Yeah, I’ve always found their polls to be odd and predictive of nothing whatsoever. But I did like them.
Birds of a feather. 
256 days to the Iowa Caucus and Clinton still polling at 60%.
At this point in 2004, Joe Lieberman led. At this point in 2008, Hillary Clinton led. Granted, 60% is a big lead, but I still think Clinton’s support even among Democrats is very soft.
We have another NH poll, this time showing Clinton trailing all her Republican challengers(that they polled anyway) except for Ted Cruz, who she leads by 1. In a state Obama won twice.
To sum up: polls which show Clinton in the lead aren’t indicative because it’s too early, but polls which show Clinton as behind are entirely indicative.
Hey, that’s exactly the way he called Obama - Romney 2012! Am I seeing a pattern?
Please don’t bet more than a bottle of pop and/or a hamburger on the outcome of the election. You’re taking polls 18 months out between someone who has had mud smeared on her for the past 23 years to relative unknowns who have yet to face serious scrutiny. Not to mention you’re looking at about the two whitest states in the country. Even with the demographics, Obama won these states twice. Is there any reason why Hillary won’t do as well?
At what point was Obama trailing a Republican candidate in New Hampshire?
Did they measure that far back in 2008? He was the heavy underdog to Hillary this time in 2007, I don’t know if they bothered to poll him vs. Republicans then.
Notably through February and March of 2012 and as late as October 21, 2012. This stuff is pretty easy to look up.
Some directly comparable polls…
Obama v McCain
University of New Hampshire 4/25 - 4/30/2007 McCain +6
Obama v Romney
WMUR/UNH 4/15 - 4/26/2011 Romney +7
While this is true, it only applies if one is interested in seeing if any facts or data exist that might undercut one’s preconceived notions.
Some people have a track record of frantically clinging to what they want to be the case as opposed to acknowledging reality.
And doubling back into the perceived honesty issue … assuming that the eventual GOP nominee survives their primary mud bath with a higher perceived honesty rating than HRC has at that point (a big big assumption) here is an article saying what I said earlier but with more data!
Even “character” voters do not decide on the one feature of character alone. Perceived leadership, competency, empathy … and a variety of other dimensions also contribute to what we think of as character. Bill was so high on those that perceived dishonesty on things like Whitewater just rolled off and many character voters chose him for those other dimensions. Hillary does not ooze empathy like he did … people believed he felt their pain and I doubt will believe her so much. But on perceived leadership ability and competency? At least for now she blows the GOP competition away.
I wonder how long Clinton can dodge the media?
GWB managed it for eight years.
Once you’re elected you can get away with quite a bit. Getting elected without talking to the media is a pretty big challenge.
Whatever Clinton’s problems, apparently there’s always an excuse for why they won’t matter. She’s going to need a lot of excuses.
In other words, IOKIYAR. 
It’s not a problem. It’s good strategy. There’s no good reason for her to come out and answer a million questions right now. Once the campaigns get into full swing there will be plenty of time for questions and answers and more adaher complaints about them but for now it’s early and why give people ammunition if you don’t have to. There’s a lot of time between now and when votes start getting cast.
And my response would be the same for any of the GOP people that want to sit tight on the press for now.