2008: 4/16 straw poll results

dKos Reader Poll. 4/16. 20,343 respondents (as of 4.17.07 9:06 a.m. PT)

            2007            2006            2005
            Apr Mar Feb Jan Dec Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep

Edwards      42  38  26  35  28  15   8   7   8  12  10
Obama        25  26  25  28  28
Richardson   13   8   6   5   4   2   1   2   3   5   3
Other         5   9   8   *   *   3   6   3   6   2   3
No F'ing Clue 5   8   6   *   *   3   4   6   6   6   6
H. Clinton    3   3   4   4   5   2   2   2   3   6   8
Kucinich      2   2   4
Biden         0   1   0   1   1   1   1   1   1   3   3
Dodd          0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Gravel        0   0   0   0   0

-- not running --

Bayh          -   -   -   -   1   1   1   1   1   1   1
Clark         -   -  14  17  26  17  15  15  22  26  34
Daschle       -   -   -   -   -   0   1   0
Feingold      -   -   -   -   -  38  44  48  30  19  19
Kerry         -   -   -   1   1   2   1   1   3   2   2
Vilsack       -   -   1   0   0   0   0   0   0   0   0
Warner        -   -   -   -   -  10  10  11  12  14   4

I was at the hospital all night with a sick wife (she'll be fine) and unhappy baby, so I won't do any analysis. I'm about to go and try to get some sleep. The only thing I'll note is that Richardson now has six straight straw polls in which he has increased his support, and has now burst strongly into double-digit territory. He's now threatening to break into the blogospheric "top tier", along with Edwards and Obama. The big question, of course, is whether that'll have any impact in the real world (where Hillary is still at the top).

•  Get some well-deserved rest, Markos...

  ...and best wishes to Mom and baby. Hope it wasn't anything too serious.

  by boofdah on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:06:59 AM PDT

  •  Ditto.

    My wife just had an appointment yesterday to make sure everything was okay after some concern, everything is still fine luckily.

    As for analysis.  I see four things.

    1. Biden, Obama, Other and NFC have decreased by 9 points.

    2. Richardson has picked up five points.

    3. Edwards has picked up four points.

    4. Richardson and Edwards are the ONLY candidates to continue rising in the Daily Kos 2008 straw poll after their announcement "tours".

    by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

    •  I'm surprised

      that a moderate like Richardson would poll so high. I suspect that when his positions on domestic issues, like health care and trade, become known, his support will level off or go down.

      He's going nowhere.

      by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:44:36 AM PDT

      •  "New"

        Each person that comes out as "new" gets a little surge.  Then, they start spouting out the same old tired rhetoric and they fizzle.

        I think the MAJOR reason that Edwards is doing so well here is that he isn't spouting talking points.  

        The other candidates are looking at the electorate like it's 2003, Edwards is just running his own race.  As a recent article said...

        Of the top six, only Edwards spent no money on polling in the period.

        by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:47:40 AM PDT

        •  He is not polling!!

          Wow, he must be saying what he thinks.  Talk about a new type of politician.

          by jct on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:57:32 AM PDT

        •  Obama hasn't moved an inch.

          That is strange.

          Obama came on the scene here with a big splash (Dec-06, 28%), but has gone nowhere since (Apr-07, 25%.)

          You would think with all of the MSM hype and gaggle and carnival celebration atmosphere around Obama, that Obama would make some gains here.

          Has Obama's position-less blank slate Dr. Phil feelgood psychobabble campaign run outta gas?

          Are there limits to how far a candidate can advance on just attractively packaged bottled air?

          Obama had the potential to walk away with the entire Dem leftie netroots, but he never delivered the beef, just the sizzle, and Kossacks are way smarter than to succomb to empty hype and flash.

          meanwhile, Edwards patiently & quietly just slogs away, building and building, like a seasoned pro.

          I suspect that Edwards is doing the same sort of quiet incremental base-building out in the grassroots field, below the radar and below the gaggle of the MSM.

          by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:23:22 AM PDT

          •  I'm actually suprised that Obama didn't

            see his numbers fall.  He has afterall come out against defunding the war and has made a series of foot-in-mouth statements.  It may just take some time, and especially the coming no vote on Reid-Feingold, for people to move from Obama-leaners to Undecided to Richardson or Edwards.

            by philgoblue on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:44:45 AM PDT

            •  What Obama does next.

              Now we have to see what Obama does next; will he continue to run the same sort of cautious, hedgy, vague, DLC-ish, mealy-mouthed, all-over-the-place, all-things-to-everybody campaign as he has been doing?

              If yes, he will drop like a rock 10 points in 1 month here.

              by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:52:05 AM PDT

      •  His effectiveness in Korea

        and on the global scene in general may have something to do with it.

        After the total incompetence of the Bushies on the global scene, some people may yearn for someone with some expertise and experience in that area.  

        And that would not be Obama or Edwards.  Biden and Hillary have global experience, but most Kossacks have already rejected them for other reasons.

        So Richardson has that series of issues pretty much to himself at this time.

        However, if Al Gore enters the race...

            (please?)

        by LIsoundview on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:49:39 AM PDT

        •  what effectiveness in North Korea?

          Richardson described his diplomatic breakthrough last week as follows:

          The North Koreans agreed to begin shutting down their Yongbyon atomic reactor, the facility that provides fuel for their nuclear weapons, and say they will allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country for the first time in five years.

