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%

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I say Hilldog has it, but Richardson was attractive enough at that price for me to put a couple longshot dollars in.  I'm crossing my fingers for a strong showing in Iowa/NH.

[MasterJedi]

Hillary will get it in a landslide. She's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. She's almost guarenteed the nomination.

[Jaggerjack]

As much as I wish it was Obama, Hillary's going to win.

Dammit, Mark

[Tender Branson]

As much as I wish it was Obama, Hillary's going to win.

Dammit, Mark

Are you talking to me ?

[Jaggerjack]

As much as I wish it was Obama, Hillary's going to win.

Dammit, Mark

Are you talking to me ?

No, it's to Mark Warner.

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary will get it in a landslide. She's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. She's almost guarenteed the nomination.

Hypothetical post from December 2003:

"Dean will get it in a landslide. He's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. He's almost guarenteed the nomination."

[Jaggerjack]

Hillary will get it in a landslide. She's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. She's almost guarenteed the nomination.

Hypothetical post from December 2003:

"Dean will get it in a landslide. He's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. He's almost guarenteed the nomination."

My only hope is that Hillary somehow screws up like Dean did. But who knows what will happen...

[Tender Branson]

Don´t know, anyone except Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Biden could win. I voted for Hillary this time around, just for fun ...

[© tweed]

Hillary will get it in a landslide. She's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. She's almost guarenteed the nomination.

Hypothetical post from December 2003:

"Dean will get it in a landslide. He's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. He's almost guarenteed the nomination."

My only hope is that Hillary somehow screws up like Dean did. But who knows what will happen...

Hillary's too smart a pol to do a Dean Scream.  but remember, that came after Dean's collapse in Iowa, not before it - Dean lost Iowa to Kerry because of "electability" - Kerry was perceived to have the best chance to beat Bush, and Dean the worst.  (this perception readily enforced by the media)  perhaps somebody could pull the "I can win and Hillary can't" card (Richardson maybe?) all the way to a win in Iowa, which looks kinda wide-open now, and build unstoppable momentum from there.

but of course, 2008 is different from 2004 and that's why I don't think that could work.  rank-and-file Dems are very confident in a victory in '08 (probably because it seems to them, and correctly, that the Republicans should have no chance after 8 years of Bush) no matter who is nominated.

all that said, Gore is the only person with a chance outside of Clinton, IMO.

[Sam Spade]

Hilldawg.

The only chance of her being beaten is if enough Democrats are worried about her GE numbers to start the switch.  That ain't happening right now.

[Aizen]

Hillary (Unfortunately)

[Mr. Morden]

Hillary's too smart a pol to do a Dean Scream.  but remember, that came after Dean's collapse in Iowa, not before it - Dean lost Iowa to Kerry because of "electability" - Kerry was perceived to have the best chance to beat Bush, and Dean the worst.  (this perception readily enforced by the media)  perhaps somebody could pull the "I can win and Hillary can't" card (Richardson maybe?) all the way to a win in Iowa, which looks kinda wide-open now, and build unstoppable momentum from there.

but of course, 2008 is different from 2004 and that's why I don't think that could work.  rank-and-file Dems are very confident in a victory in '08 (probably because it seems to them, and correctly, that the Republicans should have no chance after 8 years of Bush) no matter who is nominated.

In 2004 it was electability.  In 2008, it could be something else.  The point is that Dean was leading in all the polls, and basically everyone thought he was going to be the nominee.  There are any number of different scenarios that could cause Dem. primary voters to end up choosing someone else (most likely Obama) over Clinton, whether it happens the same way as in 2004 or not.

Now, is that the most likely scenario?  No.  Most likely scenario is that Clinton wins the nomination, and that's how I voted in this poll.  But it's far from a *certainty* that that's going to happen.  I just find it hilarious that the extent to which the CW was completely wrong in 2004 hasn't reduced the number of predictions people make in which they're speaking with such certainty.  People are still saying that such-and-such is a "lock" to win, or that their victory is "almost guaranteed".  You'd think that 2004 would cause more people to be more cautious in their predictions.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hillary will get it in a landslide. She's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. She's almost guarenteed the nomination.

Hypothetical post from December 2003:

"Dean will get it in a landslide. He's virtually tied in Iowa and pretty much has almost every other state that has been polled. He's almost guarenteed the nomination."

I honestly don't think Dean was anywhere near the kind of commanding position Hillary finds herself in.  Dean was an awkward patchwork of netroots loonies and bandwagon establishment types.

Hillary, meanwhile, is firmly the establishment choice.  The netroots loonies are totally split—they lean towards Obama, sure, but Edwards and Richardson both have strong net followings as well.  Endorsement-wise, their support is lackluster, cause Hillary, unlike Dean, is a f***ing steamroller.

