Most of the samples were taken on or just after the T.K. endorsement.

This is highly misleading - The true poll results will be those coming on sat/sun.

Now that's what I call a bump.

There are 2 things I want to address...

1) Why is McCain polling ahead of both Obama and Hillary now by about 6% when the same polling company was showing him less than a week ago polling behind both by 3-5%?

2) Was it me, or did McCain look smug, arrogant, condescending and immature in tonight's debate? I actually tended to like McCain in comparison to his rivals, but I was seriously disappointed by his cranky old man routine in the debate. I guess he won't be as hard to beat as I thought he would be.

Wow. Any way you slice it, Obama seems to be moving on Hillary nationwide. It's going to be close on 2/5.

The more you see Hillary, the more you want to back Obama.

Does anyone know why Hillary is appearing on FOX News trying to play the "coy" female?

If you assume that the SurveyUSA poll (Clinton +37) was a good indicator of where the race stood at that time and that the Rasmussen results (if they'd taken a poll during the same period) would have been similar, then Obama has made up A LOT of ground in a short timeframe.

A lot has occurred since then, but Obama is SURGING big time. He's erased a 20 to 30 point deficit in a matter of DAYS.

I don't see it as misleading. Perhaps that 37 point spread was just way out there.

Yeah, what was with Hillary playing up "the snub"? on Fox. And Clinton supporters have the gall to whine about how the media is against her, when she plays into this completely media-driven crap. No integrity at all.

Oh, oh I put my hand out for Barack and he turned his back on meee!! Never mind that you were putting your hand out for TK. Good news with this poll.

Yeah, Hillary disgusts me with that playing the media "snub" game, seriously, how petty and low. Not to mention it is all a flat out lie. You never put out your hand for him, you were going to Ted Kennedy, not Obama, shut up, this is why people hate you.

Did I hear correctly that Edwards said he would not be endorsing anyone before Tuesday?

What everyone else said:

-This was a one-night survey, and they aren't accurate. That's why most polls take place over several days.

--This was right after a big event (Ted's endorsement). That skews the poll results. The true measure of public opinion is a few days later.

--This is a different company from the previous poll using different methodology and sample size.

Of course, one would expect tightening from a 37 point in Mass. after a Kennedy endorsement. The movement in his direction has to be encouraging for Obama. But it has to be encouraging to Hillary that, even post endorsement and SC, she still has a comfortable lead.

I don't think the Clintons are going to get too much mileage out of "the snub".

The real issues are:
(1)How will voters process the FL results?
(2)Will JE endorse Obama and when? (I can't believe for a moment that he'd endorse Hillary).
(3)Richardson is going to endorse someone by the end of the week. Who will he choose?

Tuesday is a lifetime away. A trillion things could happen between now and then. If Clinton's plan is to run out the clock, she's making a big mistake. You have to seize it.

Not to be a hater, but...
Ralph Nader, what the hell do you think you are doing?! Haven't the last 8 years been a sobering testimony to the dangers of giving in to your egoism? Did it feel good knowing the harm you caused our country in 2000? And don't anyone try to lay it all on the Supreme 9 because it would not have been up to them if Ralphie had just stayed out of it.
Start a PAC, take out ads, get the message out there and try to frame the debate, but get over yourself. In 2000 we got a president who was hell-bent on invading Iraq because of you, and in 2008 we could get a president hell-bent on invading Iran because of you. Enough!!

OK, it's out of my system... for now.

Obama is by far the best candidate. Based on his background, leadership abilities, and policy positions he has my vote. He is also the cleanest candidate in my opinion. I just found this website that shows Hillary has way too many skeletons that will come up again if she is the nominee. Obama is relatively clean and honest when he makes a mistake.

www.realchange.org

This is not a site that supports Obama. I, however, do!

Man all these "she will crush him on 2/5" people are all of a sudden saying that you cant trust the polls. Still, I admit I won't get my hopes up yet, there's still ground to make. But it's looking closer, and I have a feeling that Obama still has an "ace up his sleeve." (Gore? Edwards? Richardson?)

