who do you THINK will win the Democratic nomination?

[© tweed]

historically...

May 2006

Mark Warner 42.5%
Hillary Clinton 37.5%
Al Gore 6.3%
John Edwards 3.1%
Other 10.9%

August 2006

Mark Warner 37.2%
Russ Feingold 20.9%
Hillary Clinton 20.9%
Al Gore 11.6%
John Edwards 4.7%
Other 4.7%

November 2006

Hillary Clinton 43.2%
Barack Obama 24.3%
Al Gore 10.8%
Evan Bayh 10.8%
John Edwards 5.4%
Other (excl. Feingold) 5.4%

March 2007

Hillary Clinton 41.7%
Barack Obama 27.8%
John Edwards 5.6%
Al Gore 2.8%
Other 22.2% [most of these people with Richardson in mind]

April 2007

Barack Obama 35.2%
Hillary Clinton 27.8%
John Edwards 18.5%
Bill Richardson 13%
Al Gore 3.7%
Other 1.9%

June 2007

Hillary Clinton 44%
Barack Obama 32%
Al Gore 16%
John Edwards 4%
Other (excl. Richardson) 4%

July 2007

Hillary Clinton 55.6%
Barack Obama 20%
Al Gore 11.1%
Bill Richardson 8.9%
John Edwards 2.2%
Other 2.2%

August 2007

Hillary Clinton 70.5%
Barack Obama 11.4%
Bill Richardson 9.1%
John Edwards 6.8%
Other (excl. Gore) 2.3%

September 2007

Hillary Clinton 71.2%
Barack Obama 13.6%
John Edwards 8.5%
Bill Richardson 5.1%
Al Gore 1.7%

October 2007

Hillary Clinton 80.8%
Al Gore 7.7%
Barack Obama 3.8%
John Edwards 3.8%
Bill Richardson 1.9%
Other 1.9%

[Tender Branson]

Clinton, and that´s the case until Obama pulls within 5% in NH and SC, while keeping IA close ...

[© tweed]

Hillary, although Obama's in the midst of a mini-boomlet and if he works some magic in Iowa the dynamics could shift.  still Hillary though, still by alot.  still a 50-state sweep.

[Boris]

Still Clinton, although Obama has six weeks to make something happen in Iowa and seize the momentum.

[Eraserhead]

Still Clinton, although Obama has six weeks to make something happen in Iowa and seize the momentum.

It seems he has already seized the momentum in Iowa.

Anyway I am back to thinking that Obama will upset Hillary and win the nom.

[Frodo]

I'm still predicting Hillary Clinton.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

I still think that Hillary Rodham Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic Nomination. And she'll select Senator Evan Bayh to be her running mate, whilst she's at it.

[MarkWarner08]

It all comes down to a four-lettered Midwestern swing state. Step aside, Ohio. Make way for Iowa, the new capitol of the American political universe.

If Hillary wins Iowa, she wins the nomination.
If Edwards wins Iowa, Hillary has a 95% chance of winning the nomination.
If Obama wins Iowa, welcome to Hart-Mondale version 2.0.

John Edwards' has the strongest organization in Iowa, he's spent the most time in the state and he's done the most of the top-tier candidates to pander to Hawkeye natives strong pacifist tradition.

Hillary is the top-tier candidate with the lead in the national polls, the deepest resume, the savviest campaign team and the x-factor, Bill Clinton.

How come a skinny one-term African-American senator with no foreign policy experience is the   true front runner in Iowa? Because in a true change election (the kind that occurs after one party rules the White House for eight years), primary voters of the opposition party tend to seek out and support candidates who are youthful and charismatic (J.F.K and Bill Clinton) or seen as the most electable (Michael Dukakis and George W. Bush).


Since Obama has the lowest name rec of the major Democratic presidential candidates, theoretically, he has the most room to grow in the polls. Recent polling data has confirmed this view by showing an up spike in Obama's numbers after the he ran his first series of biographical ads.  If someone's undecided about whether or not to support Hillary Clinton, who's politically omnipresent, or John Edwards, who practically owns an apartment in Des Moines, it's unlikely they'll vote for the candidates who are the most well-known.

Senator Obama benefits from his pitch-perfect campaign message (unity over division), his luck in missing two crucial foreign policy votes that have divided Hillary and Edwards (Iraq in 2003 and Iran in 2007) and his vast financial resources. While Edwards and Clinton have reached the point of diminishing returns with their paid media, Obama will continue to surge as voters come to recognize him as an amalgam of Adlai Stevenson and John F. Kennedy, a person who speaks the truth, but with a dose of optimism.

