Polling doesn't determine electability, you know that: pundits do.

And I'm deeply disappointed in you, Chris, for donating $50 to Edwards today. You will never again write anything mildly critical of Obama without hearing about those fifty pieces of silver.

(And speaking of donating, if Obama is the first to refuse to participate in the FOX/CBC debate, he'll get a chuck of my change, and a big heap of my respect. And I'll stop wondering about his willingness to lead from the front, too.)

Poor, poor, Chris.  You never do cease to promulgate the hatred of all things Clinton, all things seemingly "establishment."

So Senator Obama has spent more time in elective office?   This twisted reasoning, in which purely a local and state operative is somehow more qualified to be the next United States President, could only come from desperation.

It is painfully reminiscent of apologists for then Texas Governor George W. Bush in 2000.  He's more "likeable," proclaimed most of the pundits.

And heck, what if he hadn't been on the national scene very long (aside from the fact that he was a former President's son)?  So, said they--he's experienced.  Hasn't he had lots of business experiences (however unsuccessful)?  Hasn't he had lots of experiences with a baseball team?  He's got lots of local, hands-on experience!  Why, sure-as-shootin', they may call him Shrub, but he's got what it takes!

Six years later, the United States itself is dying, slowly, and most painfully.  His on-the-job training has meant the end of our fiscal solvency and the termination of long-held international alliance.

Yes, Chris, NATIONAL EXPERIENCE, most certainly does matter; it trumps any series of local and state wide elective offices.  You should know better.

We are asked to believe that this regional collective experience from Senator Obama somehow bests the international experiences of the former First Lady of the United States, and a supremely successful United States Senator from New York, which is a microcosm for the very world itself.

We are asked to believe that this experience somehow bests one of the finest of all trial lawyers, who overcome conservative tradition in his own Senate victory.  And who more importantly overcame the death of a son, and is even now overcoming the ongoing grave condition of his wife in combatting cancer.

I dearly love your candidate, Senator Obama--he is brilliant and a fine orator.

But he is not yet ready for prime time.

Skewering national polling, cherry-picking results that try to push him to the 30% figure when in fact in virtually every poll he is far below that, will not create for him any real inroads.

Senator Obama is a fine man.  But he has some growing up to do.

And so, dear Chris, do you, and many of your sympathetic fellow bloggers.

because he makes a strong push for bipartisanship and because he can preach to the religious Christians better than any other Dem (and maybe Repub) candidate. Edwards appeals better to Democratic activists because he's upfront and forthright about the traditional Democratic goals (Obama says similar things, but less often, and qualifies them with more uncertainty). Hence Obama polls better for the general, but you contribute to Edwards.  All's right with the world.

Good analysis, Chris.  The interesting thing to watch with Edwards is whether the increase is sympathy, in which case it may not last, or is because people are looking at him more with the added media coverage due to Eliabeth Edwards' health problems.  For a long time, the media narrative was Obama v. Clinton.  Now, there is coverage of three.

I also am happy you decided to give the Edwards camapaign a donation amd that you were open about it here.  The first, because I also have donated to Edwards and support him.  The second, because I like your honesty.  People can read what you write and evaluate in light of the knowledge of who you support and why.  It's fair.

By super-duper Tuesday, only people who've done really well in one of the early states will be able to even think about the nomination. Aside from the top three, only Richardson poses a threat to even qualify as a "top-tier" vote-winner in an early state, and even Gore has a better chance at that.

Before I thought of this, I agreed with your take on these polls wholeheartedly, but I think there's some value to a fair amount of polling along the following model: poll the early primary states including non-runners, and poll the nation providing response choices for any candidate (and only those candidates) who stand to do well in the early states.

If state-by-state polls should show that Al Gore (or Wes Clark, for that matter) has 2nd-place support waiting for him in Iowa and 1st-place support waiting in NH, while competitive in the rest, it's at least within the realm of possibilities that Al Gore will be competitive on Super Tuesday, while nothing in the world will make Chris Dodd viable.