I think the psot-Edwards departure polls will show a deadheat, pretty much everywhere but the SouthWest.

Hillary is following the same trajectory as her GOP colleague from New York whi just departed the campaign today. Basically she was riding the wave of national name recognition, and popularity among a core group of voters, that once the people began to focus on the campaign, was set aside as the voters looked to see who they really wanted as their party's standard bearer in November. The velocity of Rudy's collapse was greater, but the end points will be the same. Hillary has steadily been losing support among almost every demographic group except older white women, and Hispanics. I think she will be able to hold those groups well enough (short of a Richardson endorsement of Obama) through 2/5, but everyone has known since Iowa that this election is about CHANGE, and any change voters currently supporting Edwards are not going to end up supporting Hillary - if they thought Hillary was the change candidate, they would have been supporting her already.

Look for Obama to win ID, the Midwest, and South on 2/5, and Hillary to win NY, and the Southwest. CO, CT and MA I see as pretty much deadheats. With the size of NY and CA Hillary will likely lead in delegates on 2/6, but for the next two weeks the map favors Barack so I see him having the momentum going into closing stages of the campaign. And with most of Hillary's donors maxed out, she is not going to be able to make it past March 4th when OH and TX vote - both of which I see going to Obama.

Keith, I know politics is a rough game but I'd still like to think Edwards has a modicum of integrity. With that in mind, why would he endorse a woman who the previous decided to kick him while he was down? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_robocalls_hit_Edwards.html

Just last Saturday, when Joe Trippi called out Clinton's rep on the robocalls, she smugly said: "Politics is tough." Despicable...

Keith writes

The answer is to endorse Hillary. I predict he waits until after Thursday (to make sure she does OK in the debate) and then pulls the trigger on Friday with an endorsement.

Keith, you're probably right, but I submit three caveats. First, the longer he waits, the less negotiating clout he has. If Clinton has it wrapped after 2/5, she won't give him sh-t. Second, I think that he really doesn't like Clinton, and his animosity could lead him to take a bigger risk. Third, Obama might offer him more than Clinton does (VP?), which could balance the risk.

Mark Ambinder of The Atlantic breaks down the numbers thusly:

Based on polling and analysis and interviews with campaign officials.....

Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Obama has an edge in Idaho, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.

The following states lean to Clinton right now: California, Connecticut

The following entities lean Obama right now: Colorado, Democrats Abroad

True tossups: Arizona, Delaware, New Mexico, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts

If Edwards does endorse Hillary, people will look at it as a huge sell-out... he has obviously taken Obamas side more than hers. Politicaly, they may be a bit more alligned than he and Obama, but on everything else... I just can't see him doing it, especially after watching his speech today.

A very interesting development:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=393

Does anyone know why Hillary is appearing on FOX News trying to play the "coy" female?

That's her base: old, uninformed Fox viewers.

Ryan Scott wrote on January 30, 2008 9:55 PM: Obama still needs a couple of more good days to close the gap. His website doesn't have any events listed for tomorrow or Friday, but it does list something for Saturday. He's keeping his calendar clear. Is that because he knows he's got Richardson's endorsement and wants it to be a surprise, or is he keeping the date clear in case of a sudden need to fly to NM?

Actually Obama just announced two events in New Mexico for Friday, one early afternoon economic summit, one evening rally.

I'm not saying that means he has Richardson's endorsement, but IF it's happening (huge if that I still consider unlikely), it'll probably happen on Friday.

I think Obama supporters are overlooking a couple of things. Obama is coming off the best week of his life, so naturally the polls are going to be skewed. The win in SC by such big numbders made him suddenly look like a frontrunner, a theme the media gladly played up. And some of the real demographic issues that led to that win are not possible to discuss, because the Obama camp has successfully labeled as racist any discussion of the vote that centers on race.

He also got the Kennedy endorsement, which was a big boost for him. And the media played along once again, covering it like Princess Di's wedding. But the glow of endorsements fades, and the frontrunner image will be a little hard to maintain if Hillary beats him by a decent margin on Super Tuesday.

