I couldn't agree with this analysis more - the idea that Clinton's current lead is similar to that of Lieberman back in '03 seems to be no more than wishful thinking to me, from those who'd like to see Clinton defeated - and making the assumption that Hillary is going to go the same way as Lieberman did won't do the "stop Hillary" cause any good.

I'd certainly argue that Clinton's support is currently more than strong enough to mean that Obama and Edwards continuing to split the more progressive Democratic vote could be enough to hand the nomination to Hillary, barring any unforeseen developments. The question is which out of Obama and Edwards would be willing to make way? And which would provide the best chance of a win - not just in the primary but also in the general election?

I agree with this pretty much.  But Iowa likes this attention and they will up NH, if NH move their primary.  It is a shame, pretty much, because all this frontloading has changed the matrix of these campaigns.  Campaigns had time to get it together, per se, and now it is really about raising monies and fast.  Many, if you can believe it, still do not know much about Obama, except for "us".  I am hoping the Edwards raises enough money to stay in this after Q2.  

IMO, Kos is making a basic error in not recognizing the difference between a "lead" at 21% or 23%, and Hillary's long term standing in the mid to high 30s. One is technical and the other foundational. Lieberman was certainly never 50/50 in the market sites to win the nomination, not remotely close. Kerry was considered the frontrunner until June.

Plus, Kos is conveniently ignoring that Hillary has maintained support in this range for years. Even when Dean was surging in late '03, hypothetical polls which included Hillary indicated she would clobber Dean for the nomination. Check this link and scroll down to the Quinnipiac poll of December 4-8, 2003, and the two Ipsos polls immediately below it. Hillary led Dean 43-14, 41-9 and 41-11 in November and December 2003, even as Dean had pulled into the lead among announced candidates:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

I concede those '03 percentages are undoubtedly somewhat slanted toward Hillary due to the suggestive aspect at the top. She was not running so the polls that included her began with something like, "If Hillary Clinton decided to enter the race..."

The comparison of McCain '07 to Lieberman '03 is absolutely valid. I had no idea right wingers loathed McCain to such extreme until I began posting on political forums of sports sites a couple of years ago. You get the no-nonsense Joe White Right Wing Male on those forums and it was almost impossible to find someone who didn't despise him, let alone a supporter.

2.  I'm also not sure about whether Obama's and Edwards' appeal is just among progressives: Edwards will probably benefit from his Southern accent and the electability argument, and Obama has proven he's able to appeal to moderates with his talk of bipartisanship.
   
3.  I think the Republican side is a good example of a race that seemed incredibly stable, pundits seemed incredulous that Guiliani stayed so high for so long, but then all the sudden the numbers began to go into flux.  I think the comparison with the 2004 democratic primary is also questionable because there was only one candidate of excitement: Kerry and Edwards seemed at the time relatively indistinguishable, low-profile, had sudden early-state come-backs.  In this race, Edwards, Obama, and Hillary all have a lot of energy and a much higher-profile.
   
4.  Lastly, I would to see more analysis about whose supporters are paying the most attention and what their media sources are.  I still have this feeling that Hillary's support among certain age groups is a little soft.  Obama soars among the demographics I would think are paying most attention to the election this early (among indicators like education level).  What happens when the national electorate starts paying more attention?

So, Edwards, you have to get out of the race.It's the right thing to do.

A lot of these analysis is pure speculation. Who's going to win this thing will depend on who's going to run an effective campaign. Every candidate has his/her weakness. It's upon every candidate to make the case to the voters that she/he is best suited to win the general election and be an effective president.

Hillary's strong polling number is the result of her impressive campaign so far. On the other hand, both Edwards and Obama are less impressive.

It's a long way to go, there will be some setback. In the end, however, there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary will win this out since she is the most qualified candidate in the field and perhaps the only democratic candidate who has a shot at the white house.

Yes, I do not believe either Edwards or Obama is able to win general election.

That if you go back to polling in early '03 the overwhelming choice of Democrats was Hillary Clinton.  She was in the 40s and the rest of the pack was in the teens.   When she didn't run we were left with a cast of characters that were none to exciting.  Hence, the none to exciting John Kerry winning on the electability thing.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?Rele aseID=382

So making a comparison of '07 to '03 where in '07 Democrats appear pleased with their candidates, as opposed to '03 where there was a scramble among second choice types, is worthless.

You are about the only place I am seeing this kind of analysis that the race is stable. Apparently unlike every election before it everyone is trying to make a decision in Jun 2007 about what will be determined by Jan 2008. I would say more than anything all of this it's over stuff is a sign of politico-itis. THis is a disease in which people overly involved with politics will debate issues and come to resolutions before the public has even thought of it or made a decision. Especially on blogs I've seen that a lot. I accept that is a reality but you do seem to be pushing an inevitability meme quite a bit.

becoming funny and downright silly.

