CBS national poll on who voters would "consider voting for"

[IceSpear]

A couple takeaways from this...

1) LMFAO at Hillary having the lowest "no" response despite also having the highest name recognition. #DemshateHillary #2008redux #itshappening #inevitablein2008too #anythingcanhappeninpolitics #webbmentum

2) Christie is very overrated. Those numbers are godawful. Biden's are also fairly terrible.

[IceSpear]

LOL at Hillary improving 2 points after #muhemailgate!

[IceSpear]

Warren, Sanders, O'Malley, and Webb are still largely unknown to the electorate. Once they jump in and work hard to increase name recognition and attack Hillary, their standing in the polls may increase by a lot.

Well duh. But increasing your standing a lot isn't going to help very much when you start from a base of trailing by 60 points.

Also, ONCE Warren jumps in? Really?

[IceSpear]

Warren, Sanders, O'Malley, and Webb are still largely unknown to the electorate. Once they jump in and work hard to increase name recognition and attack Hillary, their standing in the polls may increase by a lot.

Well duh. But increasing your standing a lot isn't going to help very much when you start from a base of trailing by 60 points.

Also, ONCE Warren jumps in? Really?

This draft Warren effort is so devoted to not giving up on her that Warren might actually chance her mind. This poll shows that among those that know Warren, they're willing to give her an honest look, what's to say the other half of the electorate doesn't feel the same way?

In the end, yes, it's hard to make up the deficit that exists between Warren and Clinton. But whether the chances are 10%, 5%, or 1%, no reason for Warren to at least give it a try. She's not up for reelection and it's not like her seat would ever be competitive anyways.

Many draft movements that were similarly devoted did not accomplish their goal (ex: Palin 2012, Gore 2008.) Ultimately it's going to come down to that candidate's choice, and Warren has not shown even a scintilla of interest.

I was actually referring more to the other candidates. I've always thought Warren would have a shot if she ran (though less of one now than she would've had if she laid the groundwork post midterms like a regular candidate.) As for what she has to lose, I've read many articles that she's far more focused on building her profile in the Senate and increasing her stature/power there, and a loss could harm that goal. How much of that is genuine insight and how much is pundits bloviating about something they know nothing about, I'm not sure.

[IceSpear]

It does appear that this month's winners are Biden (by far), Paul, and O'Malley.  

And Hillary, considering emailgate was supposed to badly damage her chances.

[IceSpear]

It does appear that this month's winners are Biden (by far), Paul, and O'Malley.  

And Hillary, considering emailgate was supposed to badly damage her chances.

Not really. Very few people outside of Fox, their viewers, and Hillary hacks have said that.

Are you kidding? Did you completely ignore the news the first 3 weeks of March?

Mark Halperin: Emailgate will cause Biden to run
Mark Halperin: Hillary is no longer the frontrunner
Ignatius: Emailgate may cause Hillary not to run
WaPo: Due to emailgate, Democrats yearn for Hillary alternative
Guardian: Democrats clamor for Hillary alternative after emailgate revelations
Politico: What if emailgate causes Hillary not to run?
CNN: Hillary's stumbles (emailgate) fuel critics
NPR: 3 reasons Democrats are freaking out about Hillary Clinton

https://twitter.com/MarkHalperin/status/580713766393913344
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/08/mark_halperin_i_dont_think_hillary_is_the_front-runner_anymore-comments.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/03/17/ignatius_on_hillary_clinton_im_not_certain_shes_going_to_be_a_candidate-comments.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-clinton-controversies-democrats-yearn-for-an-alternative/2015/03/04/f782ec4e-c279-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/06/democrats-primary-challenge-hillary-clinton
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-115715.html#.VRh0sOFwsSk
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/election-2016-hillary-clinton-critics/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/03/09/391921419/3-reasons-democrats-are-freaking-out-about-hillary-clinton

And this isn't even getting into the blog comments and Atlas Forum comments...

And that's just a small sampling. Google News it (Hillary Clinton + emails + last month timeframe) if you really want more.

[IceSpear]

The email thing's clearly a ticking time bomb. After the campaign gets underway I imagine it will actually be far more damaging than Benghazi was.

So it will be more damaging than something that's completely irrelevant? Well, that's not a particularly high bar to cross. Anyone who cares about Benghazi was never voting for Hillary to begin with.

[IceSpear]

No one is going to be talking about the email thing a month from now. It has no legs to stand on, especially when it raises all sorts of uncomfortable questions about certain GOP candidates' emails, say, I don't know, Jeb Bush.

While it will likely die as a serious issue (unless something truly damning comes to light), the right-wingnuts will be talking about Hillary's email until the election (and for the next 4-8 years if she becomes president).

So it will join Lewinsky, Whitewater, Vince Foster, etc. Fitting.