          The world is a safer place today, and I am proud to have played a role in securing this agreement.

          I was in Pyongyang this week to secure the remains of six American servicemen who died during the Korean War.

          This is a very positive gesture on the part of the North Korean government. Hopefully it will help heal the wounds from the Korean War and start a process to bring closure to the thousands of American families awaiting word about their loved ones who perished.

          My years of experience dealing with North Korea and my knowledge of the region allowed me to help facilitate this new resolution to end their nuclear weapons program.

          Curiously, before the trip, Richardson didn't have a publicly-disclosed nuclear brief. The release of the bodies was already negotiated, and Richardson joined the Bush delegation at the request of the North Koreans (he had made at least five visits before, so he's a familiar quantity to them). The weird thing is, North Korea is still operating its plant (the deadline was April 15), the inspectors are still not allowed in, and Pyongyang hasn't touched the $25 million. So what really went on?

          Sure, Richardson is a politician, and has a longstanding habit of taking credit for diplomatic breakthroughs negotiated by others (his e-mail could be nothing more than that). But even so, the more I look at his trip, the more puzzled I am. What exactly are the Bush Administration's backroom deals with the North Koreans, including permission to sell arms to Ethiopia? We're not even close to having the whole story. And it's still a toss-up, in my mind, whether Richardson's recent trip was a success.

          by QuickSilver on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:58:05 AM PDT

          •  They may be shutting down the reactor

            During questions about North Korea in yesterday's State Department briefing, Spokesman, Sean McCormack seemed sanguine or at leat patient:

            QUESTION: On BDA[Banco Delta Asia]. BDA issued a statement unhappy with the Treasury's final rule last month and they're asking for all the accountholders to regain access to international financial system. Have you seen this statement?

            MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen it. I guess I'm not surprised that BDA is unhappy with the Treasury role inasmuch as it eliminates their ability to deal with the U.S. financial markets and therefore makes it very difficult for them to do business with the international financial system. I'm not aware of any changes in the intent of the Department of Treasury at this point regarding the rule.

            QUESTION: And sorry, one more on North Korea. Ambassador Hill, as he left Beijing, mentioned that he had sent a message to the North Koreans through their Embassy in Beijing. Have you guys heard anything back from them?

            MR. MCCORMACK: Not that I'm aware of.

            QUESTION: (Inaudible.) to do with BDA? Do you think this will affect your negotiations with North Koreans in any way?

            MR. MCCORMACK: Will it affect --

            QUESTION: The -- I mean the BDA -- the ruling -- I'm sorry, BDA challenge would affect your negotiations with North Koreans in any way.

            MR. MCCORMACK: In the six-party talks?

            QUESTION: Yes.

            MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we'll see. The ball is in their court. We are prepared to refocus our efforts and I expect that the other members of the six-party talks are ready to refocus their efforts on -- their efforts as well on the core issue at hand, and that is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We've made it clear that the BDA issue is resolved. We've gone the extra mile after implementing the Treasury rule in working with the parties to remove the obstacles for these accountholders. They can now access the accounts at the Banco Delta Asia. And any remaining issues are between North Korea and their bankers and it's for them to resolve.

            Anything else on this?

            QUESTION: Yes. IAEA said today they received no word from North Korea. Are you disappointed at that news or do you have any comment?

            MR. MCCORMACK: Well, of course we'd like to see the process move forward and we have said that -- as well as other members of the six-party talks that we are willing to give this issue some number of days to work out. The BDA issue was a lot more complicated than we expected and I think most people expected. So we want to show some flexibility in this, but certainly the patience of the six parties or the other five parties is not finite -- is finite, excuse me. It's not infinite. It is finite, not infinite. (Laughter.)

            QUESTION: There was talk about the new deadline and I know what you've said about it, but the patience of the other five parties -- but what about your patience? I mean, yes, you've given them some days. You have said you'll be flexible. But a deadline came and went.

            MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

            QUESTION: There's no new deadline. So in your own Administration there are people who are very impatient about this, so how are you going to deal with this current -- as it currently stands?

            MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that will be up to the President and the Secretary of State and the other senior members of the Administration to decide. Currently, where we are is we're going to give this process some time to work out. They don't have an infinite amount of time and the ball is in the court of the North Koreans. We would hope that they move it -- they move the process forward. In the meantime, they're not going to be able to see the 50,000 tons of fuel oil that they talked about. The South Korean Government has talked about the fact that they are going to hold up some shipments of rice to North Korea, and I think that sends a pretty strong message that North Korea will need to act in good faith in order to see good faith actions in return. That's the whole principle that underpins the six-party talks. And we'll see if that still holds. We'll have an idea in the coming days whether or not it does.

            The North Koreans - now confident that they can, in fact, access funds which had been frozen by the US Treasury Department, may in fact be in the process of shutting down the nuclear reactor.

            Tokyo, April 17 (RIA Novosti) US satellites have spotted unusual activity near North Korea's nuclear reactor which, Washington believes, may be evidence that North Korea is closing down the reactor, South Korea's Dong-a Ilbo said Tuesday citing diplomatic sources.

            A part of the back story in all of this has to do with North Korean funds which had been frozen by Treasury:

            Washington blacklisted the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macao in September 2005, accusing it of being a money-laundering front for Pyongyang. The DPRK has denied the charges but its 25 million U.S. dollar funds in the BDA were frozen.

            It's all very intriguing - lot's of players involved.  I too, am puzzled.

