Oh my. So we have a %50+1 type election to look forward to if we nominate Hillary, despite conditions being so favorable for more fundamental change?

Does anyone recall this many polls being released in one day? I swear I'm drowning in poll numbers....

Hillary = LOSER. Wake the hell up, Democrats. She will KILL US with independents ... and all the while, we'll be saying, "B-but Rudy is so, so craaazee! And he keeps saying 9-11!" So by all means, let's nominate HRC. A woman can be President in 2008. Maybe on Pluto.

wes2, not all questions are rhetorical. I really wonder if that's what this poll means. Hillary supporters should make. . . you know. . . actual arguments that she can run a campaign that transcends current perceptions. In any case, Hillary has pretty much conceded that she can't win a mandate on health care. She said it was her number one domestic priority (Kos forum) but that she couldn't deliver until the end of her hypothetical second term (AFSCME debate).

As far as who does best head-to-head, if that's your only criteria then maybe you should vote for Edwards. That's not my only criteria. Mainly, I'm a good old-fashioned evidence-based voter, and looking at the evidence Obama has the best track record of good judgment, commitment to the issues I care about (especially government reform), and actually delivering legislation on gridlocked issues.

Having said that, I do think that Obama can win a wider mandate than Hillary. I don't know about Edwards. I think that Obama has the most room to grow with voters. People like the rhetoric, but they rightly want to learn whether there's a track record to back it up. There is, and the more voters learn that the more they like him.

Nick, don't be such a jerk.

Jeremy -- Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do appreciate it. I'm still somewhat puzzled by the 50+ argument that many Obama supporters make; I don't see much evidence (other than hopeful supposition) that Obama will necessarily deliver the overwhelming majority it suggests. Certainly, there are many other worthwhile reasons to vote for him -- and you lay some of them out nicely -- I'm just not sure that his impact on the rest of the ticket is all that clear. And unless there's evidence for it, I'm uncomfortable with it as an argument. That's all.

Wes2:

Independents.

Note that Clinton out performs Edwards against Giuliani across the board here. What is particularly troubling, if born out by other data, is Edwards' very poor showing against Guiliani in both California and New York. He may in fact have some serious problems with the real base of the Democratic Party, the near 50% who support HRC with increasing enthusiasm.

You hit that nail right on the head. If Rudy is the Repub nominee, the only Dem candidate who would guarantee that the two electoral vote-rich Dem bastions of NY and CA won't be competitive is Hillary, and that says quite a bit. As go those two states so too does the election, by a landslide. Below is a sampling of head-to-head match-up SUSA polls for NY, CA and some key states that the Dems cannot afford to lose without being in serious trouble. Also note the Edwards' purported greater strength in GE is non-existent (follow the link to the SUSA match-up polls for more). That, coupled with the fact Edwards has unilaterally disarmed against the eventual Repub nominee in GE by accepting public financing, make the prospect of an Edwards GE candidacy troubling...

NY MOE +/- 4.3%
Clinton 59% Giuliani 35% Undecided 6%
Obama 49% Giuliani 44% undecided 7%
Edwards 45% Giuliani 46% Undecided 8%

CA MOE +/- 4.5%
Clinton 57% Giuliani 37% Undecided 6%
Obama 48% Giuliani 44% Undecided 9%
Edwards 46% Giuliani 44% Undecided 11%

FL MOE +/- 4.4%
Clinton 49% Giuliani 43% Undecided 8%
Obama 41% Giuliani 50% Undecided 9%
Edwards 43% Giuliani 48% Undecided 9%

Ohio MOE +/- 4.4%
Clinton 47% Giuliani 48% Undecided 5%
Obama 39% Giuliani 52% Undecided 9%
Edwards 47% Giuliani 48% Undecided 6%

MN MOE +/- 4.3%
Clinton 52% Giuliani 41% Undecided 7%
Obama 47% Giuliani 43% Undecided 11%
Edwards 48% Giuliani 40% Undecided 11%

Electoral vote calculus favors a comfortable Clinton GE win, as she would take every blue state, the lion's share of purple states, and a few red states (AR for sure)... With Edwards or Obama making NY and CA competitive against Rudy (NJ and CT might be too), election night 2008 might be very long if either of the two gentlemen is the Dem nominee.