Prediction:

Obama will win Iowa and ride the momentum from his win to victory in New Hampshire. If such as scenario materializes, it's likely that blacks with coalesce behind Obama's candidacy.  This would catapult Obama to victory in South Carolina.  This will set up a battle royale on Feb. 5th for California. Whoever wins the Golden State will win the nomination.

[Eraserhead]

Hmm... major Obama surge in our little poll this month. It's doesn't mean anything but it is good to see anyway.

[Dr. Cynic]

Even though it looks Clinton, I really think Obama is going to be the nominee, and run with a white male who didn't contest in the primaries (Clark and Warner being the chief frontrunners for second place). Here's why I think that, and I even have a little historical backdrop too:

In 1956, youthful and charismatic *cough Catholic cough* John F. Kennedy, unknown with virtually no real expirience or name recognition captured enough press and imagination to be considered a frontrunner for second place with Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson didn't want him, and as a consolation prize, allowed Kennedy to speak at the convention. He gave a brief but eloquent speech, and was nearly nominated for Vice President in spite of himself. Four years later, the charismatic Kennedy runs as a change candidate and narrowly defeats Nixon. Kennedy goes on to be one of the most praised and adored of Presidents (Even if, truth be told he was good, but not great). Kennedy was a visionary well ahead of his time, and today is probably the biggest "What if?" of the Presidents, as he never got to see his pentultimate dream take place in 1969, which would've been just after he left his second term in office, of man walking on the moon.

In 2004, a charismatic young black man who almost nobody outside of Illinois had heard of was running for Senate against Alan Keyes. His name was Barack Obama. Not a name many reactionaries would respond well to. However, chosen to give the keynote address at the Democratic Convention, Obama electrifies the delegates with one of the best speeches in convention history. He wins the Senate race handily, and serves for a few years before announcing for President as the change candidate.

Sound slightly familiar?... Although Obama isn't a great debater as he throws in alot of "uh's", and is slow and deliberate in speaking, if you have a one on one conversation, or listen to him give a speech, most are absolutely blown away by him. He speaks of understanding and uniting, something this President doesn't do. His health care plan is a step in the right direction, and probably the most realistically accomplishable. Obama's big drawback is expirience. Kennedy had the same problem. Neither were experts in foreign policy, but they both had the ability to quickly learn. Also, Clinton's criticisim of him wanting to sit down with rivals and talk is exactly what got us into the mess we're in now. Talk to Iran just as Reagan talked with the Soviets. You might be at loggerheads for awhile, but things might be worked out, and if you don't talk to your enemy, you just breed more distrust and anger.

That's some of the reasons why I like Obama. He's also expiriencing a poll surge at just about the right time. If he can capitalize on his momentum and really make something of it, he can and will be the nominee and (because polls have shown he defeats both Romney and Guiliani nationwide) the likely next President if he does win the nomination.

[MarkWarner08]

Even though it looks Clinton, I really think Obama is going to be the nominee, and run with a white male who didn't contest in the primaries (Clark and Warner being the chief frontrunners for second place). Here's why I think that, and I even have a little historical backdrop too:

In 1956, youthful and charismatic *cough Catholic cough* John F. Kennedy, unknown with virtually no real expirience or name recognition captured enough press and imagination to be considered a frontrunner for second place with Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson didn't want him, and as a consolation prize, allowed Kennedy to speak at the convention. He gave a brief but eloquent speech, and was nearly nominated for Vice President in spite of himself. Four years later, the charismatic Kennedy runs as a change candidate and narrowly defeats Nixon. Kennedy goes on to be one of the most praised and adored of Presidents (Even if, truth be told he was good, but not great). Kennedy was a visionary well ahead of his time, and today is probably the biggest "What if?" of the Presidents, as he never got to see his pentultimate dream take place in 1969, which would've been just after he left his second term in office, of man walking on the moon.

In 2004, a charismatic young black man who almost nobody outside of Illinois had heard of was running for Senate against Alan Keyes. His name was Barack Obama. Not a name many reactionaries would respond well to. However, chosen to give the keynote address at the Democratic Convention, Obama electrifies the delegates with one of the best speeches in convention history. He wins the Senate race handily, and serves for a few years before announcing for President as the change candidate.

