Reply #58: They use Lieberman as the example at the end of that paragraph.

[AP]

They have no data on Lieberman, Graham, Gephardt, Mosley-Braun and Kucinich. Four of them dropped out early & got no "horse race" coverage.

They have data on Clark and they draw conclusions about him. He's in every table. He's the second candidate mentioned by name in the text, and they make statements on his candidacy in the conclusion. They clearly had an opportunity to evaluate him.

Why would they draw conclusions about him if they had no opportunity to get an informed evaluation?

Don't you think they were talking about the candidates for whom they have no data and who dropped out of the horse race and out of the race altogether before Clark?

At the very least, this is just something that might make you think Dean and Clark would have done a little better if they had started earlier with the study. But it's no reason to think that he would have closed the gap significantly to Edwards, whose performance they described as meteoric.

After all, Clark was in a very clear horse race with Edwards in TN and VA on Feb 10, which was 2/3rds the way through the study.

Are you seriously claiming that Clark wasn't part of the study still?