Reposting from the other thread:

If they're accurate, they suggest that Obama will win Virginia by better than 60-40%; all of those performances are equal to or better than the final round of polling predicted (with the possible exception of late deciders - depends on the definition).

For example, here are the equivalent numbers from SurveyUSA, which put Obama ahead 60-38%

White voters: Clinton 49, Obama 47
Women voters: Obama 54, Clinton 44
Seniors: Obama 48, Clinton 49
Young voters: Obama 62, Clinton 36
Independents: Obama 67, Clinton 31

WOW. And isn't this supposed to be Obama's toughest race of the day?

i find this fitting for anyone still actively campaigning for/supporting Sen. Obama's opponent:
sometimes your better off dead with a gun in your hand, pointing at your head. -pet shop boys, west end girls
it must be hard for you girls and guys. i honestly do feel for you.

These women voting for Hillary becasue of gender really need to get a clue. Hillary is a corporate Democrat and will actually be worse for working and family women than Obama. Also, they really need to lay of the MSM narrative about race vs gender. That's the kind of fluff the MSM uses to avoid real issues and keep people entertained and channel surfing.

For one issue example out of many: Hillary has the same mandates in her healthcare plan as she did in 92. Mandates place the burden of a busted system and over priced HC onto consumers, and force people who can't afford it to buy into wasteful HCI. Any cost containment will also result in lowered care. It's a politcal poison pill and likely to kill HC reform again, just as it did in 92. Mass recently passed a Hillary style plan, and it's a politcal disaster with rates going up and tens of thousands of people getting insurance waivers due to unfordable rates. All it's created is a big mess analogous to "no child left behind."

By comparison, Obama's plan doesn't have mandates for adults (only children) and allows people to voluntarily buy into a program like Medicaid to get the same plan as Congress people. He emphasizes lowing costs first by forcing private companies to compete with a national insurance program, and allowing such things as negotiated drug buys to greatly lower drug costs. He always emphasizes lowing costs first, rightly believing that if he can do so, much of the public will voluntarily buy into a Gov program, which would drastically shift America's experience and opinions about Gov run HCI. Which is a much smarter way to build the popularity of the program.

Reducing costs has to be the first goal.

Secondly, it's vital that this new HCI program be a voluntary buy in, at least initially while it's building popularity, and NOT a mandate. If there are stragglers refusing to get HCI, after the program is established and popular, and after rates have been lowered to be affordable and subsidies are in place, then it's feasible to mandate the stragglers get insured.

But people who are forced into buying HCI will tend to resent it, even those millions of people who might otherwise have voluntarily bought in. That will poison the program and undermine reforms and open up a republican attack against more "big government." People who voluntarily opt in will be the best sales people and ensure its long term viability. That's the way to do it.

As Thoreau put, there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

Bravo BVD for being that one who paid attention to what's important. Sadly, I have no idea who she is either.