Sound slightly familiar?... Although Obama isn't a great debater as he throws in alot of "uh's", and is slow and deliberate in speaking, if you have a one on one conversation, or listen to him give a speech, most are absolutely blown away by him. He speaks of understanding and uniting, something this President doesn't do. His health care plan is a step in the right direction, and probably the most realistically accomplishable. Obama's big drawback is expirience. Kennedy had the same problem. Neither were experts in foreign policy, but they both had the ability to quickly learn. Also, Clinton's criticisim of him wanting to sit down with rivals and talk is exactly what got us into the mess we're in now. Talk to Iran just as Reagan talked with the Soviets. You might be at loggerheads for awhile, but things might be worked out, and if you don't talk to your enemy, you just breed more distrust and anger.

That's some of the reasons why I like Obama. He's also expiriencing a poll surge at just about the right time. If he can capitalize on his momentum and really make something of it, he can and will be the nominee and (because polls have shown he defeats both Romney and Guiliani nationwide) the likely next President if he does win the nomination.

Nice to see another long-winded post for Obama. As a voluble believer in Obama's chances, I concur will most of your points.

[Dr. Cynic]

Even though it looks Clinton, I really think Obama is going to be the nominee, and run with a white male who didn't contest in the primaries (Clark and Warner being the chief frontrunners for second place). Here's why I think that, and I even have a little historical backdrop too:

In 1956, youthful and charismatic *cough Catholic cough* John F. Kennedy, unknown with virtually no real expirience or name recognition captured enough press and imagination to be considered a frontrunner for second place with Adlai Stevenson. Stevenson didn't want him, and as a consolation prize, allowed Kennedy to speak at the convention. He gave a brief but eloquent speech, and was nearly nominated for Vice President in spite of himself. Four years later, the charismatic Kennedy runs as a change candidate and narrowly defeats Nixon. Kennedy goes on to be one of the most praised and adored of Presidents (Even if, truth be told he was good, but not great). Kennedy was a visionary well ahead of his time, and today is probably the biggest "What if?" of the Presidents, as he never got to see his pentultimate dream take place in 1969, which would've been just after he left his second term in office, of man walking on the moon.

In 2004, a charismatic young black man who almost nobody outside of Illinois had heard of was running for Senate against Alan Keyes. His name was Barack Obama. Not a name many reactionaries would respond well to. However, chosen to give the keynote address at the Democratic Convention, Obama electrifies the delegates with one of the best speeches in convention history. He wins the Senate race handily, and serves for a few years before announcing for President as the change candidate.

Sound slightly familiar?... Although Obama isn't a great debater as he throws in alot of "uh's", and is slow and deliberate in speaking, if you have a one on one conversation, or listen to him give a speech, most are absolutely blown away by him. He speaks of understanding and uniting, something this President doesn't do. His health care plan is a step in the right direction, and probably the most realistically accomplishable. Obama's big drawback is expirience. Kennedy had the same problem. Neither were experts in foreign policy, but they both had the ability to quickly learn. Also, Clinton's criticisim of him wanting to sit down with rivals and talk is exactly what got us into the mess we're in now. Talk to Iran just as Reagan talked with the Soviets. You might be at loggerheads for awhile, but things might be worked out, and if you don't talk to your enemy, you just breed more distrust and anger.

That's some of the reasons why I like Obama. He's also expiriencing a poll surge at just about the right time. If he can capitalize on his momentum and really make something of it, he can and will be the nominee and (because polls have shown he defeats both Romney and Guiliani nationwide) the likely next President if he does win the nomination.

Nice to see another long-winded post for Obama. As a voluble believer in Obama's chances, I concur will most of your points.

I gotta say, the post would've been about half as long without my little historical lesson, lol.

[exopolitician]

I have confidence Obama and/or Edwards will be able to push Hillary off her course to winning....so either of the two [most likely Obama in that situation] would win. I could be TOTALLY wrong of course...but oh well.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm still holding out for John Edwards, and I still believe that when he wins Iowa, he'll be able to take the nomination.

[MasterJedi]

Hillary, who will soon be way up in Iowa again.

[Eraserhead]

Hillary, who will soon be way up in Iowa again.

What makes you think that? (By the way, she was never way up in Iowa.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll still hold out for Edwards at least a few  more months.

[ShadowRocket]

I think its pretty obvious that it will all come down to Iowa. If Hillary wins, then the nomination is hers. If Obama or Edwards win, either one would get the momentum to easily steal it away from her.

I voted for Edwards simply because a lot of Hillary and Obama's supprt comes from people who have no previous caucus experience, in the same vein as Howard Dean. While Edwards seems to get a lot of support from experienced attendees.

[© tweed]

a little bump to try to squeeze out more votes because it's historically important.

[Sam Spade]

Hilldawg