            `````
            peace
            
            

            by peace voter on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:42:56 AM PDT

            •  according to the State Department

              The February 13th agreement with North Korea for the shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor is apparently still in effect. It makes me wonder what "new agreement" Richardson negotiated last week.

              by QuickSilver on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 04:22:46 PM PDT

              •  Yes, February 13 agreement

                QuickSilver,

                The February 13th agreement came up again in today's State Department briefing. There were questions about Bill Richardson, as well, but State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack did really shed any light on what new agreement, if any had come out of the Governor's recent trip to N. Korea.  From what I've been reading, my hunch is that it has to do with banking & unfreezing assets that had been frozen by the US Treasury Dept.

                QUESTION: Can you tell us on the telephone conversation between Secretary Rice and South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-soon this morning?

                MR. MCCORMACK: They did have a conversation. They talked a little bit about the BDA issue and where we stand and where we stand with the six-party talks. At the moment, we are at a point of the North Koreans being able to access those accounts in BDA that were previously frozen -- that according to the Macanese officials. So the ball is in the North Korean court. Any issues that may exist or that may be perceived as being there are issues between the North Koreans and their bankers. We have done everything that we possibly can to resolve this and we would like very much to get back to the point of focusing on the main topic of the six-party talks, and that is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. And we hope that we are able to get back to that point in the very near future. We, as well as other members of the six-party talks, are looking to North Korea to take the steps that they have pledged that they would take under the February 13th agreement, which means shutting down and sealing the Yongbyon reactor.

                QUESTION: Governor Richardson said he's optimistic to getting back to, you know, six-party talks North Korea said. What is the reality of returning North Korea and Governor Richardson said -- is he more optimistic story about it?

                MR. MCCORMACK: Governor Richardson?

                QUESTION: Yes.

                MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know -- I haven't seen all of his public comments. We're all hopeful that we can get back to the business of the six-party talks, which is getting into discussions about how to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula as well as other topics that may well be on the agenda concerning the security architecture in Northeast Asia as well as the armistice that is currently in place involving North Korea, the United States, China and the UN.

                We all want to get back to that point. We're not at that point yet. And what we need to see from North Korea are actions to implement the February 13th agreement.

                Elise.

                QUESTION: Governor Richardson had said that the North Koreans had -- I'm sorry if this had come up previously, but had -- the North Koreans had expressed a willingness to return the U.S.S. Pueblo. I was wondering if you had heard back from the delegation about that.

                MR. MCCORMACK: I had not heard that before.

                QUESTION: Well, apparently, he took --

                MR. MCCORMACK: I know that they took him for a tour of the U.S.S. Pueblo.

                QUESTION: Well, apparently, they expressed a willingness to return this in -- as part of a goodwill gesture in terms of a possible armistice agreement and stuff like that. If you can --

                MR. MCCORMACK: I hadn't heard that, Elise, so I'll have to track it down and see if there's any particular reaction.

                QUESTION: Thanks.

                MR. MCCORMACK: Nicholas.

                QUESTION: Back on the phone call with the Secretary and the foreign minister of South Korea. Did they at all talk about the Virginia Tech incident and the fact that the person who was identified as the shooter was South Korean? Did that come up? Do you know?

                MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not aware that it did.

                QUESTION: And just on the -- back on the BDA issue, the owner of the bank, Stanley Au I think is his name, said today that the only way for the money to go back to the North Koreans if -- is for the money to be actually withdrawn in cash because no bank will actually take the money. Just for the record, you don't have any problem with the North Koreans going physically and taking cash out of their bank, do you?

                MR. MCCORMACK: Any specific arrangements the North Koreans and their bankers may work out are for them to work out. The North Korean pledge is to use these funds, once they're accessed, for the betterment of the North Korean people and for humanitarian purposes and that's what everybody expects that they will be used for.

                QUESTION: So one of the most difficult way to track that and to see how the money's used is to actually take it out in cash?

                MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Nicholas, I think it -- once it gets into North Korea, it is difficult to track --

                QUESTION: In any way, okay.

                MR. MCCORMACK: They don't have the most robust tracking mechanisms in North Korea, but that does not mean that we don't expect to hold North Korea to that pledge, we as well as others in the six-party talks.

                QUESTION: (Inaudible.) You don't have a problem with them taking it out in cash? Is that what you're --

                MR. MCCORMACK: Again, we have done what we are going to do on this issue. There is --

                QUESTION: (Inaudible) discussion if you had a problem if they take it out in cash?

                MR. MCCORMACK: As I said, any of the technical arrangements about how the North Koreans access their accounts is going to be up to the North Koreans and their bankers to work out. It's not a matter in which we're going to place ourselves in the middle. It's for them to work out, not for us.

                QUESTION: So you have no problem if the North Koreans are okay with it and Stanley Au is okay with it, that -- you have no problem with that?

                MR. MCCORMACK: I think I gave you an answer.

                QUESTION: Well, but you're not really saying it straightforward.

                MR. MCCORMACK: Well, if you'd like to stand up here and answer for me, you can, but I've given you the answer I'm going to. No, that's what you usually do, Matt.

                QUESTION: I'll do that.

                MR. MCCORMACK: No, that's what you usually do, Matt. (Laughter.) Make sure I have -- something to play on both sides, (inaudible).

                ```
                peace
                
                

                by peace voter on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:06:13 PM PDT

                •  the missing "not"....

                  changes the meaning of my introductory remark, which should read:

                  "Sean McCormack did not really shed any light on what new agreement..."

