Clinton has more support than Obama, Edwards, and Richardson combined.

[calteacherguy]

Clinton 43.1%

Obama 23.8% + Edwards 15.4% +Richardson 3.3% = 42.5%

Clinton +0.6% over Obama/Edwards/Richardson


I still prefer Obama. I think he would be the better choice. However, Clinton has strengths as well.

Either one would be historic...an a whole lot better than what we have now.


Edit (link): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

[snot]

1. WHY? nt

[calteacherguy]

2. In my opinion, a combination of factors, but mostly because she's married to Bill.

Hillary supporters will call foul at that, of course. She has accomplished things in her own right, but in my opinion it's mostly because she's married to Bill. If she wasn't, I still think she'd be a contendor, but she wouldn't be in the kind of position she is in now.

Try this thought experiment: Imagine Hillary as a candidate, but not having been married to Bill. Consider her accomplishments as a Senator, the good and the bad (IWR vote, as well as positive legislation). Keep visualizing Hillary without being married to Bill...is she the frontrunner now?

[JDPriestly]

3. Actually, Rasmussen, which is as accurate a poll as exists

shows that Edwards polls way ahead of the other primary contenders when pitted against the Republican candidates. If you want a winner in November 2008, Edwards is your candidate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

[Perry Logan]

8. Rasmussen's accuracy is highly debatable.

"Rasmussen is a Republican firm that regularly asks slanted questions and produces pro-Republican results through a questionable poll weighting method."

"Rasmussen regularly has the wildest outliers of all on Bush job approval (typically about 5-7% higher than the average of other polls."

Rasmussen’s Bias

"Rasmussen from start 2005 has weighted to make Rep and Dem party ID equal at 37%. Yet his table of unweighted data since start 2004 shows that in every month, the Dem figure exceeded the Rep figure, often significantly. This weighting introduces a persistent bias which can be quantified if you know the cross-tab data."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/17/11424/8443

[MonkeyFunk]

4. Of course she's electable

those who say she isn't would prefer a candidate the republicans like.

[Kahuna]

5. So did Howard Dean, last cycle. Your point?

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

6. The most salient point is "inexperience" took Dean down...nm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Could You Please Link An 03-04 Poll Where Dean Had More Support Than All His Combined Democratic

Opponents?

Thank you.

[rinsd]

10. Really? When was Howard Dean's percentage greater than his 3 next competitors?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

Dean was lucky if his lead over his next competitor was greater than the percentage that said "don't know"

[Clintonista2]

13. Proof?

*Crickets chirp*

[Dawgs]

9. Wrong.

Being ahead in the polls and having the most support are two different things.

[rinsd]

11. "Being ahead in the polls and having the most support are two different things."

That we can agree on.

[Cameron27]

12. How do you measure support?