Keep in mind that these polls would be drawing from different types of samples . . .

I think at this point a poll of "likely primary voters/caucus goers" is more accurate than a general election poll of "likely voters," but that's just my opinion.

I do not believe that Obama's "electability quotient" will remain so high as we get closer to the general election.

Brassband,

I actually agree with your general outlook. I think many politically active people, i.e. the people who vote in primaries, already have a candidate whom they're leaning towards, meaning that any big swings in momentum are going to have to come either from gaffes or from unscripted, unpredicatable "I'm paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen" type moments that garner unexpected media attention.

That means it's Clinton's race to lose on the Democratic side, and Giuliani versus Thompson on the Republican side.

Unfortunately it may be Clinton's race to lose, period.

As for the Republican side, I think it is much more wide open that Rudy vs. Fred. That race just hasn't really taken shape yet, and I'm not a McCain fan, but I'm not willing to write him off.

I just read Bob Shrum's book which spends a fair amount of time on Kerry's quest for the nomination, and it's interesting to remember how very dead his campaign was at this time four years ago. Can McCain have that kind of revival? Who knows?

Has any political science type does a serious analysis of how much of Kerry's comeback/Howard Dean's downfall was really due to the "scream" (which would fit my gaffe scenario) and how much was due to the fact that Dean was just more popular in Iowa than anywhere else?

I really don't see McCain bouncing back. His big selling point was always his appeal to centrist/independent voters, but both Giuliani (via his social positions) and Thompson (via his celebrity, and his down-home appeal) can make that claim too.

Umm. I'm a Conservative (Big "C") and therefore I no longer trust the Republican party to produce more experienced, more effective managers of government. They've proven that they aren't, that they can't and that they won't.

Unless Bloomburg gets in the race, I'm for Obama.

(Andrew, your computer's font director seems to have misfired towards the end of your post ...)

Greg (if you are the same Greg who usually posts here), please name three qualities or qualifications which Senator Obama possesses that compel you to vote for him.

Greg,

Not to be nit-picky... wait... who am I kidding ...being entirely nit-picky, conservative is only large C when referring to a specific organization that has "Conservative" in either its formal or commonly used name, like the British Conservative party, for instance.

It's proper usage to say that Edmund Burke was a conservative and that David Cameron is a Conservative, though not necessarily a conservative.

Andrew, the other thing one has to keep in mind is that Kerry and Clinton had poor pooling numbers going into New Hampshire. We are still far enough away where I think pols are still well sketchy.

also, pick up this months foreign affairs there is a well written article by Senator Obama there. As well as stuff from Mitt Romney.

Libertarians have been preaching to you "conservatives" that allowing the President to assume quasi-dictatorial powers would come back to bite you. Imagine a Clinton! with every power you dopes have gladly aceded to this Administation. We may all have to reap the harvest sown by you fools.
All the while the border remains wiiiiide open. Thanks a lot "conservatives".

The conventional wisdom is that the "Dean scream" is what killed his campaign . . . but let's not forget that the scream came while he was conceding defeat in Iowa. He was beaten before the scream.

Kerry was just a better candidate than Dean. I think Hillary is a better candidate than Obama, and that's really starting to show in a lot of ways.

>Umm. I'm a Conservative (Big "C") and therefore I no longer trust the Republican party to produce more experienced, more effective managers of government. They've proven that they aren't, that they can't and that they won't. Unless Bloomburg gets in the race, I'm for Obama.

Greg:

That's a little like saying: "since medical science has proven unable to cure cancer, I'm going to start smoking!"

If anything, sit out the Presidential race while voting in other races that have candidates worth supporting.

That is what I'm planning to do if a RINO (e.g., Guiliani) is nominated as the Republican candidate.

I wholeheartedly agree that the current crop of Republican officeholders have betrayed the conservatives that are the heart and brains of the Republican Party ... and that the national Party leadership has demonstrated that it is essentially against us (e.g., intervening in primaries to support incumbents like Specter and Chafee).

The answer is certainly not to help elect far-left candidates, i.e., just about any Democrat other than Lieberman. Might as well oder a dose of hemlock for the entire country.

The answer is to purge the Republican Party of RINO's - or to at least render them irrelevant, whereas currently they are in charge.

Support conservative candidates, sit on your hands (sit out a race) in which RINO's are the "Republican" candidate; don't contribute to the RNC, but only to individual (conservative) candidate. Eventually we'll restore THE Republican Party to being A Republican Party.

