The notion of prohibitive favorite is that the favorite is so popular as to dissuade others from running.

HRC clearly remains a strong leading candidate in NH. But the early fears about a coronation seem to now be in the rear-view mirror. Sanders is clearly in as a candidate at least until votes are actually caste in caucuses and primary elections.

He's within striking distance in NH and making gains in IA. As he closed in on these states, he can build nationally on that foundation and momentum. His movement will reframe the narrative.

Yes, Hillary is now the front runner, but no longer the prohibitive inevitable favorite.

Hillary will be paying more attention to Sanders. When she starts to challenge him or respond to him directly, all bets are off. She wishes she could just ignore him as fringe.

and they aren't yet really showing up in the same evening news casts.

That is always something of a leveler as it places the follower(s) on the same national stage as the front-runner.

Moreover, the campaigns are all running on more domestic progressive messages than typical of the past 4 cycles.

The last three presidents have lost the New Hampshire primary while the last six presidents have won the South Carolina primary.

Meanwhile, Walter Mondale was the last non-incumbent* early Democratic front-runner to actually win the nomination.


*"Incumbent" referring to being either a sitting President or a sitting Vice President

As I said the last six presidents have won the South Carolina primary: Barack Obama, George Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter.



As to your suggestion that history suggests Hillary won't be the nominee I offer this:


Candidates with a case for inevitability — the ones who started as big favorites and won the nomination without a long fight, like Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 — all held at least 50 percent of the vote in early polls, and led their opposition by enormous margins. The record of candidates with similar standing to Mrs. Clinton, like Gerald Ford in 1976 or Ted Kennedy in 1980, is not at all perfect. Kennedy lost, and Ford faced a protracted contest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?ref=todayspaper&abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0



and this:


There are, of course, unlikely scenarios in which someone other than Mrs. Clinton would be the nominee. But if anyone could ever be considered inevitable, it would be Mrs. Clinton right now. The conventional wisdom, if anything, seems to be underestimating her chances. The prediction markets tend to give her just a 75 percent chance of winning the nomination.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/upshot/hillary-clinton-and-inevitability-this-time-is-different.html?ref=todayspaper&abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0


and this:



Bernie Sanders may be gaining momentum in recent New Hampshire polling but Hillary Clinton is more dominant than ever in the national polling. She's at 65% to 9% for Bernie Sanders, 5% for Martin O'Malley, and 4% each for Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. Sanders is the most common second choice of Democratic voters at 19% and O'Malley has broken away from Chafee and Webb to become the clear third choice of primary voters at 12%. Overall Clinton is the first or second choice of 73% of Democrats to 28% for Sanders, 17% for O'Malley, 8% for Chafee, and 7% for Webb.

Clinton continues to be dominant nationally with every segment of the Democratic electorate- she's over 60% with liberals, moderates, women, men, Hispanics, whites, and voters in every age group and she's polling at 83% with African Americans. The lack of racial diversity in New Hampshire is one reason Sanders is coming closer to her there given her dominance with black voters nationally.



http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/06/walker-bush-rubio-lead-gop-field-clinton-still-dominant.html#more

I didn't see those. Glad that this poll has been noticed.