Of course, wait till the Primary.
2007-06-20 11:39:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by RICARDVS 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Yes, it is too early, for example, to pick an extreme case, everyone thought RFK had it sewn up in 1968. Nixon went on to win the presidential election against Humphrey and George Wallace on a plurality.
Remember Eagleton? Remember Muskie crying while it was snowing? Remember Romney's father's crack up? Remember McCarthy? Remember LBJ's lock on the 1968 nomination?
You never can tell. What if - and I stress there is no basis for this - it was found the Hillary campaign was actually being funded by the Libyans?
British Labour PM was not much of a person, but was a great politician. He said, "A week is a long time in politics."
2007-06-20 11:48:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Early leads can disentegrate after the early caucus states. Caucuses are strongly party-controlled, so no matter how popular a candidate might be, it's generally the party hack that wins (remember Howard Dean?). And, the media puts tremendous weight on the results. Edwards and Clinton are the party hacks. The question is, does the party think that Clinton can be elected?
2007-06-20 11:43:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's definitely too early to say. Political polls can change overnight. In July, 1988, Michael Dukakis had a commanding lead in the polls over George W. Bush. By September he was still ahead, but the lead had narrowed. In November, he lost the election.
We're still a year away from the heart of the primaries so anything can happen.
2007-06-20 12:07:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by BOOM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, anything can happen between now and the primaries. but I will say this: hillary has the money, the connections, the brains, and Bill Clinton on her side. Not only do I think she could win the Dem Primaries, She has a very good chance at winning the white house legitimately (without the help of supressed votes, faulty electronic voting machines, and mysterious shortages in voting machines in heavily democratic districts).
2007-06-20 11:54:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
She might win, but it won't be a straight win.
Once Edwards drops out, you'll see Obama's numbers jump. Fact is that people either love her or hate her, and you can see for yourself how many real fans she has.
Of course, when it's just her and Obama, and they unload what secret dirt they have on him, anything is possible.
She'll probably be the first person in history that wants to be her own VP.
2007-06-20 11:46:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by open4one 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
It is way too early to say that Ms Clinton is the only serious candidate. Certainly she has the name recognition and the war chest to fund a major campaign. A lot of people do not see her as having a true inner core of values, or of having compromised them if she does. As time progresses she will be beaten around the head
2007-06-20 11:42:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Yes, it is far too soon to say that anyone is a lock for the nomination. Hillary isn't doing well in Iowa or South Carolina, and if she loses both those states she'll have a really tough time winning the nomination.
2007-06-20 11:40:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by brooks b 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
It's too early to tell. Just think of all the media-appointed "front-runners" who didn't even earn their party's nomination: Howard Dean, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Brown, Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy...
And how about those who didn't even run in the primaries: Elizabeth Dole, Colin Powell...
2007-06-20 11:45:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by MoeTheBartender 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think so... A LOT can change...
I'm curious what's going to happen if she has trouble in Iowa or N.H.... and who will pick up the slack... Edwards is polling well in Iowa too... so it could be interesting... and that will set the pace for the rest of the primaries...
2007-06-20 11:52:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
the race is still early.
one poll had obama at 29 and hilary at 31- but I think that was sometime about who's made the most money or most percent of all the democratic candidate's money.
2007-06-20 12:13:37
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