After New Hampshire, I don't want to see another freaking poll until the actual vote count.

I'm surprised to see Obama leading and schocked to see Edwards such a close 3rd. Of course, can't put too much stock in these things anymore. Still, encouraging for Obama I'd think.

If Hillary's surrogates succeed in shutting down caucus sites for working people, then she'll win. Hopefully she'll at least tip them if they do.

As close as this poll is (all 3 are within MOE), and considering what happened in IA and NH, I think I'll just wait for the results.

Dear SLKRR,

The trend line graph is you the immediate right of your own comment.

Whoops, I meant "dear cms," not "dear SLKRR."

And I also meant "is to the immediate right..." not "is you the immediate right..."

@cms:

Research 2000's last Nevada poll was in mid-November. Here are the numbers with trend lines from November:

Obama 32% (+12)
Clinton 30% (-15)
Edwards 27% (+15)

McCain 22% (+14)
Giuliani 18% (-11)
Huckabee 16% (+10)
Romney 15% (-7)
Thompson 11% (-4)
Paul 6% (-1)

In a state that has never caucused before, I'd say the best bet is to ignore every poll that is out there. No one knows who's up or who's down, or how much the lawsuit is going to affect turnout in Clark County (or to who's benefit).

The trends don't look good (for Clinton), but I'm putting little stock in these numbers.

What surprises me is the high standing of Giuliani in the Republican list. I had thought (and hoped) he was toast.

Michelle Obama injects race into campaign in new pieceon mydd.com and repeats the lie about Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment.

Dear Kid from Vegas,

Thank you for that piece of background info.

1600 California Obama volunteers leaving Wednesday and Thursday!
More info at Http://obamasf.wordpress.com

http://thepage.time.com/letter-from-nevada-teachers-opposing-caucus-lawsuit/

Stop getting my hopes up, you damn evil pollsters. You already broke my heart in NH by making my think that Obama was way ahead and then pulling the rug out from under me on election night.

HRC is gonna win this ......bet your bottom dollar.......Clinton/Obama.

Ugh...more polls. Accurate? Innacurate? Doesn't matter. People are going back and forth in this race. Re-watch the swell towards Clinton in New Hampshire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hpNLudaO4

Maybe, maybe not kefa, but we do know that she will do her best to destroy the party and people regardless of the outcome. You go clinton, what a change agent and champion of the people. Turning back the page to the do-nothing 90's administration of the clintons and demoralizing the democratic base in the process. Pathetic.

"but we do know that she will do her best to destroy the party and people regardless of the outcome."

I think that's a heck of a thing for an Obama suppoter to say. All the Hillary supporters on TPM say that they'll vote for whoever the nominee is, but it's the Obama supporters (maybe not you) who are hysterical in their hate and say they could never vote for Hillary. The Democratic brand is in better shape than it has been in decades. Hillary pointing out Obama's changing statements and votes will make no difference in our party's emerging majority.

GregL

Exactly. This move by my sister state union (AFT) attempts to disenfranchise people who have to work on Saturday which is why I find it so despicable. Teachers don't work on Saturday. Other states also have protection. In NY, for example, you are given paid time off to vote if your job schedule precludes you from getting to the polls. Let's be a little progressive and inclusive here folks.

Agree with Lombard @12:28. None of the "Edwards should drop out because he's splitting the Anti-Hillary vote" seem bothered by the lack of evidence to support their position. I asked grover_rover on another post why, if that's the case, did we see Hillary's support go up dramatically (30 to 39) when Edwards' support dropped (30 to 17) when the race moved from Iowa to New Hampshire, while Obama's support remained roughly the same (38 to 36). No response.

I admit, we're all guessing what might happen if Edwards dropped out, but at least have the decency to admit there's no solid evidence supporting this common story-line that somehow Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Hillary vote. As Lombard notes, it's very risky to generalize from the highly-policy-oriented posters on sites like these to broader electoral patterns.

Thanks for the support, Wes. We cautious and less-than-hyper-partisan people need to provide reminders sometimes that we are voters, too.

These results are very good news for Edwards. But CNN has excluded him from their head-to-head polling. (The CNN report was published earlier here at TPM, with pdf available for download here: http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/12/rel1b.b.pdf) The decision was apparently made immediately after the January 8th NH primary, as their poll was conducted between January 9 and 10. But Edwards, as a Southerner, was never expected to do that great in NH.

Further, Edwards was consistently polling as the best of the bunch of Democratic candidates in head-to-head polling against all the Republicans. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html)
Note that in the most recent match up polling against McCain (1/10/08), Hillary loses and Obama barely squeeks by with less than a third of a percentage point. But in the earlier polls, Edwards beat McCain from 4% (Zogby) to 8% (CNN). Would Edwards have continued to do better against the Republicans if he had been included in the most recent polling? We'll never know because of the CNN decision. And this is something that Democratic voters need to know in making their voting decision!

