anti-hillary by november/december she'll lose...

if there are 3, (obama, gore, edwards) she wins.

If there are 2 (obama, edwards) and Obama gets a very high percentage of the african american vote and Richardson pulls hispanics she could also lose.

Gore has the concerts coming up early next month, and then we're into Nobel season, right? When is the Nobel Peace Prize usually announced?

I'd rate the chances of his running at 10% currently. Winning the Nobel Prize probably changes that number, although I'm not sure in which direction. :-)

It is like comparing apples and Oranges so they are meaningless. Non Candidate historically poll well until they become a Candidate ask Wes Clark and Fred Thompson.

The Al Gore frenzy is a creation of the Netroots. Al Gore won the last Election because people like me thought he was an extension of the Clinton Legacy. For example, he got about 95% of the Black votes then. He will not get anything near that ever.

So Polls with Gore in them are meaningless in my opinion. Gore, will be smart to listen to his wife and stay out.

Right now he is the Vice President that lost the closest election in history, while winning the popular vote.  He was right on the war, he has started an innovative television station, won an Oscar, written a best seller.  He may add the Noble Prize to his accomplishments this fall.  

Thats a pretty great profile right there.  However if he runs and fails to secure the nomination of his party people will forget the rest.  If he were to get beat by Hillary or Obama or whoever, that would be a huge disgrace.  That is what he would be remembered for.

1. Edwards is tanking.
   
2. HRC trending down approx. five points since March.
   
3. Obama struggling to move into upper 20s or low 30s.
   
4. Gore is splitting anti-HRC vote.  He has to get in or out soon. I resent his presence in the polls.  How do you fight a phantom candidate?

One, that Ipsos poll is a pretty big outlier.

Two, Obama more effectively boxes Gore out by raising the kinds of money he has and will raise ... if Obama raises $35 million this quarter, that makes things pretty tough on Gore.

It's all about second quarter earnings. If Obama beats Hillary by more than say, 4m, he becomes THE anti-Hillary candidate, he gets another bump in the polls, etc etc...

I think Gore is holding back. If Obama implodes, which isn't gonna happen, Gore will replace him.

If not, Gore will endorse Obama in the fall.

Everyone following the race closely knows that the national numbers of Edwards hide his early-state strength. IA, NH, SC, MI, NV, in all of those key states, Edwards is in the thick of it with his organizing. And Bonior is right in saying that Labor is going to start to play a more important role beginning in the Fall. And if Gore doesn't decide to run, the benefactor will be Edwards.

Jerome, I have a lot of respect for your judgment but, Edwards's performance will mimic his national poll numbers when the votes are counted in IA, NH, SC, MI, and NV. He will not have enough money to effectively compete in these States despite his Organization.

Obama not Edwards benefits from Gore's non candidacy. Obama has utilized and perfected the Dean model and I smell victory in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina for Obama

Some percentage of voters may like him, but pick someone else on the list because he's not actually a candidate.

I think people still like him, but many feel he has too much baggage. I have no idea how it would scramble things in Iowa if he got in--probably all of the other major candidates would lose a little--but I don't feel that Gore would instantly vault to the top of the polls.

He knows he's not going to run, but doesn't rule it out completely because he finds the attention that accompanies him as a possible candidate useful in promoting his other activities.  It's obvious, I don't know why more people don't see this.  He's made so many strong statements at this point that he  isn't thinking about running that if he were to change his mind at this point, without some huge unexpected event changing the political map, he'd be accused by everyone of hypocrisy and the same crass political gamesmanship that he decries in others.  There's no way he's running.  And as such, based on other poll evidence, its likely that Hillary's lead in this poll is several percentage points larger.

And will be the winner for the country.

"Political Strategists" and pundits seem to want to ignore the facts that they themself speak.  Their argument for the Republicans, they toss out the window when it comes to the Democrats.

The facts show even stronger for the Democrats and the case for Al Gore because his numbers are tied for 2nd place now...and he's NOT A CANDIDATE.  EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THIS SHOWS.

Time
for a
COOL
Change
Al Gore
2008

Edwards move to the left is not helping his credibility with the MSM, and his lack of positive coverage is hurting his national poll numbers.

I realize that many of his supporters think that he is going to generate a lot momentum in the four early states, and use that as a slingshot to do well on Feb 5th.  I can see that it is possible, but it seems very low odds to me.  It seems much more likely that the early states will produce a mixed bag with no clear winner, or that if a clear winner imerges it will be HRC or Obama.  Winning Iowa, when he is expected to win Iowa, will likely not be enough for Edwards.  

Are those of you who support Edwards willing to jump to Obama, if Edwards stays mired in the teens in the national polls, or are you going to cling to the "slingshot" theory till the bitter end?  If you are willing to jump, under what circumstances?

Also, the claim that Edwards will be the big beneficiary if Gore stays out is ridiculous.  Between March and June in this poll, Gore took 5% from Clinton and 2% from Edwards (with 1% from Richardson mixed in there somewhere, and I think its clearly more likely that Richardson supporters would switch to Edwards than to Clinton).  Other poll analyses on this site have confirmed this, though I can't find links right now.  If Gore stays out, Clinton benefits.

