who do you THINK will win the Democratic nomination?

[Eraserhead]

Finally forced myself to vote for Clinton but Obama could still win if he plays his cards right.

[Eraserhead]

Now that even I have accepted the fact that she is the likely nominee she'll probably end up losing.

[Eraserhead]

Hilldawg.  Every day I'm reminded why Barack Obama is not Presidential material and why Edwards gives me the worst feelings about my own kind.

What exactly is your 'own kind', SS?  I mean what do you mean by that here?  Lawyers?  Southerners?  Rightists?

As for who will win the Democratic nomination, well, I could have voted Hillary, since she will win it, but I voted Gore, since he is the only one who could take it away from her if he so chose.

That wasn't the question friend.

[Eraserhead]

Unless she wins Iowa, then I will remain unconviced that Hillary is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. She is leading in the polls and raised the most money this past quarter, but until the voting begins, I don't think anyone can really can be sure who will be the nominee.

As for the poll, I voted John Edwards. I wouldn't count him out yet.

I agree with that.  I think any of the top 3 can still win the primary, and Hillary, while she is on top and seemingly increasing her lead, can still come crashing back down to earth.  I voted Hillary, but I wouldn't be a bit suprised to see her turn into a Howard Dean of 2003/2004, coming crashing down after the first of the year.

I think that if anything is going to bring her down, it'll be concerns over her electability. A lot of caucus goers are going to want to pick someone who can win in November, and I think the concern over electability may also lend itself to Obama. Which of course leaves Edwards.

A win in Iowa would give Edwards the needed momentum, and if the anti-Hillary vote were to coalesce around him in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina, I could see him winning the nomination.

It is more likely to happen for Obama though because Edwards can't compete with the other two money wise and he has very little support in NH or SC.

[Eraserhead]

Unless she wins Iowa, then I will remain unconviced that Hillary is a shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. She is leading in the polls and raised the most money this past quarter, but until the voting begins, I don't think anyone can really can be sure who will be the nominee.

As for the poll, I voted John Edwards. I wouldn't count him out yet.

I agree with that.  I think any of the top 3 can still win the primary, and Hillary, while she is on top and seemingly increasing her lead, can still come crashing back down to earth.  I voted Hillary, but I wouldn't be a bit suprised to see her turn into a Howard Dean of 2003/2004, coming crashing down after the first of the year.

I think that if anything is going to bring her down, it'll be concerns over her electability. A lot of caucus goers are going to want to pick someone who can win in November, and I think the concern over electability may also lend itself to Obama. Which of course leaves Edwards.

A win in Iowa would give Edwards the needed momentum, and if the anti-Hillary vote were to coalesce around him in places like New Hampshire and South Carolina, I could see him winning the nomination.

It is more likely to happen for Obama though because Edwards can't compete with the other two money wise and he has very little support in NH or SC.

I think if one of the candidates beat Hillary in Iowa, I think that will be the one who the anti-Hillary vote will rally behind. Personally, I think Edwards has just as much of a chance as Obama does to win Iowa. And like I said, I think the momentum he would receive from that would make him the clear alternative to Hillary Clinton.

He will still be spanked in SC because he can't compete with Clinton for the black vote and he has never went over well in NH (including in 2004).