The CNN poll included Guiliani, who so far has only registered a blip in the early races, but not Edwards. For these polls to be scientifically accurate, there have to be consistent criteria applied to determine who is still viable. CNN appears to have made an executive decision here, and one that's just wrong, as it holds the potential to influence the results.

We've got 48 contests to go and the race is far from over, as these results demonstrate. CNN should not be interjecting their own preferences into the decision.

No matter which candidate one supports, this ought to be troubling. Please write CNN about this: CNN@cnn.com

The Clinton/Obama race/gender meltdown we're currently witnessing is only one more reason Edwards should stay in - we may need him when the dust settles.

MichaelA:

Changing your mind is not my crusade and at this time I don't wish to take the time to write a lengthy discourse about why I support Clinton. Unlike you, I am not offended that another Democrat prefers a different candidate.

But I will take exception to your categorization of the Clinton presidency as a do nothing administration. Legislation was passed and fights were fought that set the country on a better footing than it had when he came to office. And his administration managed accomplishments with a GOP controlled Congress. I will also give some credit to the GOP Congress of the time (Gingrich was way better in retrospect than DeLay and Hastert). Clinton worked with the GOP Congress because 1) they had the numbers and 2) the voting public wanted him to. The fact that Clinton remained popular despite his reckless personal behavior spoke to the public's confidence in him even if they wished they had a president with a little more honor.

Barney Frank recently wrote a scathing article attacking Obama's exploitation of the "tired fights of the 90s theme." If you want to find out more, look for the article.

I don't fault Obama for his use of energizing campaign themes even if they are hollow. Personally, as a moderate (possibly conservative on these pages), I don't have much problem with Obama period other than I think he is a little presumptious to be running for president at this point in his career. With a little more seasoning, I think he may be very electable and a fine president.

I do have some problems with many of his supporters because I find them naive, somewhat foolishly wistful, and completely intolerant of the fact that not everyone finds him 1) the absolute miracle drug that must be ingested for the good of the republic and 2) the champion who will win an overwhelming victory ushering in a new utopian era of unity and unprecedented accomplishment for progressive forces. Personally, I think the exact opposite could just as easily (or maybe more easily) happen: he loses this general election or the next one and gives new life to the GOP and reactionary forces.

BluePuppy wrote on January 14, 2008 1:47 PM:
. All the Hillary supporters on TPM say that they'll vote for whoever the nominee is, but it's the Obama supporters (maybe not you) who are hysterical in their hate and say they could never vote for Hillary

Well BP that makes perfect since why should the Obama supporters want to go sluming with a lieing, decitful, corrupt,equivocating candidate?

Hillary supporters can only move up to a candidate with a much better character one who is principled, honest and has far better judgment or leadership.

Whereas, the Obama supporters would have to settle for the same ol same ol politics rather than change.

NyT's "The Caucus" The Clintons Lust for Power

Lombard. So, the answer to my question about what "change" that clinton was sucessful in promoting for the good of the american people over the last 35 years isssssss - Zippo. I started typing too funny, but its actually very depressing that people are buying this garbage.

I have been asking for months to be persuaded, anything, give me anything and all I have gotten in response is attacks and conclusions. That's it.

I will be frank at my age, my mind is rusty and I have tried to remember all the great things that the clinton administration accomplished and its basically - zippo, as well. I remember Nafta, bad, welfare reform, bad, unfettered globalization, bad, privatization of government, bad, and no healthcare reform, bad. I don't remember anything good, sorry.

On the flip side, if the clintons were honest, I would give them credit for trying something or being stymied by the republican congress. Obviously, it would have been difficult to get anything progressive through the congress after 94. They could spin it completely differently and honestly, but they have chosen dishonesty.

Anyway, still waiting to be persuaded and getting more depressed day by day with the politics as usual and the politics of personal destruction being practiced by the clintons.

Hi lombard, I get that changing my mind is not your crusade, but you obviously want to defend your candidate. And the answer is ZIPPO, she has done nada, but she spouts off as a change-agent for the last 35 years. Oh, that's right the right-wing media is giving her a hard time, by not asking a freaking question about either her non-existent overwhelming experience or her 35 years of changing america. Jeeez, the way she talks they should put her head on mt. rushmore.

Obviously, you get my point and you come back with the economy. Well, the economy really doesn't do it for me because it was the dot-com nonsense that went bust. Its kind of like the b-movie actor's wonderful economy, that went bust after the ridiculous deficit spending on absurd military toys went by the wayside. Same result, the economy went bust.

So, the fact that clinton lead the country by looking at polls as opposed to doing what is right is good for you???? It doesn't fly for me on the poor moves by clinton that he could have easily swung public opinion on from the bully pulpit. Welfare reform????? Give me a break. I am guessing that he did it because it would have been jammed down his throat by congress, not out of the "kindness" of his heart.

Also, I actually give some credit to the republican congress for the budget surpluses, don't you?

Anyway, what change for the good of america have either of them done? It's sad to say, but in reality nothing. That's what is tragic about this whole farce.