In 1991, Bill Clinton was in 11th place in the Dem primary polling with 2%

If the front runners in 1992 Democratic primary had been successful in excluding all the "non-serious" candidates, Bill and Hillary Clinton would have never made it to the national stage. Unless you live in a different America than I do, which routinely reports on the Governors of any state other than (very occasionally) California, New York, Florida and Texas.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26170

Clinton Remains the Front-runner Among Democrats
McCain and Giuliani are front-runners among Republicans

by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Although the first primaries and caucuses of the 2008 presidential race are still one year away, there has already been a great deal of focus on the election. Several candidates have formally declared their candidacies. Others have informally indicated that they are likely to be a candidate, while still others have set up exploratory committees to help them decide or have already announced that they are not running. News media outlets have planned presidential debates in key primary states as early as March of this year.

Poll results at this point in the race have the great virtue of measuring the inevitable surges in support for various candidates as they enter and leave the race, and as they labor to develop their images and issue positioning in the minds of voters. At the same time, poll results at this point will most likely change -- and change significantly -- as things happen during candidates' campaigns, and as the field is narrowed during the primary season. As a point of reference, Bill Clinton was in eleventh place among Democratic candidates in a February 1991 poll of Democrats; a little more than a year later he had zoomed to the top of the list. On the other hand, George W. Bush had a commanding lead in the Republican polls in late 1998 and early 1999 before winning his party's 2000 presidential nomination.

(more... )


http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/a_gage_of_romne.html

February 25, 2007
A Gage Of Romney's Poll Numbers

(snip)

BUT, GOV. ROMNEY IS BETTER-POSITIONED THAN PAST SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES.

As you can see in the chart below, where Gov. Romney’s poll standing is plotted in red, Gov. Romney has more support in national polls at this stage of the cycle than other small-state governors who ran and won the nomination did.

Carter, Dukakis, and Clinton were all governors of small states who began their campaigns with low national exposure and went on to win their party’s nomination. At this point in 1975, Carter was polling at 1%; in 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1%; in 1991, Clinton was at 2%. In the latest Gallup poll, Gov. Romney polled at 5%—an impressive level given that he remains almost entirely unknown on the national stage. It’s also useful to remember that John McCain was unknown on the national stage in the spring of 1999, polling at just 3%, and didn’t begin to attract any significant support until late October.

(more... )

Hell, if the pundits were correct, Ed Muskie would have been the '72 nominee, Hubert Humphrey in '76, Ted Kennedy in '80. IRC, many had Liebermann :scared: as the front runner in '03 at this time.

However, with the front-loaded primary season and the nomination all but to be determined by the Ides of March and a 24/7 coporate media that has turned politics into a reality show, old conventions seem to be going by the wayside.

I am suspicious of any story that is being pushed by FOX NEWS. They are the source of this story re Clinton and Edwards.

They also like to push a lot of FALSE OUTRAGE and try to pit democrat against democrat.

Quite frankly I am pretty sure that it Dennis et al want to show up and participate in debates they will.

As an Iowan, trust me, if the people of Iowa find a "second tier" candidate that they think is better for the job than the top tier, they will let American know. We don't much care about categories the media gives us (Clinton did bad here because our Senator Harkin was running)

If the microphone hadn't picked up their conversation, there would be no story. I've watched the footage, and it's not clear whether they're talking about limiting the number of debates or the number of people who are invited to the debates. Either one is a mistake IMNSHO, and I posted a thread about it earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3373927&mesg_id=3373927

This thread was in response to the folks who have been posting that limiting the debates to "serious" candidates is a good idea. Most of the ones I recognize have been Hillary Clinton supporters. The point of the thread is to show to everybody, especially HRC supporters, that you can't know who is a "serious" candidate this far out.

Fox has a history of misreporting things to put Democrats in the worst light possible. My feeling is that they do it to pit democrat activists against one another -- Divide and Conquer is the oldest RNC GOP ROVE strategy in the book.

I think you and I are really on the same page -- the more the merrier is my opinion, let the voters sort it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1328351&mesg_id=1328351

So fox lied and tried to paint dems in the worst possible light.