I don't pretend to know what will happen, but I do know that many Obama supporters seem hopelssly naive when it comes to electoral politics. When Obama wins, they're almost orgasmic in their tiumphalism, certain that he's on his way to victory. When he loses, all they can tak about is the other side cheating.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will support him wholeheartedly. But that's a long way off, and I think Obama supporters are kidding themsleves if they think this surge in the polls means game over. When Hillary racks up some big wins on Tuesday the press is just as likely to start peddling a "comeback kid" theme.

I admit, I am reposting from another thread in the TPM universe, but figured it was germane, so:

I will say it again (for the first time here). Last Monday Obama set the trap by calling out Bill on Good Morning America in advance of the debate. To me, the message was, "If you can't control Bill, then I will." They took the bait, the debate became all about BOTH Bill & Hillary and the week was spent discussing "Billary." Obama and his team drove the narrative all week and they got the idea of a co-presidency into the public's bloodstream.

Say what you want about Obama, but he clearly has learned a few lessons on how to play the game. The entire Clinton campaign was on the defensive before South Carolina and Monday's stunt in Florida was a weak attempt to get the news cycle.

Edwards dropping out dominated the news cycle today with the Obama Denver speech also breaking through because he drew sharp distinctions with his only opponent left in the race.

That said, the Clintons are very very smart so they will have a few tricks up their sleeve, but they have got some serious catching up to do tomorrow night in LA. 8PM, CNN. Be there.

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR HILLARY. !!!HILLMENTUM!!!

Hillmentum? Please. Obama's got the Hulkster:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/hulk_hogans_view.php

Ain't no stopping that train.

More good news for Obama:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/30/BAVUUO9E4.DTL

(scroll down)

I admit this isnt the most official poll ever, but here's what it came up with:

Over three nights, last Wed, Thur, and Sun, its
Hillary 36
Obama 31

On just Sunday however, the numbers are this:
Hillary 32
Obama 35

w/ Monday looking basically

Like the MA poll, it doesn't prove anything, but things are definetly looking better for Obama then a week ago.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_ClintonRezko_080125_ms.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXWsMZLRsT8

Obama's toast

Hey Grant, you are an inbred smear-merchant..

In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:

Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican

Duane, I take it that was the text of the HRC robocall against Edwards?

Disgusting. Now I really hope he endorses Obama.

Hey Snub,

If this is what Hillary is peddling the night before the most important debate in her 35 years of service, then she's got internal polls that are far worse than anything we are seeing.

Just as I don't think the still photo of the Clintons and Rezko proves anything, neither do a couple of still shots from the floor of the House.

You might want to try breathing through a paper bag. It will help calm you down.

"then she's got internal polls that are far worse than anything we are seeing."

I love it when Hussein voters think they know the Hillary campaign's internal numbers. I'll give give two numbers, 51% to 33% in Florida. Oh, Florida doesn't count. Really? How come Edwards dropped out after Florida? Because he did so great there? You know Hussein is toast, just try like yourself in the morning.

"I love it when Hussein"

*Douchebag alert!*

Actually Swarty, RE: Snub peddling, it is a pretty effective dog-whistle to a certain demographic. It was the first thing our company HR manager brought up this morning when we met in the cafeteria.

Big trouble in Camp Clinton --

I bet we see this up on TPM within the hour.

The New York Times has a front page story on Bill Clinton titled "An Ex-President, a mining deal, and Big Donor".

4 e-pages... looks like it's gonna be front page on the NYT tomorrow

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&hp

Bill Clinton, 10s of millions of dollars, a uranium mining shell company, influence peddling...

This looks big!

I think we have our last HRC news cycle before Super Tuesday!

I can't believe -- I think Obama is going to get it done!!!!!!!

Obama in 2001: Rumsfeld in the Mainstream

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/...

Really?

How come Edwards dropped out after Florida?