Jerome, why do you believe that

 
If Edwards wins IA, then he's in an excellent position to take NV on the strength of Labor, and ride the momentum to the nomination.

 If Obama wins IA, then I expect that we will have a mega-battle on our hands, with Clinton making 'a comeback' in NV and NH, and the contest going on for months.  

The opposite is the case. Obama has the Nomination if he wins Iowa unlike Edwards who is expected to win Iowa because he cast all his lot there since 2004. Other than your wishful thinking that Edwards not Obama should be the Democratic Nominee, you have shown no basis for making that statement. Edwards gets no momentum if he wins Iowa. I really don't think he will win it in the first place.

When all the votes are counted, Obama will come victorious if you like it or not. I guess, you are just in denial. I just wish you can be fair to all the candidates.

My prediction is that Edwards will fade following the Q2 report believe it or not.

Jerome, why do you have such a disdain for Obama?

Many other states will have voted before Iowa through early voting so I think the effect of Iowa on 2008 will be far less than it has been in previous years. Edwards is extremely hard pressed now because of Iowa while Clinton and Obama have various other fallback positions in NV, NH, SC, FL, etc. If Clinton and Obama already have won a sizable block of delegates in the range of current polling before Iowa ever votes any bounce effect should Edwards may very well be minor.

The best scenario for Clinton is a two person race with Obama but at the present time it would barely be a two person race even if Edwards dropped out because Obama is polling so far behind Clinton. As several have pointed out Clinton has solid numbers (not Lieberman type name recognition numbers i.e. 2004).  

All of this is sheer grandiosity and self-delusion. Kos is right. Gallup says a massive 8% of Dems have made up their minds and settled on a particular candidate. Let's get a life, folks! Kerry was nowhere this time 4 years ago, written off completely.

The earmarks issue is going to come up and bite Hillary in the ass.  She's already on weak grounds with he War vote and then when it's revealed she and Levin were the biggest earmarkers from the Defense budget it makes you wonder about the residual forces issue, and her refusal so far to make transparent her requests for earmarks makes you wonder what she's hiding.  

In the last election the Democrats ran big time on the issue of more transparency in Government and yet we have Jerome calling Obama's release of his earmark requests essentially a cheap political trick, when everyone should be applauding each and everyone of the Democratic congressmen who have agreed to go the extra step in releasing their requests.  

It's a marathon, not a sprint folks. There's a long way to go.

I'd go with Edwards if I had to since he's the only media candidate to challenge the disastrous "War on Terror" framework, but Gore's in another league entirely. Not only is he excellent on the issues, he's become an icon, a national treasure, a symbol of what's good about our country to the rest of the world.

Seeing the people who hate him, and the vehemence of their hatred, indicates to me that he is truly feared by opponents of progressive change.

So I'm with Jerome. Let the wind blow!

I wonder if Dean couldn't do something to keep New Hampshire where it is. I'm pretty sure any exception for holding a primary outside the Party's window (an exception granted to NH) lets a state hold their primary whenever (even next week).

But maybe there is an old bylaw that says elections have to be held in the year of the convention? The chances are slip especially since Dean would piss off Clinton and I imagine there'd be retribution if she won (though its not like she'd ever give him another term at the DNC).

Also, if NH moves it primary to December would that put enough space in between it and Iowa to possible cool its effect?

Have fun getting the "young folk" to sign up and vote in Iowa, NH, SC, NV. There arent a lot of young people who are excited about politics, and those that are wont jump up and down for a primary.

On a side note, there a lot of new bonehead users on this site. UGH!

Whether polls are relevant or not, I like the new one just released by Newsweek.  Hillary has increased her lead over Obama.  She now leads him by 16 percent.  

On the ground in NH most folks expect the primary to move ahead to the 15th, rather than the 8th as Armstrong suggests. I doubt Gardner would take such a move to just hoptch skotch Iowa marginally.

Rather, if NH intends to move ahead of Iowa, you'll see a major jump that some in the mainstream have suggested. They've also cautioned againt such a jump as it could dramatically change the media narrative given to NH.

Also, I seriously doubt Iowa would refrain from accelerating it's calendar in response. The people in Iowa and NH respect the relationship these two states have developed with each other. Really the importance of the states feed off one another - that's one of the reasons for the disdain from both states for the introduction of Nevada.