Because of the changes in the primary schedule, we don't just have to poll the first two and guess blindly from there. We can instead poll the handfull of early states, and consolidate that information as a predictor of what will essentially be a national primary limited to the few major candidates. It's definitely shooting for a different kind of information, but as far as I can tell, it's the "who is poised to win, and how much" kind.

Looks like several polls, and Edward's continued ability to raise cash via ActBlue, confirm my suspician of a "surge" from two days ago.

He has risen from the low teens to the upper teens, possibly the low twenties.  This actually is a surge.  Add to that the addition of Jim Oberstar to his endorsement roster, as well as a number of other progressives in Minnesota, and Edwards is having some hearty political times.

That said, I am still terribly nervous about the Q1 results.

the mainstream media should be talking about. Hillary Clinton is not even beating Fred Thompson in a general election matchup right now,this is good thing that the "frontrunner" the msm and dem establishment has annointed can't beat a republican half the counrty's never heard of, where's the articles about that,or that about half the country says they won't even consider voting for her. She has a serious electability problem and while issued are important, the most important thing or job that a nominee has to do is win the general election, democratic primary voters sometimes think they need to have the qualified person for the job instead of the best candidate for the job, that mentality is going to cost us the 2008 cycle if it doesn't change soon.

Between the two Time polls, there was really nothing that should have made Hillary's number's drop. But when Edwards gets a sympathy boost (and some more legitimate support from sympathy attention) half his gains (a significant jump!) come from Hillary's loss.

This does not show that Hillary has solid high-30s support. All it took was a little recognition and some positive personal emotional connection with another candidate and Hillary was a sitting duck -- name reco and the facade of an emotional connection are the only things Clinton has going for her (see: appeals to 9-11, Clinton-era nostalgia), and I see no evidence so far that there is a floor to how low her support will go (15%?) when other candidates start to develop that sort of relationship with the electorate.

I seem to awaken each day to yet another absurd, if not startling commentary about our Dem candidates.  Chris Bowers actually states that Senator Obama has spent more time in elective office than Hillary Clinton.  At the state level - yes; but let's actually observe what "all of Obama's experience" has provided him with.  

1.  After skipping the Carson City, Nevada forum, he did finally attend the Health Forum in Las Vegas the weekend before last. How did he do?  He sucked.  And everyone knows it.

2.  He did speak at the Firefighters Union Conference.  How did he do?  Lukewarm performance at best.

3. He did just speak at the union gathering in Washington this week.  How did he do?  Not great.

How did Hillary make out at all three events?  She brought the house down.  Why?  Because she understands policy; has worked on many of the legislative measures that are important to union members, across the board.  Because she has a kickass track record, that seems to be acknowledged by everyone but the progressive bloggers.  

Chris Bowers discards Hillary's senate record; and I don't mean from just her first term.  I mean her current term.  She is running for President AND doing impressive work in the Senate.  Should I list all of her accomplishments just for the month of March 2007.  On medical issues alone, there isn't another candidate who can compare.

And yet there are folks right here in this discussion who seem to believe that the only thing Clinton has done is related to video games. What a pathetic display of ignorance. There are many flavors of koolaid.  Chris Bowers is pushing one of them.

I wonder why they poll approval for Moveon.org and for Sandy Berger.

I know I'm just stating the obvious, but the ultimate purpose of the media's trying to bend public perception to a narrative is self-serving - it's to perpetuate the talking heads' own influence and life style. I wonder whether there's anything we the netroots can do to force or foster an evolution of current journalism  - anything we aren't doing already.

Edwards is too inexperienced to be electable. He looks good on TV but he is just all fluff and no substance.

Dean is just not electable. He is just too angry, and he is just too outspoken.

Kerry is just not electable. He is just too much of a flip-flopper.

Hillary Clinton is just not electable. She is just too disenguous and everyone's already made up their mind about her.

Bill Richardson is just not electable. He just doesn't have enough money.

Barack Obama is just not electable...
[fill in the black]

-=-

Meanwhile on the right... thank heavens for such strong national security ...