                  ````
                  peace
                  
                  

                  by peace voter on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:01:18 PM PDT

          •  Didja Know...

            You can tell Richardson is breaking into the first tier now that the supporters of other candidates are starting to make defamatory conjectures about him. Richardson has foreign policy experience, the majority opinion on Iraq, and experienced-based economic centrism in his favor. Not everyone's cup of tea, I understand, but it's a recipe that makes for one hell of a strong candidate, especially for those of whose positions fall somewhere in between Clinton and Edwards.

            by KlausFraktal on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:41:50 PM PDT

      •  After 8 years of Bus

        we need two things above all else in the White House-a grown up and a diplomat. All four of our candidates meet the first standard.  But Richardson shines among them for the second.  That is why people are swinging in his direction.  (Including me.  This is my 2nd straight month voting for Bill.

        by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:53 AM PDT

        •  Richardson Now Top VP Candidate....

          ....Along with Jim Webb (D Senate). Richardson as VP candidtate would deliver New Mexico and put CO, AZ and NV as very strong possibilities.

          by frandor55 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:53 AM PDT

          •  Richardson

            will deliver NM for sure, even if he is on the 2nd slot.  

            by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:40:52 AM PDT

          •  Remember the "Warren Christopher Rule"

            from the Gore 2000 campaign.

            "You don't put someone next in line for the presidency whose only qualification is that he has has recently been elected United States Senator" (or words to that effect).

            That applied to John Edwards ('way back in 2000), and it definitely applies to Obama today and definitely also to Jim Webb as potential VP prospects.

            Now Edwards and Hillary both have completed six-year terms in the U.S. Senate, and each has acquired significant political experience since that time.

            Richardson of course has broad experience in at the cabinet level and in foreign policy, including at the U.N. (Remember the UN?).  Also, as VP nominee he would fire up the hispanic vote.  We wouldn't even have to dance the Macarena this time!

            Certainly no-one (even Obama) should be considered for the presidency of the U.S. with less than one term in the Senate on his resume'!

            by Perspective on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:08:50 PM PDT

        •  And remember Spider....

          In the General Elections, the Independents are who swing the vote either way.  I voted for Richardson too, this time.

          by Boca Babs on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:20:00 AM PDT

      •  At least some of the Richardson vote

        may be like teacherken's and BTD's support for Vilsack, more of a "thank you" reward for good behavior rather than an actual statement of "I'm supporting this person for the foreseeable future."  In some ways I think "Richardson" is a weigh station as Gore-backers and Clark-backers move from Other, to No Clue, and, in many cases, ending with Edwards.

        by philgoblue on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:42:06 AM PDT

•  Hillary, still winning the "netroots primary"

  Her campaigns words, not mine.

  by Pragmatic Left on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:07:18 AM PDT

  •  Hilary got slammed in NY magazine this week

    HUGE article on Obama with HUGE photo of his rascally smiling mug. The Insiders still think it's just HRC and Obama. . . and I can't wait until Iowa to see Edwards surprise the "experts".

    by funhaus5 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:15:27 AM PDT

    •  Iowa?

      What if Hillary and/or Obama can solidify their support with the African American community in California, New York, and South Carolina?  Could this dampen a win in Iowa and/or New Hamshire?

      Wouldn't it be cool if African Americans had the opportunity to decide the Democratic president for once?

      by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:29:36 AM PDT

      •  Win Iowa and you get TONS of free media

        and momentum

        and people thinking "I want to vote for the guy/gal who is winning".

        It somebody has momentum coming out of January, and all the free media that generates, that's going to be worth the equivalent of a LOT of campaign loot.

        BTW: California is utterly massive, as is NY. No way HRC or Obama are going to be able to blanket all those media markets. . . it would bankrupt them.

        Hey, I would love for NY to be able to decide things, and I have no great love for Iowa/NH/NV/SC. . . I'm just talking what I see as the realistic, hardnosed scenario.

        by funhaus5 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:34:42 AM PDT

        •  But I don't know squat. It's going to be a crazy

          January and five days of Februrary 2008.

          by funhaus5 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:36:13 AM PDT

        •  I heard one woman say the other day...

          "I'm not voting for Hillary, I don't like her.  What's that fella's name whose wife has cancer?  Yeah, I'm voting for him."

          This is how MOST Americans make their voting decisions, spur of the moment and uninformed.  Forget about US, we're the exception.

          So, if you win Iowa, what gets planted in people's head is "Winner."  "Winner."

          by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:42:17 AM PDT

          •  My point is

            are there groups in our country who could care less what the people in Iowa decide?

            Lets say Edwards wins Iowa.  Even with the hype of the win, do you think a majority of African Americans will fall in line and vote for him in California and New York?

            Just wondering.  

            by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:08:53 AM PDT

            •  It is a guess this year

              because we just don't know how moving up the primaries will work.

              You may be making a good guess, but until we get closer to the primaries there won't be good polls. We don't know how the candidates will have to campaign, or be able to campaign for the big states.

              I think the campaigns will be looking a new strategies.

              by pioneer111 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:18 AM PDT

              •  I think the campaigns will not put all their

                eggs in one basket.  That might mean a REALLY expensive primary campaign.

                by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:28:30 AM PDT

            •  Like I said above Yoshimi.