TomW,

While I agree with your sentiment. I think we are going to have to face choosing the lesser of 2 evils if a RINO gets the nod.

Not voting in the Presidential race could lead to a very dangerous swing to socialism (with any of the leading Dems), especially since we are not likely to gain control over either house in Congress.

If it just was a local or Congressional race between a RINO or a Dem, I think sitting out that vote would be correct. There is just too much at stake now.

-TCC3

>>While I agree with your sentiment. I think we are going to have to face choosing the lesser of 2 evils if a RINO gets the nod.

I understand that argument, and can't say that it's wrong - it's just one of those areas in which one has to do what one believes to be right, short- and long-term.

In some respects this is a reprise of the Laffey-Chafee-Senate majority debates of last fall (I wasn't a Laffey Kool-Aid drinker - his pandering to the illegals was a huge negative to me - but I did vote for him in the primary as he was far preferable to Chafee; in the general election Senate race I honored Mr. Chafee by writing-in "George H. Bush").

I can just picture Republican strategists in the Guiliani / Romney camps figuring that people like me will still end up voting for their guy because the alternative is so much worse.

For one thing, I hate being maneuvered like that.

Secondly, in the long run I believe that RINO candidates hurt the Party - just look at the pathetic state of the RIGOP after decades of "me too-ism" with Democrat policies.

If we have a pro-abortion / pro-gun control "moderate" as our standard bearer, what's the point of being a Republican? I'm not inclined to be a diluted Democrat ... nor to support one.

Yes, Hillbama will be much worse. But I comfort myself with the thought that we survived Jimmy Carter, and but for his so royally screwing things up Ronald Reagan might never have been elected. And I have absolute faith that a Hillbama and a Democrat Congress will again royally screw things up.

As for Guiliani in particular, I cringe at the prospect of those photos of him in drag being distributed in the Arab world as evidence of "the depraved culture in the West - just look at this photo of the American President dressed up as a woman!" Talk about handing al Qaeda a propoganda victory - the only worse image would be a photo of Guiliani in bed with a little boy or with a sheep (and in the Middle East the latter image might well play better than the one of him dressed in drag).

Tom W--

I take your point on the pathetic state of the GOP, but you should also take a look at the pathetic state of the Dems, particularly in the Senate.

In order to retake the "majority" they have had to cobble together a group that includes some pro-life and pro-war Dems (i.e., Casey and Lieberman). Reid is a complete loser as a leader, and he can't get anything done. His "base" (the leftwing nuts) are ready to overthrow him. I don't think the GOP will recover the Senate in the next few cycles, but the Dems are sowing the seeds of their own defeat over time.

>>In order to retake the "majority" they have had to cobble together a group that includes some pro-life and pro-war Dems (i.e., Casey and Lieberman). Reid is a complete loser as a leader, and he can't get anything done. His "base" (the leftwing nuts) are ready to overthrow him. I don't think the GOP will recover the Senate in the next few cycles, but the Dems are sowing the seeds of their own defeat over time.

Brassband,

Well said, but I believe that it supports my point.

Unless either party has a coherent majority within itself that (mostly) agrees on what should be foundational positions, and thus a foundational platform / agenda, then having a numerical advantage is essentially pointless.

What's going on with the Democrats is merely a reprise of what occurred to the Republicans in recent years. You had Chafee / Collins / Snow / Specter routinely undermining the "base" of the Republican Party, and nullifying the "Republican majority." Add in the career politicians who've gone native (e.g., Ted Stevens of Alaska, as bad or worse a pork barrel spender as Robert Byrd ever dreamed of being), and you have a dissatisfied and disillusioned base, paving the way for eventual defeat.

That is why I believe that for the Republican Party to grow - whether nationally or here in RI - we need to (mostly) purge the "moderates" so that we can develop a consistent ideological and foundational message and agenda.

While having a "flexible tent" is preferable to a rigid one, having a "big tent" or "ideologically open borders tent" (so to speak) is a recipe not for growth, but for irrelevance. The history of the RIGOP for the last 30-40 years illustrates this.

The Democrat-led Congress has worse approval numbers than the Republican-led Congress had at the time of last year's election.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can rely upon the left or right wing to get a majority in the House and Senate. That means the Democrats are going to have to elect people like Webb and Casey while the Republicans are going to have to elect people like Specter and Snowe if they hope to rule.

In the absence of a sitting president, it's the legislative leadership that directs the House and Senate agendas anyway. The real focus for both parties should be on electing the president and ensuring that Congressional leadership holds true to their respective party principles.