Is there anyone who will certify the honesty of polls? What's in it for CNN to NOT appoint the president?

By the way, the bandwagon effect applies to hypothetical general election matchups as well. For example, following his strong performances in Iowa and NH, in early February of 2004, the polls started showing that Kerry would fare best in a matchup against Bush (in a comparison to Edwards, Clark, and Dean). See, for example, here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/elec04.poll.prez/index.html

Of course, maybe it is true that Kerry was the best the Democrats could do, and they were doomed to failure. But the alternative is that Kerry's success in the primaries was just creating a bandwagon effect, one which did not survive the actual head-to-head campaign. In that case, it is possible that another Democratic candidate would have done better than Kerry in November, despite those early February polls.

I just keep coming back to this: How the hell can Hillary not get all the Kerry states plus at least one?

Jim J,

How in the hell could Kerry not get all the Gore states plus at least one?

Anything can happen. One unexpected scandal or gaffe (yes, even Princess Perfect can gaffe--as as highly scripted as she is, it won't take much of a gaffe to look big), A reminder of how contentious her presidency is likely to be once the Right gets Clinton War II up and running, demographic changes within states that no one noticed.

Look at how the world looked to us the week of the Schiavo vote in Congress in 2005 and how it looked in November, 2006.

Jim J,

The simple answer to your question is high Republican turnout with very few cross-overs and/or losing the independents.

I hear you guys regarding HRC's supposed GE weakness. But in 2004 the depth of feeling the Republican base, especially evangelicals, had for Bush was really obvious and to me quite remarkable. As big as the Hillary-hate is, I'm not sure it can top that fervent Bush-love in terms of getting people to the polls.

I'd like to remind everyone that HRC always benefits in elections when she is perceived to be bullied by a male figure, which will certainly be the case again.

Also keep in mind Hillary not only has passionate detractors, but passionate supporters as well, something Kerry could never claim.

Personally I think HRC's name recognition, toughness and fundraising will carry the day, but I've been wrong before.

Jim J.,

Nationally, Clinton is very well regarded by Democrats, very poorly regarded by Republicans, and independents are split. That is not a bad recipe for victory in New York, where Democrats enjoy a very large advantage. But different sorts of states will present a different challenge for her. So, I am not sure one can rely too much on her electoral success in New York.

Of course, it is entirely possible she could win the general election. I just see it as a pretty risky choice for the Democrats, and a pretty unnecessary one in light of the current political climate.

"Looking at polls NOW for how people will vote in November 2008 is just plain STUPID!" -Anonymous

I agree, if you are trying to predict an honest election. I think the people [mostly the press] are looking at the polls trying to decide whom to cover. This is crooked. Whether you trust these unaudited polls or not, [I don't] they obviously mean very little except when you realize the winners of these polls are invariable the ones who will be soon able to buy the most advertising. The corporate press ignores the obvious truth that the candidate who accepts the most money is the most corrupt. Just the opposite. Clinton's candidacy took off the moment Murdoch signed on.

In 2000 and 2004, the power elite used unaudited corporate polls to make the election theft look reasonable. You can't steal an election unless the people think it will be close. [I don't believe more than 35% ever wanted Bush]

Just as the country has started to say no to the power brokers who put Bush in office against the will of the people, along comes Hilary. The game plan as I see it is to focus coverage on the most conservative Democrat who may be beaten by a Republican. Either way Murdoch and the gang win.
At least 2 dozen Bush pioneers have given money to Clinton. Doesn't that say something?

Do all of you people who cover this like a sports event really want to be just spectators.