              Hillary and Obama will compete for and split the Black vote down the middle.

              by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

            •  They are a small minority of Democrats

              In New York and California, the only two Feb 5 states that count, blacks make up a small minority. New York could be interesting. Hillary hasn't exactly bent over backwards to help NY Democrats, but has scratched just enough backs to make it hard for prominent Democrats here to endorse someone else. Only if she loses momentum early will the rats start abandoning the mother ship. I can't imagine California being favorable to Hillary. They prefer more iconoclastic figures like Obama, Arnold and Reagan - not triangulating, machine driven apparatchicks like Hillary. Plus, they owe her nothing.

              If Obama and Hillary split CA and NY, things really could get interesting. Only then do I see the black Democrats breaking any ties. But apart from SC, I don't see the fight over the black vote to be all that decisive to the early primaries. And even the result in SC won't have enough time to sink in before the Feb 5 bonanza!

              by lump1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:21:22 PM PDT

          •  Mother voted for Edwards.

            My Mother voted for Edwards in the 2004 Dem primary.

            She had voted for Bush in 2000.

            Just a little example of Edwards' wide appeal & reach.

            by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:42:49 AM PDT

            •  My DAD voted for Kerry/Edwards because of JRE

              the first DEMOCRAT vote he EVER cast.

              by chuckles1 on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:45:37 AM PDT

      •  I think women will decide the primary, actually

        That is an interesting proposition Yoshimi, but with 60% of Democratic primary voters being women, and with Hillary doing very well among women, I think they will tip the primary in her favor.

        Most political "blogosphere" members are men, so that is why there is a radical disconnect between blog polls and real-world polls.

        by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:36:30 AM PDT

        •  Read an Article Over The Weekend

          Hilliary is playing up the women thing big time and it is selling to young and old.

          She is still the prohibitive favorite based on her experience in both the Governor's Mansion and the WH. And for some reason she is coming across as 'The Adult' among the leaders.

          The only one who really challenges her in 'The Adult' category is Richardson. He also trumps her or at least matches her in experience also.

          He could be the dark horse in this race who steadily moves up in the pack and takes the race by a nose in the end.

          by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:45:51 AM PDT

        •  Hillary won't

          win a single state, not even New York, and you can write that down.

          by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:47:04 AM PDT

          •  LOL, she's ahead in 32 of 34 states

            and is ahead by a wide margin in California, Penn, NJ, and Florida, which is where most Dems live.

            by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:23:11 AM PDT

            •  i see a righteous bet here between

              mr. "write that down" and mr. "LOL"...what sort of odds are you willing to give, LOL?

              by memofromturner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:51:09 AM PDT

              •  $100 says Hillary is next Prez, vs. anyone u pick

                Okay, I'll bite :)  You pick a candidate, I pick a candidate.  $100 bet, donated to charity/cause of the winner's choice.  You get to pick any candidate, either Dem or Repub.  If Hillary is elected President, I win; if your candidate is elected, you win.  If neither wins, it's a wash.

                by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:59:13 AM PDT

                •  Bev, I would take that bet

                  except that if I lose, I'm going to need that $100 as part of my getaway loot to flee the country with :)

                  by NH4JRE on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:12:09 PM PDT

                •  Oooh, the candidate of inevitability, I'm scared!

                  Hmm, pretty interesting. Hillary backers are still clinging to the "I'd bet money on her winning" line, a variant of the "she's the candidate of inevitability" line. Everyone else is supposed to be intimidated by the magnitude of her machine and avoid the appearance of Democratic disloyalty by lining up behind her right now, rather than later (i.e. after her machine rolls to its unstoppable primary triumph).

                  Well, I'm sure that has some perverse psychological pull for some people: In the face of perceived inevitability, it empowers us to feel like we willingly chose the inevitable thing. I know that makes no sense, but sometimes, human psychology makes no sense.

                  Unfortunately for Hillary, this inevitability line is becoming harder and harder to defend. Obama's funraising numbers have made us wonder about Hillary's machine, and campainging started early enough that both he and Edwards have a chance to put together mighty campaigns of their own. She may be ahead now, but what can she offer to democrats who defect to her camp? How can she ryle them up in a way that Obama and Edwards can't? The real question is only this: Can she keep her own supporters from jumping ship? The answer to that is "maybe". But it's certainly nothing like inevitable.

                  Your bet only makes sense because it's hard to guess to whom Hillary defectors will defect. But I bet even you won't now take even odds on Hillary vs Another Democrat for president! That sheen of inevitability is wearing thin!

                  by lump1 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 05:40:53 PM PDT

            •  Hillary is a loser.

              Hillary will lose the same amount of the male vote based on her gender that she gains of the female vote based on her gender.

              That is, just as many men will vote against Hillary strictly due to her gender as those women who will vote for Hillary strictly due to her gender.

              I also think that the whole gender-based voting thing is overhyped. If a woman hates Hillary's Iraq position, then that woman is NOT gonna vote for Hillary just to strike a blow for womenhood.

              I also believe that just as many Dem women as Dem men find Hillary to be, well, as viscerally unpleasant as fingernails on a chalkboard.

              Hillary will not only lose, she will also cause us to lose the House and Senate in 2008.

              That is because Hillary is the one & only thing that can rouse & rally the otherwise dormant Bush base in 2008.