Gore will only enter the race if he thinks he can win, and if he thinks he can he will. The question is, can he? Hillary Clintion remains tremendously formidable, and the window of opportunity is closing fast.

My dream ticket is Gore/Obama, but unfortunately I don't think Al Gore will run.

In my opinion the growing support for Al Gore represents of course a growing appreciation for his stature as a Democratic Party AND World leader, but also early signs of discontent among increasing numbers of Democrats about the real strength of our current field of candidates. It's been a media mantra for 6 months that the troika of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards represent an unbeatable offering of political titans, who when combined with some of the current second tier candidates, collectively represent the most powerful field of candidates Democrats have fielded for a generation. Personally, I didn't buy it six months ago and if anything I more strongly reject that now.

The, IMO, illusion of our current field's strength is built on a pedastal of media fortified celebrity status. Statistically speaking, few Americans are really already tuned into arguments over the real pros and cons, capacities and weaknesses, of our current field of candidates. It more closely now resembles people picking an early favorite on American Idol. Obviously there are tens of thousands of exceptions to that statement, including many passionate and informed supporters of current candidates who blog here on Mydd, but the real race hasn't started yet. It never has in the Spring preceding the first contests of the following year. We haven't even made it to Summer yet, let alone Labor Day.

I am not even a Gore supporter, but I would vote for Al Gore in one of those polls if his name was included and someone asked for my opinion. And I would vote for Al Gore over any Democrat currently running, even though he is only my second choice of those who I would hope might still run. The public understands without needing to read anyone's slick campaign brochures or having to attend some sweaty town hall meeting, that Al Gore represents solid, demonstrated, and seasoned leadership. They know that he is a been there done that kind of leader, at a time where the concept of on the job training for our next Commander in Chief is not exactly reassuring.

Of the current leading troika, really only Hillary Clinton manages to project an aura of experienced competency in managing the full range of trials and tribulations facing the next Captain of our Ship of State, and though she clearly is a formidable person in her own right, mostly her front row experience is based on her having been the wife of a former President. Hillary is only in her second term in the U.S. Senate, and she already managed to blow the most important question involving War and Peace facing our nation in a generation during her first term.

There's a poll up now at another leading Democratic activist site. It simply asks in nuetral language whether the Democrat's best potential candidate is already part of the announced field. I better note the time stamp of this post, because it wouldn't take much efffort to now manipulate the results over there since only 136 voters participated. So why even bother to mention it then with numbers that low?  Because the numbers are pretty dramatic none the less. Even with all of the organized bands of candidate supporters roaming freely among the netroots, pushing threads onto recommended lists with coordinated activity, only 22 voters, or 16%, answered yes to that question.

There is a great deal of current support out there for Gore among activists at least, somewhat less but still substantial support for Clark, and some remaining support for Kerry and Russ Feingold as well. And I always think of activists as political beta testers, at least in terms of Democratic Primaries. We skew left certainly, but we also can be early trend setters.

Any one of those men I just listed, but in my opinion especially Gore and Clark, have more seasoned leadership experience on the world stage than Edwards and Obama combined, and Gore and Clark at the very least have more hands on experience in world affairs and national security than Hillary Clinton also, even granting her some "rub off" credit for having lived in the White House already.

But bottom line is; Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, from the family Republicans love to hate, who dozens of teams of rabid partisan hit men have been feverishly investigating for decades now. She is the long favored face on Republican fund raising mailings. She is the one person capable of unifying today's Republican Party, and she currently carries unfavorables of 51%.

So who else are we offering in this strongest field in a generation? Two men who between them never finished a single term in the U.S. Senate (and yes I am not being techncially charitable to John Edwards here, but his Senate attendence record was highly problematic for years because his long pursuit of the Presidency required him to miss a great many sessions.) And the mistake Edwards made on the most critical issue of War and Peace facing our nation in a generation was worse than the one Clinton made, since he actually sat on the intelligence committee and then co-cponsored the IWR. So much for the experience factor. As for Obama, he was still sitting in a State legislature the last time America elected a President.

Inspiration, current vision, OK that's a different matter, and Edwards and Obama can certainly compete there, but is that enough? I think increasing numbers of people aren't sure that it is. And trotting out Joe Biden and friends to shore up the current field misses the point completely. Joe Biden comes across as a shop worn, dog eared male version of Hillary Clinton except lacking her charisma. Richardson is, well let's just say flawed. Some people look seriously at those men because they look at a stage full of our candidates and don't see anyone like Al Gore, Wes Clark, Russ Feingold or John Kerry standing on it.

All of our current candidates and their supporters have a vested interest in perpetuating the current MENE that this field in top notch, essentially unimprovable, and besides it is too late for anyone else to join except maybe for Al Gore, but he would be better off sticking to Global Warming. That is the self serving mantra. I do not buy it, and I believe Gore's climbing poll numbers represent the early evidence that conventional wisdom has once again been spun.

As a Hillary supporter I am happy, so far.  Her steady lead, nationally, and the hard work she has been doing in Iowa, especially with Vilrain onboard there now is also a good sign that she has a chance of overtaking Edwards in Iowa, or at least coming in second.  

I believe many women in the country have Hillary's back right now, and those who were unsure about her are starting to come around, as they hear her speak and get to know her better.  Hillary's outreach to women has been impressive.