that some of these numbers, even if they're off by a margin of 10, are mind-blowing.

Romney, a legitimate top-tier contender, is tied with Hillary but loses to Edwards by 27.

And to touch on the Iowa discussion downthread, it's hard to imagine that voters around the country wouldn't flock to Edwards after an Iowa victory if he's still seen as the strongest General Election candidate, given that he's running the most progressive campaign of the Big Three. If he wins Iowa, how do Hillary and Obama stop voters from flocking to him? They don't, is my feeling. Obama would stand a chance of stopping the Edwards train in South Carolina, but by then it might be too late, and, in any case, many South Carolinians would be happy to vote for one of their own.

John Edwards brings back into our fold the white, working-class males that ended up breaking apart the New Deal coalition.  He gets them back in 2008, and we hold them in the party so long as John Edwards is our standard-bearer.

It would be nice to have an instant super-majority with one candidate.  

I think his strength among independents, at least compared to Edwards, is a bit overrated. So far at least it seems to be more of a campaign pitch for the future rather than reflecting reality of support.

Obama's strength seems to be more in the youth vote and attracting people that haven't voted for before and been active in politics. If he can increase turnout for these people in primaries and especially in the general, it will be a great thing, but its a pretty open question right now.

His strength among independents that show up in Democratic preference polls are among independents who screen as likely Democratic primary voters.

That lines up with the tendency of his support to skew toward self-identified liberals, while Clinton's skews toward self-identified conservatives, and Edwards is balanced across the board. Many of those "likely Democratic primary voter" independents are independent to the left of the Democratic party, unlike the majority of independents between the parties ... and particularly the newly minted independents who have stopped identifying as Republicans.

The appeal of Edwards among the independents who are not likely Democratic primary voters may be similar to the appeal of Reagan to the same group ... "I may not like everything he says, but he sticks to his guns and you know where he stands".

That, plus the fact that he is not presently located inside the beltway, plus Richardson's failure to catch fire so far, may make Edwards perform better among "balance of power" independents as opposed to likely Democratic primary voters.

in pointing fingers over Iraq. To them, I say, yeah too many Democrats fucked up and too many are dead because of it. Now what are you going to do about the rest of our problems? How will pointing fingers change that? Its the freakin GOP that is the problem.

Iraq is the most pressing of issues because of its immediacy. Long term the most pressing issue is a sensible energy policy. Would we be in Iraq if we had a sane energy policy (Ok we need a sane GOP too). Needless to say  this impacts Al Gore's pet issue (global warming) as well.

Marry energy policy  to Edwards position on poverty and I think you have a strong platform.

I think we had a lot of candidates who could have beaten Bush. The problem was he was still riding high from 911 as the campaign began. But his approval numbers were falling with each month that went by.

Kerry was thoroughly 'swift-boated' and had he been a stronger candidate he would have cruised through that attack like it was nothing. Remember, Bill Clinton was having affairs all over the place but still managed to win twice.

And Kerry's wife didn't help either....

Because he's a white male? I really have no idea... I'd say he's more well liked among independants than HRC and more well known than Obama. Plus I think there's a feeling among many that he should have been the nominee in 2004. Maybe some of all of the above....

Edwards didn't come off as dull or disconnected. He always scored highest in the "cares about people like me" category.

John Edwards was the strongest candidate in 2004.

But this isn't 2004....

  I thought it was Hillary in 2004.  But she had to wait for the open seat...I might have supported her in 2004, but not now.

I said to an MSNBC reporter that I thought if we i.e. the campaign and volunteers like me had one more week in Iowa, we would have won.  The guy looked at me and said, "Three days."  The momentum was there to push back against the establishment push for a controllable candidate like Kerry. Dean,my second choice, was wounded.   But the whole Kerry's resume deal was starting to fall apart. (As will Hillary's). The Edwards campaign was tiny compared to Dean and Kerry's, but we had the best candidate with the best ideas and actual doable plans to get them done.  Iowans like that. So do most Americans.  

And yes, the Southern dialect helps.  Airline pilots take on a drawl.  It's more reassuring than a Yankee dialect. It's got that nice preacher sound.   I'm a Yankee, but I even soften my "r"'s. And I got rid of my Illinois nasality.  Very irritating.  Anyway, that's a whole diary.

And yes, duh, He's a good upstanding Mom and Apple Pie, white guy who can say "liberal" things and still sound like a moderate.

It's so obvious to me now living out here behind enemy lines, that Edwards will win the general in a landslide.  You put him up against Nosferatu Guiliani or Jabba the Thompson?  Come on, we don't need no stickin' polls.

bryandem doesn't care about logic, hypocrisy, or the progressive movement. It's all a game to him.

Many folks don't take to Edwards.  That is why Al Gore, an undeclared candidate, polls a lot better than Edwards, who is now typically in fourth place in the polls.   Just the facts, even if some don't like to hear it.   Something is missing from Edwards, many don't buy what he is selling.  In a way the timing is unfortunate for Edwards.  Were it not for Clinton and Obama, he might well be the leading candidate today.  

Historically that has not been the case. Most political experts feel that IA and NH will have more significant impact this time because of the front loading than last time.

We shall see.

Wrong. Frontloading maximizes the effect of the early states, exactly as it was designed to do. Previously, one could lose an early state or two, but work to build support in some later, more delegate rich states to make up for it. Now, there's no pause, and it's difficult to overcome the massive negative media one receives from a loss, or successive losses, especially in a matter of weeks.

... when Super Tuesday was in March, it was necessary to parlay the big media splash of strong performances in Iowa and New Hampshire into more fundraising and a string of victories in the run-up, to reproduce the media splash heading into the first big lot of delegates.

Now, the media splash is right when most people in the Feb are making up their mind who to support. And given the cost of going into all of those media markets, a short string of early successes, especially if leveraged with good, clear messaging into the free media, gains media that is, in effect, worth $10m's of dollars ... maybe $100m's.

Clinton's strategy is going to be to try to do whatever she can to minimize that impact, but as the slide in her soft support continues, she may be in a position were she is shut out in the first four primaries.

Obama and Edwards are generally doing better than Clinton in GE match-up's is because they are doing much better in polling among independents and are taking a higher percentage of Republican voter's than Clinton. These percentages among republican's are small, but every election we will have a percentage of both republicans and democrats which will vote for the other party's candidate.

I believe it is because of Clinton's high un-favorabilities among independents and republicans.

I wish I could agree with you - but fear causes me to worry about electability.

If Hillary was clearly the most electable, I still would not support her (I've got some scruples). But part of my decision making process between Obama and Edwards is which one has the best chances of winning (and hopefully, winning big). And although I adore Gore, I am also wary of his electability, if he were to enter the race.

Vote for him if you think he's the best person for the job, not because you think he's the most "electable."

I know, I want to! But I'm scared!