              As for your poll numbers, Joe Lieberman was also leading at this same point in time in 2003; such means nothing.

              by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:09:49 PM PDT

        •  The debates are going to decisive

          People are going to be attracted to who has the strongest message.

          by cosbo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:50:39 AM PDT

          •  I'm afraid that Americans are so mistrustful

            that identity politics will hold sway this election which to me is sad and risky, i.e., the debates will be seen through a many prisms.

            by kck on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:19:35 AM PDT

          •  The debates will destroy Hillary.

            Hillary will come across in the debates as shrill, whiny, nasal, aloof, and cold.

            She is Mrs. Freeze.

            My comment has nothing to do with Hillary's gender; Hillary is just a viscerally unpleasant person who cannot even fake warmth & empathy.

            I believe that inauthentic is the right word here.

            by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:16:14 PM PDT

        •  doing very well among women

          Do you have a cite for that?  NPR had a story recently that indicated only white women liked her.

          by RequestedUsername on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:53:39 AM PDT

          •  Many African American women love her.

            She draws more African American women than Obama does.

            by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:12:41 AM PDT

            •  I repeat my request for a cite

              I cited a source.  Can you?

              by RequestedUsername on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:17:48 AM PDT

              •  the recent cook political report has demo's

                she does better among POC than whites, better among AA than whites, better among women than men, better among the youngest and oldest demo's than the middle age demos and better with those who didn't graduate college than those who did.

                This data is on p9--10 of the most recent "cross-tabs": http://www.cookpolitical.com/...

                In this poll, the only demo where anyone really competes with her is among those who graduated college+, Obama does extremely well with this demo, they are pretty much 30/30 here.

                by heartofblue on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:40:04 AM PDT

            •  She draws more African American women.

              Which kills your "Dem Blacks will sweep Obama in" theory, yes?

              I agree that the "Bill Clinton; America's first Black president" frame will help Hillary with the Black vote.

              But that will likewise hurt Obama.

              by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:22:20 PM PDT

        •  Not sure women are that narrow in outlook

          I think, based on my experience, that women may be charmed by the idea of a woman running, but their interest is more on the issues and the individual.  Perhaps more so than men.

          by arthura on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:53:53 AM PDT

          •  A friend of mine was all for Hillary because she

            is a woman.  But, once I talked to her about the issues.  And once Hillary and Obama had the horrible responses the the question about if gays are immoral.  She switched to beign a strong Edwards supporter.

            by jct on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:59:19 AM PDT

            •  Hillary is anti-gay now??

              What a total flip-flopping phony!

              by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:28:47 PM PDT

              •  stop

                "Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."

                 

                Are you intentionally trying to make Edwards supporters look bad with your incessant posts, or do you just not realize how petty and mean they sound?

                by Partially Impartial on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:07:23 PM PDT

                •  My friend understood that Hillary

                  came back and said the right thing.  But, Hillary lost her vote with the fact that she couldn't just come out and say that gays are not immoral and it took her a couple of days to come out with the response you have above.  

                  by jct on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:13:43 PM PDT

                  •  Understood

                    I completely understand your friend's reaction, as Hillary definitely dodged the question at first.  My response was meant for Area, and could have been attached to any of his/her rants.

                    by Partially Impartial on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:28:15 PM PDT

              •  What an idjit.

                by rserven on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:54:10 PM PDT

          •  Hillary has an excellent record on women's issues

            She has done much to promote women's equality. Her campaign's appeal to women includes some strong policy proposals: shoring up equal work/equal pay laws, expanding the Family Medical Leave Act, passing universal paid sick leave legislation, getting UHC, calls for universal childcare, an interesting proposal to provide support for "kinship care"---children orphaned by war who are raised by relatives, etc.

            Check it out:
            http://clinton.senate.gov/...
            http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

            by heartofblue on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:43:42 AM PDT

        •  Pushing to make a selection I still come up w/o

          I too suspect that on DailyKos, since the field is big, talented, and somewhat undefined/undifferentiated still the early, consistent support for Edwards (who I like fine) smells like Identity Politics a la the blogospheric male majority (so artlessly on display last week - sorry, just had to get that in, but imho, it's there).

          by kck on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:40 AM PDT

          •  nonsense.

            I would choose Pelosi over Edwards if I could.

            Kossacks (male & female) are first & foremost issues people, and Obama has been trashing himself terribly on the issues.

            by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:34:34 PM PDT

            •  I agree about "first & foremost issues people"

              But that's not mutually exclusive with my suspicion; none of us are devoid of bias so it's a numbers/proportion issue.

              by kck on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 03:15:38 PM PDT

          •  Identity politics? Nah - just pragmatism

            kos people are Democrats. They support progressives, and they support conservative Democrats, too.  Herseth was rather conservative.  And female, too, no?

            And kos people want to win.
             
            That's why they are avoiding Hillary like the plague, because 50% of Americans won't even consider voting for her (Harris poll).

            So kos people want to win with Edwards.  He's at 44% in a crowded field here.

            That's why kos-ians tend to ignore the sort of candidates like Obama and Hillary that make it to the cover of Newsweek magazine.

            Because if we go with yet another frost-belt Democrat again, it's hello "President McCain."

            by Perspective on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:51:51 PM PDT

        •  I was at a "Women for Obama"

          kick-off yesterday.  I think the strategy is smart on Obama's part and you'll probably hear/see more from the group.

          Likewise, I was at a "Lawyers for Obama" Obama fundraiser a couple weeks ago but didn't make the connection at the time that Obama was trying to tap into Edwards' base.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:11:48 AM PDT

      •  Yoshimi.

