Hillary is the only Dem who beats the GOP frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, in the state -- casting doubts on the argument by pundits that she may be "unelectable." Unlike Hillary, both Obama and Edwards lose to Rudy

My guess is that Rudy has less chance of being nominated eventually than you do, Eric.

You can never be sure but the record is vastly different than the legend as we all know.

Whether Hillary is electable or not (I think she is considering how weak the Republicans are) is not the point for me. That she represents a continuation of the royalty and the hurt she will do to other Democratic candidates is.

Best, Terry

Even IF Giuliani were the nominee Edwards would still do better than Hillary,

Giuliani's family life and ex wifes (Including the mother of his children, you know the one he publicly called a "Pig")

will make a lot of family values people go Edwards over Giuliani once more people know about it

I love the "way ahead" meme.

Edwards is actually up by MORE against everyone but Giuliani who's within the MOE against Hillary and edwards.

What is it with EC and the hide the MoE?

It's all about promoting the inevitability of Hillary for the nominee.

The bias is so obvious. A daily onslaught of polls to challenge the fact that she is unelectable, even to most of the folks who frequent EC.  It is just an insult to our intelligence the way the site promotes Hillary and fails to ever headline threads with her lack of substance, lack of policy plans, insufferable lobbyist bankrolling her, all her flipflops...nothing that is a clear example of why she is the worst possible choice for the nominee is ever covered on EC.

Good to see that the rest of the news world is finally catching up to reality (what, oh, 6 years late?).

But, honestly, from a strategic standpoint, I almost wish that this info were coming out later, after the primaries. I am much more scared of Romney as a nominee.

I know this flies against conventional wisdom (he's a Mormon, he's a flip-flopper, fundies won't go for him). As far as Mormonism, I think it may matter for a portion of the GOP electorate, but the rest are happy with the idea he's a religious guy. (Those who do care won't be wild about Giuliani either, and both Giuliani and Romney can insulate themselves somewhat by picking Huckabee as a VP.) Flip-flopping as a critique requires voters who actually care about the issues, and I think both Romney and Giuliani appeal to so-called low-information voters.

Romney will be a much more formidable opponent because it is harder to explain what's objectionable about him. With Rudy, it's pretty easy: firefighters hate him, he dumped his wife on TV, he made stupid decisions about terrorism. Romney, by contrast, doesn't really stand for anything except bland masculine, managerial authority ... and nothing has emerged so far to challenge his role as uber-dad (except maybe Seamus) and successful bizperson. I worry about Democrats trying to run a substance-heavy campaign against someone who's all image and few Achilles heels.

Just my .02.

The woman in question is no beloved national figure, no multi-term Congresswoman of solid, centrist views. We are talking about Hillary Clinton, whom some 40 per cent of Americans view with almost hysterical distaste. Because she's the wife of a former president, the very idea of her campaign smacks of nepotism and oligarchy. Because we already know too much about her private life, the thought of her (and her First Husband) in the White House fills us with something like embarrassment. Because she's Hillary - staged, calculating, chilly Hillary - we don't even really know what she stands for, or what kind of president she would be. Yet she is well ahead of the pack.