Reply #25: I'm volunteering for a blue November in 06 but on Sen. Clinton,

[saltpoint]

I think we want to have a look at her winning percentage in the NY Senate Primary against Tasini, and then the winning percentage against the GOP stooge in the general election.

If it's under 60% or so in the general, her national sheen may have dulled too much for her to run for president.

If it's a smashing 65% or more, her stock goes way up overnight.

Let's say she wins the primary and wins with 63.5 % of the vote in the general. The war chest has fattened and she's still riding a media wave as frontrunner.

Sen. Clinton could be MUCH better at connecting with people than I think she is. I am allowing for that, and definitely not counting her out. As well, I fully acknowledge that she is an extraordinarily accomplished woman with more than one earned degrees from gleaming institutions, well-versed in the issues, capable, bright, and politically shrewd. Many New York Democrats are going to vote for her for re-election to the U.S. Senate and from most vantage points, she's truly earned their respect and support.

But unless she's better at connecting with many activist Dems in Iowa than I believe she is, she will finish 7th in the Iowa caucus beind (in no particular order) Gore (if he runs), Kerry (who's almost as well-funded as HClinton), Edwards (possibly the real frontrunner in Iowa), Evan Bayh (too conservative for some but formidalbe and well-funded with strong regional appeal), General Clark (who will combine earned authority with genuine personable charm), and Feingold (whose supporters are just too motivated to be outperformed by HClinton's people, IMO). Warner 8th, Richardson 9th, Biden 10th, Gravel 11th. I may have left somebody out.

If she finishes that far behind in the pack, her New Hampshire finish is not going to improve much.

She's effectively out of the race by the end of March of 08.