The term "conventional wisdom" was coined by controversial economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He used it to debunk it -- his point was that many things "everybody knew" weren't true.

It's ridiculous to use today's polls to make any predictions about what will happen in a process that doesn't begin for 11 months. You want proof? How about the polls just two weeks before the Iowa caucus that had Howard Dean way out in front? He had the money, the momentum and the media.

He finished a distant third. And that was before the scream.

Hillary Clinton is probably the shrewdest politician in the field. She has the most money, the largest organization, and some of the best political minds working for her (including a guy named Bill).

As regards Congress, historically Congress doesn't switch hands without a sweeping reason for change. We won in 2006 for three reasons -- Iraq, scandals, and Iraq. The Republicans won in 1994 because of Hillary's healthcare mess (and don't think she hasn't learned from that!) and Newt's "contract on [with] America".

In addition, 21 of the 33 Senate seats up for grabs are currently held by Republicans. They have a lot of territory to defend; chances are, even if they win the White House (or steal it again), we'll still pick up seats.

Again, however, it's far too early to tell. Remember, this time in 2005 we had no idea we'd have anything to cheer about in the 2006 elections, and look what happened!

...she's losing frigging New Jersey. This is a problem. Agreed that polls at this point in the cycle are pretty much fluff, but these polls gel with what we've seen over the last few years.

If you look at the numbers, they show Obama doing even worse against John McCain in NJ than Hillary Clinton does. 39% for Obama, 42% for McCain. Edwards is even worse 39% to 45% to McCain. Unfortunately, they don't do a match up for Obama and Edwards with Guiliani, but I would imagine they would fair even worse aginst him.

So if this poll is to be believed, Hillary is actually our best bet for winning NJ. I don't believe this poll, I think they sampled an unusually conservative group.

Here's the Link /a>

...I'd argue that Obama and Edwards, still being largely unknown (by comparison) have room for improvement. Hillary, with 98% name ID, doesn't.

I think you're underestimating the Clinton campaign's ability to manipulate the press and change people's minds. One reason she's been villified as being so calculating and aloof all this time is that she's been waiting to make a big push all at once to change her image. I know plenty of people that don't like Hilary, but most of them (and this of course excludes all my aquaintances that are right-wing nuts) don't hate her.

I think her campaign might be trying this push a little bit too early, and that her momentum might run out before the general election. If she doesn't win, everyone will say that she could never have won, and that she shouldn't have run, but I think it would be because of a tactical mistake on the part of her campaign. We'll see though, it's gonna be interesting, if nothing else.

Having disputed Bouldin's initial claim in an earlier comment, I'd like to switch sides and agree with his basic idea -- that Hillary Clinton could "destroy the Democratic Party."

Two years after winning the Presidency (and without much in the way of coattails), Bill Clinton lost control of Congress. He never came close to getting it back.

In 1998, he allowed himself to be impeached, rather than getting the facts out about the legitimate reasons for impeachment. Only at the Senate trial did he have former Senator Dale Bumpers explain the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

Yes, we picked up seats in the '98 election, but not nearly as many as we should have gotten, given the Republicans' disgusting, hypocritical behavior.

Bill Clinton didn't give a damn about the party, and there's no reason to believe Hillary is any different. So even if she wins in '08 there's no reason to believe it will help get other Democrats elected.