Reply #1: Looks to me like the polls are nuancing a tie.

[jobycom]

A race with this many candidates all this close together would be considered a tight race if this were close to the election. By this time next year, there will be one, maybe two, in each party with a shot. Then we can see what the numbers look like. With more than two candidates, loyalties are spread around so much it's hard to read. At some point after Iowa and New Hampshire, if not before, both parties will be down to essentially two candidates. The supporters of those who dropped out will have to pick one of the remaining ones. So it's hard to tell from polls like this who is really winning. Back in 88 and 92, as the other Dems began to drop out, their followers fell in behind the second place candidate (Jackson and Browne, respectively), giving both candidates a surge against the frontrunners (Dukakis and Clinton). In 2004, the followers of the also-rans all fell behind the leader, Kerry, giving him a tidal wave effect.

No telling yet what will happen next year. Gore or Clark could get in the race, some scandal could emerge about Clinton or Obama or Edwards, one of the candidates could get squeezed out of the fundings race. Heck, Christopher Dodd (a highly underrated candidate, IMHO) could surge for some reason we haven't seen yet.

The one person I don't think will disappear is Hillary. She's too experienced, too positioned, too funded, and too unique. Not saying she will win or even be the front-runner by then, but she'll be one of the top two. I think.