The timing and positioning of polls like this, and the CNN/Time poll from a couple of days ago that showed a far narrower race are interesting as to how they might effect the upcoming Iowa and New Hampshire votes.

If you think Dean would be the best possible candidate for the Republicans and the worst possible one for the Democrats, then what seems like bad news for Bush in the CNN poll is actually good news, because it makes it more likely the Dean Primary Machine will keep on rolling. On the other hand, poll results like the ones USA Today came up with might actually give undecided Democrats pause and keep them from completely casting their lot with Howie between now and the middle of February, which in turn might cause more trouble for Bush in the general election, if a rational human being turns out to be his Democratic opponent.

John --

And yet, if you believe the figures of Bush against the generic (best possible hope, usually) Democrat, which shows him also wiping them out, why not vote for the one that really will give you the best Bush-Bashing for each electoral vote. That is still Dean, and he may benefit from either type of poll. (And so I continue to pray, less for its impact on the Presidential race, but for its impact in the long-term disenfranchisement of the Democratic Party in toto in many Red States.)

Hard to believe a different Democrat would fare better after alienating the base.

How you view it -- assuming you're a Clinton-leaning Democratic Party consultant, or possibly even Karl Rove -- would be that the core Democrats hate Bush more than they love Dean, and that in the end, despite Howard's threat to take his voters and run off to Shangrala with them if he's denied the nomination, these people will vote for whoever runs against Bush in November.

Whether or not there would be the same passion to go out in an early November snowstorm and pull the leaver for Wesley, Dick or John is open to question. But the thinking would be that if those people do come out and you also get more moderate Democrats who might be scared off by Dean's eccentric world view, the combination would create a larger potential share of the vote that might defeat Bush, though admittedly those voters would be less passionate overall than the folks Dean would likely bring to the polls on Nov. 2.

Andrew Sullivan makes the point that it may be best for the country if Dean is nominated. I tend to agree with him.

There is clearly a large, vocal, passionate section of the electorate which disagrees with how the Bush administration responded to 9/11. They disagreed with the Afghanistan war as well as the Iraqi one. By nominating Dean, their point of view will have a national spokesman and this important issue may get a thorough public debate and the voters can make their decision in November. This would be healthier than having a Democratic candidate who adopted centrist positions in order to be more electable. Even if the Democrats go down to defeat because of Dean's war stands, the anti-war left will know that they had their chance to persuade the American people and failed.