        The problem with your theory is that Hillary and Obama are competing like dogs for the same pool of Black votes, which both Hillary and Obama think they own lock stock and barrel, you know, what with Obama being the Black candidate and what with Bill Clinton being the first virtual Black president, etc.

        What if that pool of Black votes splits right down the middle for Hillary and Obama?

        by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:38:15 AM PDT

    •  Kos Didn't Say Hilliary - Netroots

      He said:

      whether that'll have any impact in the real world (where Hillary is still at the top).

      by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:09 AM PDT

      •  they're riffing

        on a line one of Clinton's spokespeople gave recently, where they looked at how much she raised "online" and said Clinton was the netroots' favorite.  

        by exiled texan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:19:48 AM PDT

        •  Ah!

          I misread that.

          Some people do not realize this from yesterdays numbers but when not counting the $2300 donations Edwards actually has a higher percentage of non-$2300 contributions of his total than Obama does.

          Yes Obama raised more - but percentage wise Edwards actually gets a higher percentage of his money from no-$2300 donations.

          Just interesting - and yeah - a little too 'inside baseball'.

          by talex on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:33:09 AM PDT

  •  I guess

    the netroots is larger than mydd and dailykos?

    maybe they are polling redstate posters?

    by Blue South on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:17:31 AM PDT

    •  The netroots are a lot bigger than DailyKos and

      MyDD.  Remember that netroots isn't only national blogs.  There are networking sites and regional blogs with members that dwarf the two sites you mention. :)

      by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:31:26 AM PDT

      •  i would love

        to poll every state level liberal blog and see what happens. ill bet she would get taken to school

        by Blue South on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:35:03 AM PDT

        •  Do it. Maybe she will?

          I'm just saying that Dailykos is just a part of the whole picture of support out there.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:02:31 AM PDT

        •  Here's some results from Colorado

          http://www.squarestate.net/...

          This was a straw poll done about a month ago now.  The extended version has February's results.

          I would also be interested in seeing more state-level results.  Lack of rigor aside, it would be interesting to look at.

          by WeatherDem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:46:59 AM PDT

          •  thanks

            very interesting.

            i know bluenc would probably be edwards by a lot, but we are an outlier, he being from our state and all.

            by Blue South on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:51:31 PM PDT

            •  yes and no

              It might seem obvious a priori that Edwards would poll well at bluenc, but all things being equal, poll results are poll results.  bluenc's should count as much as squarestate's, etc.

              As you point out, a nice project would be to visit sites and collect data to the extent possible.  Too many cool projects, not enough time...

              I'll try to remember to announce on dKos when squarestate does polls in the future.

              by WeatherDem on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:43:35 PM PDT

      •  With 500,000 plus hits on KOS daily

        this site may not be the only one, but is is the leading one, and nothing to belittle.

        http://www.sitemeter.com/...

        KOS is the leading democratic site, I doubt the DNC site has that many hits per day.

        by America08 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:41:32 AM PDT

      •  Can you name a regional blog

        that is bigger than (or as big as) dKos? Seriously, if there is one, I'd like to know.

        by Alice in Florida on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

        •  Did I say there was a bigger blog than daily kos?

          Collectively the regionally blogs and the social networks dwarf DailyKos.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:01:19 AM PDT

          •  i dont think

            that is true.

            for instance.  raising kaine is one of the top regional blogs.  they get 1,000-2000 hits a day, vs 500,000 for kos.

            by Blue South on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:35:54 AM PDT

            •  Collectively

              Adverb
              collectively

              In a collection; in a collective manner; together as a whole; bunched together; to be treated as a single unit, rather than the items that make up the collection spearately.
              Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collectively"

              by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:39:10 AM PDT

              •  ok....

                there arent 500 blogs that get the amount of hits that kos does that are talking about state or regional politics.  there might be 100 getting 500 hits a day on average, but that is a best case scenario, and is woefully short of kos.

                by Blue South on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:52:44 PM PDT

        •  Most regional blogs link to DK

          ...at least in Virginia they do, and to each other. DK is the mothership :)

          Even Democratic Underground, which has 100k+ registered, often front pages DK diaries as well as used as thread starters.

          For example:

          http://www.democraticunderground.com...

          by catchawave on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:28 AM PDT

    •  IIRC,

      she counted every donation made online as a donation from "the netroots."  Just because someone chooses to make their donation online, it doesn't mean they're part of the nationwide online grassroots movement epitomized, and often led, by sites like moveon, dKos, MyDD, etc.

      Here ActBlue page, for instance, hardly generated anything for her.  

      I bet you're right, she would most certainly get her ass handed to her in such a poll, just as she did here.

      by exiled texan on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

  •  She's winning the "women's" primary

    60% of Democratic primary voters are women.  Women overwhelmingly support Hillary.  Members of the online / political / blogosphere are overwhelmingly male.  Hence, the big difference between "reality-based" polls and online ones.

    by Berkeley Vox on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:37:55 AM PDT

    •  Obama edges out

      Hillary and even Rudy in the Wall Street Primary.

      It's official, now, Obama is Wall Street's favorite candidate.

      I wonder why.

      by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:51:22 AM PDT

      •  Maybe . . .

        . . . because a lot of people who work on Wall Street are progressives, regardless of the fact that their jobs are in the business world, and they like to support other progressives?

        by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:56:31 AM PDT

        •  What some supporters don't understand

          is that running against something is a losing position to be in.

