As an Edwards supporter, I hate to say it, but these numbers have already dipped. He was two points back yesterday (1-6), but today's report - which isn't yet listed on the chart - has him falling back by nine:

"Monday, January 07, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Hillary Clinton’s national polling lead has collapsed. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 29% and John Edwards 20%."

www.rasmussenreports.com/.../daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error."

I like this data, but it makes me a little angry at democrats. Are they really this impressionable and indecisive? Republican voters, ironically, seem to be a lot less lockstep.

I think we'll see Obama vs McCain -- but, obsessives, who will the veeps be?

Not quite sure about the veeps, but I certainly have settled on my dream candidate for Attorney General: Russ Feingold.

Somebody simply needs to make this decision and inform all candidates.  I am sure that the powers that be at TNR can make this a reality.

If and when Edwards drops out and supports Obama, that may be the death knell for the Clinton campaign.

Here's hoping the message gets more traction. The messenger's not going anywhere, methinks.

Health insurance lobby delenda est

"I like this data, but it makes me a little angry at democrats. Are they really this impressionable and indecisive? Republican voters, ironically, seem to be a lot less lockstep."

I know what ralphnelle means. It is odd that one victory in white ole Iowa can give Obama such a bump. But I have to fall back on how Obama exploited the victory. As many others have noted, his victory speech was pitch perfect: the tone, the verbiage, the body language, and the message were spot on. Huckabee gave a fine talk after his victory, but it was anything but galvanizing; moreover, Huckabee isn't walking into a demographic environment tailor made to enhance his Iowa win. Right or wrong, Obama is, and it's hard to fault the man for making the most of his opportunity, And it's hard to fault Dems who already possess the inclination to support him to respond to all of the cues. Kismet?

"It is odd that one victory in white ole Iowa can give Obama such a bump"

I've been saying this for months:

The size of the bump is directly proportional to the amount of shock it sends into the system.

Outside of the politico world, Obama was nobody. He was a good speaker with a weird name (see national polls pre 1-1-2008 for evidence of this). Then he won in Iowa and beat the biggest name in the Democratic party. That throws shock into the system. That's why you get a bounce.

theQ:  How's about Obama-Biden?  I see that as unstoppable since Biden obviously provides all the "experience", particularly in foreign policy, that many potential Obama supporters feel is lacking.  I still don't think it's going to be McCain so I'm not going venture a guess on his VP pick.  I might venture that it's someone who ISN'T currently running though...

ericad - Biden's not articulate enough. Could shower more often, too

(See, walto/aero? No monomaniac here; I can take a joke...)

Charlie Crist?