Edwards is an excellent position to take NV on the strength of Labor

This is the most oft-repeated trope of the election and while I'ld love it to be true and would not exclude it from happening, its not at all clear to me where this is coming from. Its not even clear to me that the people who use this trope, especially someone as thoughtful as Jerome, are thinking about it. I wonder if its just embedded in the clipboard and keeps slipping onto the screen through accidental keystrokes.

A few points. 1. "Labor" is a misnomer; its not a single entity -- not nationally and not here in NV. Think back to 04, when a lot of industrial AFL CIO unions went with or leaned towards Gephardt, but those considered most politically savvy, AFSCME and SEIU and IAPOT, went with Dean and IFF (long known for early endorsements of front-runners) was Kerry's only early labor endorsement. Indeed, different unions have different procedures for endorsement -- AFL-CIO requires 2/3 of its constiutent unions to endorse before it'll commit; SEIU has an assembly of delegates of its national membership that will choose in September; AFSCME and Teamsters are pretty much one-man calls (McIntee, Hoffa).

2. Locally (ie, here in NV), the biggest unions in terms of membership are the building trades most of which are part of the Central Labor Council (which remained intact even after the CtW break) but many are not that politically well organized, in terms of either resources or mobilizing membership. (Indeed, a majority of the membership of a lot of AFL CIO unions are not registered Democrats.) The caucus does allow for same-day registration so if the Laborers, Capenters, Communication, IBEW, or the non-AFLCIO Teamsters etc went on a big push, they might be able to weigh in for a particular candidate but to really push one candidate over the top, they'd need to do it in a coordinated fashion which is unlikely.

Clinton scored a big win with an early endorsement from one of the more progressive (but as a result, a minority in the AFL-CIO) local labor figures in Randy Soltero.

The big cahuna in NV politics is "Culinary" (UNITE-HERE 622) which was leaning towards Gephardt in 04 but never endorsed until the nomination was settled. Culinary is considered important not because its the largest but because its the best organized politically. EVen so, its power is most evident when it can be concentrated in a certain area, like state assembly primaries (where a lot of districts are gerrymandered so the primary determines the winner), and county commission races. Beyond that Culinary is very tactical and is unlikely to endorse and throw its weight behind a candidate unless that candidate is in a very good position to win, and unless CUlinary's help can make the difference. The expectation locally that they will get involved heavily is not so much based on the idea that they have a particular candidate to back but that they want to win control of the state party apparatus by winning precinct, district, and county party positions. That will be accomplished by having its people elected as delegates to the next round up, which means backing the winner. That could mean whoever wins Iowa, which is what I presume Jerome is expecting, or it could mean they will expend a lot of resources long ahead of time to get out the vote for Edwards, but if thats the case there are no signs of it yet.

Another union that can matter in NV is SEIU, which has been on an organizing tear in the state but which still has a relatively small membership. It is however a crack political operation when its members are concentrated in a district. So again if it mobilizes its members as a block for the caucus, it could make a big difference if as is increasingly expected, the caucus attracts a relatively low # of particpiants. SEIU members will vote nationally in September, so its by no means certain that it'll be Edwards -- even anecdoate evidence suggest that for now he is the preferred candidate of local SEIU membership.

AFSCME has a lot of members but not a lot of internal political organization, since its a right to work state so state and county workers aren't represented by collective bargaining units. AFSCME got out early in the field for Dean in 04 and if he hadn't collapsed in Iowa, it might have made a difference. But I dont' suspect that if AFSCME does make an early endorsement (nationally) it'll be Edwards, unless he comes on strongly between now and the fall.

The other big "union" in state politics is the NSEA, the teachers' union. ITs an NEA affiliate but I believe it makes its own endorsements. This one has a lot of members but they are not as well organized politically; they have been a factor largely by focusing money on certain winnable races. Anecdotal evidence suggests Clinton has an inside track for this endorsement but its not clear how much of an actual difference it will make for the caucus.

Lastly, its hard to know what the press will report on Jan 19; most likely it'll be an entrance poll that will tally pure preference. IF its delegates, though, that further diminishes the influence of any of the labor constituencies, since rural counties are overweighted -- they get more delegates per registered Dem than does Clark or Washoe. And  its been a long long time since the IWW was a strong union presence out the rurals. Though I do like to believe that if there are any Wobblies left out in the mines, they might be for Edwards!

All that said, Edwards' campaign here kicks off publicly this weekend, and the expectation is that he is going to be making a serious effort (presumign the resources are there to do it).

I continue to believe its far, far too early to handicap either this state or the national race -- although Clinton has been surprisingly impressive in getting herself organized locally (by which I mean southern Nevada) and picking up support of key progressive activists.