          That in my opinion is why Dean did so badly.  Even the Republicans are starting to understand that their candidates have to run for something.

          Hopefully Democrats catch on quicker than the Republicans.

          by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:05:19 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, I'm sure that's why

          ...because a lot of people who work on Wall Street are progressives.

          Then why aren't they giving $$$ to the most progressive candidate? Come on, Adam B, you can do a better job of explaining away his support from Wall Street than to say it's because Wall Street is packed with lefties.

          The shame for Obama is that he doesn't need the support of K-Street corporate execs or Wall Street, he's doing so well among small donors, so why is he courting them? Is it because his policy positions don't clash with their interests?

          We already know that coporate executive are helping Obama to "refine" his policy positions?

          Robert Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas (UBS ) and a supporter of Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.), says his candidate understands commerce and is promoting trade agreements that benefit the U.S. "both as a consumer and a provider of goods and services.

          But I'm sure Robert Wolf is one of those lefties that Wall Street is known for, so, no need to worry.

          by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:07:46 AM PDT

          •  "the most progressive candidate"

            David, people can reasonably disagree on which progressive candidate best fits his or her own worldview.  You've got your views, and I have mine.

            The fact is, if you saw my diary yesterday, that no matter how well one does with small donors, they're still small, and one $2300 check takes ninety-two $25 donors to equal it.

            Finally, let's not forget that when he did have to be responsive to constituents, Edwards voted for most favored nation status with China, and voted against Paul Wellstone's amendment which would have required "that the President certify to Congress that the People's Republic of China has responded to inquiries regarding certain people who have been detained or imprisoned and has made substantial progress in releasing from prison people incarcerated for organizing independent trade unions.", as well as an additional amendment requiring the President to verify China's commitment to both religious and labor freedom, and a third Wellstone religious freedom amendment.

            by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:25:36 AM PDT

            •  True, but...

              Even though it takes 92 $25 donors to equal a $2,300 check, it only takes one $25 donor to equal a $2,300 donor in the voting booth.  Money is useful and necessary, but votes are the only currency that matters in the end.

              by JSCram3254 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:33:43 AM PDT

            •  i'm not suggesting

              that Obama not hit up rich people--you have to, as a pol, Edwards does. I'm saying that Obama is making a choice:

              • to woo Wall Street and to include Wall Street execs in the formation of his agenda
              • to cultivate a network of K-Street corporate lobbyists, led by Tom Dashcle
              • to solicit and accept money from lobbyists spouses even if the money comes from the lobbyists' bank account

              Maybe all this fits your worldview; it doesn't fit mine.

              These are choices Obama is making and they are not choices he needs to make in order to be competitive; on the contrary, in the long run they will make him less competitive because it allows people like to me--and, more important, other campaigns--to point out the dishonesty of his claim to be running a new kind of campaign. Even worse, should he emerge as the nominee, he'll be hamstrung in his ability to draw a distinction between him and whatever plutocrat the GOP nominates.

              As for your stuff about Edwards, all people can do is point to stuff he did years ago--which is fair game--but it highlights the way he's running this time around, how he's grown and learned. Indeed, he made some of the mistakes Obama is making now.

              by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:40:55 AM PDT

              •  What matters are the policies.

                If the policies and the message are sound, it doesn't matter who's funding the campaign.  It's only if you can prove that the money has corrupted the message that the point can be made.

                by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:10:38 AM PDT

          •  great.

            So Obama is now also a NAFTA type?

            Screw Obama!

            Well there it is, pure DLC, pure Lieberman.

            by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:49:27 PM PDT

        •  How is Obama a "progressive"?

          Harry Reid is more progressive than Obama!

          by area 51 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 12:45:46 PM PDT

      •  This is Hillary's base!

        by jct on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:00:23 AM PDT

      •  That's very interesting, David.

        I will have to read that later today.

        by Boca Babs on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:24:23 AM PDT

      •  Interesting but disagree it's what you say...

        To me, they're all in the same ballpark.

        Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ran ahead of New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on their home turf, raising cash from the biggest investment banks on Wall Street.

        Obama raised $479,209 from employees at the banks in the first quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. That was better than Giuliani, a Republican who collected $473,442. Clinton, Obama's Democratic rival, raised $447,625. The figures are based on employers listed by donors; in some cases, the names are missing or incomplete.

        by kck on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:31:23 AM PDT

        •  That's right

          Obama just barely outraised Rudy and Hilllary on Wall Street, but it's truly astounding that a self-proclaimed transformational candidate would outraise two moderates, two moderates from New York!

          Either he's not a transformational candidate or there are gonna be some surprised financiers and investment bankers.

          by david mizner on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:13:20 AM PDT

          •  the truth is otherwise

            Edwards, too, is chasing Wall Street cash.  He's just not as successful at it.

            by Adam B on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 02:12:33 PM PDT

    •  Wow.

      You've got one speed:  Spin Cycle.

      Impressive.  Quite Impressive.

      by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:52:15 AM PDT

      •  They Must Have Their Own Starbucks

        Down in the HRH Batcave headquarters.

        Either that or they send Bill around the corner a couple of times a day.

        by pletzs on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:05:04 AM PDT

    •  I'm a woman in NY.

      I don't support her for many reasons. I like her as my senator. That's it. Hillary has absolutely no vision.

      by cosbo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

      •  The audacity of reality-based politics

        That is her vision.  Obama