[Eraserhead]

Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

I honestly don't think Dean was anywhere near the kind of commanding position Hillary finds herself in.  Dean was an awkward patchwork of netroots loonies and bandwagon establishment types.

Hillary, meanwhile, is firmly the establishment choice.  The netroots loonies are totally split—they lean towards Obama, sure, but Edwards and Richardson both have strong net followings as well.  Endorsement-wise, their support is lackluster, cause Hillary, unlike Dean, is a f***ing steamroller.

I have to disagree with you pretty strongly on that one.  The idea that Dean's support was just an "awkward patchwork" of such factions is what most people seem to believe *now*, but at the time, the CW was that Dean was in a very commanding position, and the chances that he could be stopped were pretty slim.  (It's only in retrospect that people look back and consider his position weak.)  Just go back and read any of those articles written in December 2003.  Dean was about tied with Gephardt in IA and ahead pretty much everywhere else.  Here is the Iowa Electronic Market price graph for the '04 nomination:



In November-December of 2003 (very shortly before the Iowa caucus) he was trading at about 60-75% chance of winning the nomination, higher than Clinton is at now on Intrade.  Kerry's campaign was at a *much* weaker position than Obama's is in now, and yet Kerry won.  Kerry was in the single digits in many polls back then, and his campaign was considered a joke.  He wasn't even considered the strongest challenger to Dean.

Yet, as of now, we still have about 4-5 months to go before Iowa (lots of time), Obama has more money than Clinton, he's within single digits of her in IA and NH (a margin that could easily be closed in 4-5 months), and polls consistently show that Clinton gets a highly disproportionate share of her support from low information voters (people who aren't really paying close attention right now)....I would think that there's a good chance that such people might change their mind once they start paying more attention to the race.  The one area where Clinton has a commanding lead is in national polls, where she has a ~15% or so lead over Obama.  But in every single presidential primary campaign, the national numbers change radically once the results from the early states come in.  So I actually think a 15% lead is not that significant.

Keep in mind, I still think Clinton is the favorite.  I think she has a >50% chance of winning the nomination.  She's the frontrunner.  It's just that she's not in nearly as commanding a position as, say Bush in 1999/2000.  And actually, probably not in quite a commanding a position as Dean in late 2003, at least if you're comparing Dean v. Kerry to Clinton v. Obama.  Obama right now is in *much* better shape than Kerry was in late 2003.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I know this may be stupid, but what is "ROF"?

[© tweed]

I think it means 'Rest of Field'

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Conventional wisdom, as it often relates to politics, sucks.  Knowing much better than conventional wisdom is how I make my money on Intrade. 

I won't say that I didn't consider him the favorite, but I will say that I firmly and consistently held that Howard Dean would, in no way, get anywhere near winning the Presidency.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I think it means 'Rest of Field'

Indeed it does.  For a large chunk of time, Howard Dean was included in RoF.  (As too, this year, was Fred Thompson.)

[Citizen James]

My hunch is that it'll be Obama.   

However, Hillary may well be the George W. Bush of the Democratic party.   Perhaps 'turd-blossom ' Rove will even quietly back her.

I'm supporting Richardson though.

[Mr. Morden]

Conventional wisdom, as it often relates to politics, sucks.  Knowing much better than conventional wisdom is how I make my money on Intrade. 

I won't say that I didn't consider him the favorite, but I will say that I firmly and consistently held that Howard Dean would, in no way, get anywhere near winning the Presidency.

Well, winning the presidency and winning the nomination are two very different things.  Lots of people thought he was unelectable in the GE, but few thought he would lose the nomination (at least during a certain window of time).  Anyway, I still stand by my two main points, which are 1) Obama is in much better shape than Kerry was in late 2003, so while Clinton is the frontrunner, I really don't see her as some kind of unstoppable juggernaut, and 2) even aside from that, these things can sometimes turn out to be a lot more unpredictable than we expect.  Now, you may have a superb track record of predictions, and always get things right, but I guess I would need more evidence of that before I start blindly agreeing with your predictions. 

[Eraserhead]

This is Clinton's high point for sure, too bad for her it isn't December. The expectations for her are sky high now. My bet is she will only sink from here on out (especially in the early states).

[Lief 🗽]

Probably Hillary, though if John Edwards maintains his lead in Iowa, he can't be underestimated. And Richardson is doing well, steadily rising in Iowa and New Hampshire. I expect that the polls will become much closer as we go past Labor Day into October, November and December.

[© tweed]

bump for more votes (it's historically important so vote)