lot of Republicans on C-Span who are saying they're going to vote for Edwards and Elizabeth said she often hears that a lot too. In 2004 I know many Republicans crossed over and vote for Edwards. This is something the polls might be missing.

Actually, Edwards himself, at the beginning of this campaign, publicly eschewed the focus-group poll testing of his messaging. He threw it away, realizing it was much better to just listen to people on the campaign trail.

"largely be at the expense of Obama"

Yes, God forbid that anyone take something away from the media-chosen alternative.

...who have FAR more money and who have received FAR more corporate media coverage would be an amazing achievement by Edwards, who as you point out has relied heavily on his impressive personal campaigning skills to remain even with the money/media candidates. If they can't beat Edwards despite their huge advantages, you really have to question their abilities on a far more level playing field in the general election.

And let's see just how narrow this actually ends up...

Edwards is now at 21% and 20% in two polls in NH. He was within 10 points of Hillary and 5 points of Obama. Edwards can win all four early states, giving him momentum for the long haul.

But I'm losing hope that Barack will pull it off. I suspect it will be a real dog fight for a distant second place.

He's a one state shot. Obama has a bit of traction in a couple of other states. If he loses IA he's done, if he comes third he's doubly done.

I'm pretty sure Edwards should want to knock out Obama if it were up to him, as he's the only one who presents a glimmer of a Dean-like flameout scenario.  Clinton has too much establishment support to be the victim of an early knockout.

Clinton second, Obama distant third is best case scenario. Also, helpful if Biden beats out Richardson for fourth, since Richardson has more support in NV that would come up for grabs if he can't raise the money to stay in another 2 weeks.

The last six polls out of Iowa--including today's Zogby--have shown increases by Edwards.

He's clearly the candidate who's moving up.

there is a difference between polling to see how you are doing in the polls and testing your message against it. you seem to be claiming they are one and the same.

OMG - Edwards does polling!?!!

Jerome said that HRC and Obama have spent millions "poll-testing and focus-grouping their message" and Edwards has not. I'm not inside the Edwards campaign so I don't know if that's true, but from the outside, it looks spot-on.

Global Strategy Group is their horserace pollster.

Statistically they are tied. The toast comments, no marmalade?, are mainly directed to the consequences of loosing except in the case of a few true believers. Turn out and organization will indeed decide this race which in any case has been completely overhyped by the press given the compact electoral primary calendar this year. In the toast department it's probably fair to say either of the Obama or Edwards campaigns will remain stuck in the toaster if they lose.    

"I took statistics in College and I think it should be required for everyone(especially some so called bloggers)to understand what's going on instead of making some ridiculous statement like: Hillary/Obama/Edward is toasted."

I have trouble believing what I am reading here from the VERY SAME POSTER who stated THIS:

http://jr1886.mydd.com/comments/2007/12/ 30/64934/882/31#31

Re: McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa (+Zogby) (none / 0)

She's toasted to put it bluntly

by Jr1886 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:46 PM EST

and, in another rendition of "he is toast" theme:

http://jr1886.mydd.com/comments/2007/12/ 30/64934/882/30#30

Re: McClatchy-MSNBC poll in Iowa (+Zogby) (none / 0)

I won't be surprised to learn thats it's all over for Edwards on Friday(ironically) considering he has lived in Iowa since 2004.

by Jr1886 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:33:05 PM EST

Looks to me that YOU were the one who actually was at the forefront of "making ridiculous statements like: Hillary/Obama/Edward is toasted."

Never underestimates the media's ability to stick with what they have decided is the narrative.