This is kinda weird since he battled to a 0-0-0 tie there.

So did he wait to drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Obama campaign to blunt any coverage or momentum Hillary might get from the results the night before?

Or did he drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Clinton to make her Florida results look so impressive that it pushed him out of the race, and also give her time to coalesce the white vote before February 5th?

Either way, we're going to find out!

"I can't believe -- I think Obama is going to get it done!!!!!!!"

Smoke another bowl. Not a chance in hell.

We finally have irrefutable proof that Bush's Niger-Saddam-yellowcake story was complete bunk, likely manufactured.

It appears obvious that everyone gets their uranium from Crazy Bill's Discount Uranium!

twWfafa2 cool site!!! [url=http://farush1.com]cool site!!![/url] http://farush2.com faferh61

It appears obvious that everyone gets their uranium from Crazy Bill's Discount Uranium!

LOL!

Ya know, just for the record in 2001 Rumsfeld did seem sane. In fact, he appeared to be the only sane one in the bunch. Real Fucking Crazy is sneaky like that.

To the snub's bully,

That video was debunked:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/95999

Don't spread slander. You make Obama look bad.

Duate writes

How come Edwards dropped out after Florida?

This is kinda weird since he battled to a 0-0-0 tie there.

So did he wait to drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Obama campaign to blunt any coverage or momentum Hillary might get from the results the night before?

Or did he drop out the morning after Florida in a pre-arranged scheme with Clinton to make her Florida results look so impressive that it pushed him out of the race, and also give her time to coalesce the white vote before February 5th?

It's all speculation, so I kinda doubt both, but especially the latter. You want to space out your big media events, not jumble them all up.

In favor of the former, the speculation on another thread also notes that Edwards did not drop out after SC, which would have distracted from Obama's big win.

Here's the test: If Edwards does not endorse anyone until after super tuesday, then he's acting on his own behalf and waiting to see who's gonna win. If he endorses Obama before super tuesday, then I suspect that they've been colluding for a while.

Oh yeah...

"too complicated".

geez, why didn't WE think of that when it was Rezko, Rezko, Rezko?

Why didn't the GOP think of that with Abramoff?

Yeah... $131 million from a foreign uranium mining magnate... cozying up to one of those lovely foreign dictators -- who wins elections with 91% of the vote :-) -- all while your wife is sitting on the committee condemning the nation in question for human rights violations?

Oh yeah... I'm sure it will pass without notice!

Time to break the glass on the Clinton Emergency Damage Control Kit.

QUick--- call Jesse Jackson to pray with the family... oops... wait.

Time to break the glass on the Clinton Emergency Damage Control Kit.

QUick--- call Jesse Jackson to pray with the family... oops... wait.

They haven't spoken since Jackson didn't endorse Bill in the South Carolina primary and caused him to come in a very distant fourth place and drop out.

Captain-Sky wrote on January 31, 2008 12:50 AM:

Captain we need to know your orbit to send you some CARE packages! Reply ASAP!

For those of you who can't access the Times, here's the story of the day. This is big. This is "Hillary will not be president" big.

1. On Sept. 6, 2005, the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Kazakhstan.

2. Accompanying Mr. Giustra was Bill Clinton.

3. Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for “opening up the social and political life of your country.”

4. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

5. Nursultan A. Nazarbayev's 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

6. Within two days, Mr. Giustra's company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra.

7. Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra.

8. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

Well remember, whenever the media attacks the Clintons the first you got to ask is: 1) is the GOP or the Righties anywhere in this, and 2) is it true.

I'm a hardcore Obama supporter, I'd do no more than check the box for Clinton if she won the nomination but smearing the Clintons was the national elites' pass time for 7 years so let's be cautious on this one.

marquezV wrote on January 30, 2008 11:34 PM:
In the interest of neutrality, and to counterbalance those who argue Hillary is Satan, I want to point out three key differences:

Satan provides free heat
Satan has better music
Satan is an open Republican

My goodness. That is absolutely hilarious. Had to wipe the tears on that one.