Reply #12: Re: undecideds [View All]

Yeah, you're right. The reason they're undecided at this point, of course, is that one candidate hasn't won them over. As the number of available candidates declines, the decision gets a little less complicated (notice I said "complicated", not "difficult" :) ).

I didn't really mean to summarily dismiss the current polls as much as I did - the tendency to overemphasize them (especially by the supporters of whomever happens to be the frontrunner at that moment) drives me a little batty. Some Dean supporters, for example, looked at his large lead in NH and declared the primary over. Never mind that Clinton lost both IA and NH in 1992 and still won the nom.

Re: Clinton - I didn't recall him being the perceived frontrunner initially, but I don't doubt your statement. True, he wasn't really an unknown to the party leadership, but it seemed like he didn't really hit the general public radar until fairly late. He really picked up momentum at the right time and overcame losing Iowa and New Hampshire.

I wonder how much Clark's campaign is patterned after Clinton's. Not idealistically, of course, but from a timing standpoint.