“It is way too early to make predictions” is usually the first line someone uses before making a prediction about the election. I am full of my own predictions too but I am trying to steer clear of them because, lets face it, this campaign is just beginning.

I do have a lot of QUESTIONS and thoughts though. Here are some relating to Democratic electorate.

Yesterday Sen. Obama received a lot of press because he came out big in a straw poll of liberal activists attending a conference. I personally never trust straw polls. Usually its because a candidate has to pull out the red carpet to get people to them and it doesn’t actually equate to a large percentage of people who will actual vote. You have to speak the language of those few voters you are wooing and in this case Sen. Clinton, who is topping all national polling and a large percentage of state polling, isn’t speaking the language liberal activists want to hear.

Because of this many argue she will lose the primaries because of a strong set of activists and Hollywood financiers who want a more liberal candidate. But she is polling and has been polling far ahead of her rivals since November.

Which brings me to the larger question. If, here we are in June, Sen. Clinton is polling ahead of Obama & Edwards nationally and in states BUT Obama & Edwards are the choices for liberal activists, then what will we see come January when primary season begins? Where is the actual base? Is it in the activists, the blogosphere & in Hollywood or is it somewhere else?

I have two schools of thought on this. First national polling is more representative then a straw poll or a liberal conference because it typically represents those people who have voted before and who are then most likely to vote again. We have seen time and again candidates who electrify young people as well as those disenchanted with the establishment & those who have never voted before. Usually when it comes time to vote though, sad to say, these individuals don’t show up or when they do have little impact on the overall election.

Lets look at the 2004 election, which was heavily watched, had an electrified public and had the highest turnout since 1968. 60.7% of the population showed up, equating about 122 million Americans. In that election 78 million Americans who were eligible to vote, did not, meaning the president actually won with just 30.8% of the eligible populations votes, which is still, actually, really good. (Center for the study of the American Electorate)

In that election over half of eligible young people (18-24) 58.8% voted. This was a huge number for young people but they still equated to about 9% of the total vote based on estimates and exit polling. (Civic Youth)

So on the one hand you have an electrified blogosphere and anti-war movement in the Democratic base that is skeptical (nice way of saying) of Clinton. These potential voters are highly charged right now because they have strong feelings about issues. So they are the most vocal and adamant but do they represent a significant enough voting block in most of the states to turn the election?

I have to believe that no, they don’t and so they will have to either convince other Democratic or Independent voters to join them OR their views must be representative of those voters we haven’t heard from yet. Which brings us back to the polling numbers.

It is possible that those who are not paying too close attention at the moment will sway toward a more liberal position. It is more likely their views are more represented in polling.

So what does the polls show us? This gets me to my second though. Polling suggests a large percentage who support Clinton and then Obama & Edwards. So one might say “well if Edwards or Obama were to drop out of the race, the other would be the benefactor as they tap into the same type of liberal candidate.”

Its plausible, though the other indicator is performance. If any candidate suddenly slips up or is reported on poorly or richly in the media it could sway opinion. Take the recent debates. Obama was seen by many (internet votes aside) as having a not so stellar performance while Clinton was seen by many as meeting or exceeding expectations. Obama’s numbers slightly went down. Edward’s numbers however did not see a major bump because of it. If the two are tied, you don’t see it in the indicators.

The only indicator that changes opinion substantially is if Al Gore is thrown in as a potential candidate, in which case Edwards numbers fluctuate while Obama and Clintons numbers fluctuate slightly but stay relatively the same (at the national level).

At the end of the day who knows?