I voted yes to the question in your opening post. The Democratic primaries are wide open despite what the polls say, so I don't have any confidence in the prediction that she will be the Dem nominee. I do predict, however, that our next president will almost certainly be a Democrat.
Ditto - if the Dems can come up with a fiscally conservative winner, then that person would be a shoe-in.
The country is sick and tired of the same old war-mongering policies of the Rs, and sick and tired of paying so much dad gummed money in TAXES, and not having enough money to go around, and working their tails off for virtually nothing. Hillary wants to raise taxes (repeal the Bush tax cuts) - that a RAISING of our taxes, no matter how you slice it. Obama wants to raise them even more than Hillary. So if the Dems could just nominate someone who would reign in government spending, and hold taxes steady, if not cutting them, and also have the anti-war stance behind them, they'd get into office in a landslide. The Rs are absolutely stupid for not getting behind a candidate who could win fairly easily (Ron Paul), and the Ds are absolutely stupid for not getting behind someone who WON'T raise our taxes, and is solidly anti-war, and could win VERY easily (?? - Richardson??).
The major parties just can't see the forest for the trees. The FORESTS that control the election in swing states are 1. Economy / Taxes (the economy stinks for the average person and taxes are TOO HIGH). and 2. The War in Iraq - bleeding our children's and grandchildren's financial futures dry to fund the ill-advised Iraq war, and literally bleeding our sons and daughters to death on the battlefield, for nothing worthwhile that can possible come from staying in Iraq.
To tweak the 92 Clinton slogan a bit: IT'S THE ECONOMY AND THE WAR, STUPID! You line up a candidate which has both of those issues on their side, and bolster them through the primaries, then it's smooth sailing. Doesn't look like either party is going to do that however. What Clinton and Obama and other Ds fail to understand is that the REASON we can't afford any #$%#$%@%@#$, @#%%ing, #@%#@#ing health insurance is that taxes are WAY TOO #$%#$%#$ing high. We don't need taxes to be raised MORE - we need them CUT, so we can go out and BUY health insurance. The REASON S-chip is a bad idea is that the STATES should tax and spend (legislate) in this area, in their discretion, not the federal government. Last thing on earth we need is a layer of Washington bueaurocrats taking a cut before sending the $$ BACK to us in the states, when it never should have been taken from us to begin with. That leaves us LESS money to fund healthcare for kids, not more! Idiots.
The answer to the poll question is "I don't know, but jeebus I hope not"; this was not among the choices, so I didn't vote. It IS possible, but a real stretch to think she can overcome her very high negatives in the polls. So probably NOT. Obama would be much more likely to be elected in the general than Hillary, regardless of how you may feel about him.