ohmygod. I can't believe you reported this. It's so . . . impartial.

Do the national polls even matter anymore? The race has already gone national and the majority of states have already voted, so...I don't really care.

Once Hillary's plagiarizm is REPORTED - her polls will drop also.

Give me a break - they both mess with the words

He's had a bad couple of days in the press, but that's still a huge drop over a three-day tracking. We'll see how much the negative stories effect Wisconsin.

I'm concerned, but also sort of fatalistic: we get the nominee, and the president, we deserve.

These numbers have little to anything to do with the whole plagiarism hype. Remember, most Americans (including those polled by Gallup) have no idea of these charges.

This stuff is still pretty "inside baseball." I believe you really cannot tell about a negative attack until about a week or two after it has been levied.

I expect no one to be talking about this in a couple of weeks, IMHO.

The way I look at it, the most relevant polls are the SUSA surveys listed in the upper right hand corner, showing McCain up 3 over Clinton but losing by 6 to Obama in red state Virginia, and especially the Iowa poll showing McCain beating Clinton by 11 points, but Obama beating McCain by 10. These results are what should give Democratic primary voters looking for electability and all the Superdelegates lots of food for thought.

Reports of Obama's demise are greatly exaggerated. We'll see if her going negative works in Wisconsin -- I'm doubtful that it will. By this time tomorrow Hillary will be 0-10 in the last 10 states that voted.

And while she continues to go negative the underlying story that people are implicitly picking up about her is that she shares many qualities with our current president; missed opportunities, bad strategy, over-reliance on loyalty rather than competence in hiring decisions, sense of entitlement, arrogance, delayed reaction to threats, overly secretive, and poor decision making.

I have no special insight into the heads of my fellow voters, but given that this "plagiarism" charge did not arrive until yesterday, it is hard to see how it could have much affected the results of a tracking poll conducted from Saturday until yesterday. As such, I doubt that it had much to do with negative attacks or the like. I have no evidence that would lead me to favor one explanation over another, but nonetheless I am inclined to suspect that his earlier leads were simply the lingering remnants of post-victory hype. Now that the memory of his last victory is fading, his numbers are coming back down. If he wins WI tonight it will pump them right back up. Alternatively, if he loses WI tonight his numbers will fall again and hers will surge. As Angry Vet said, if the plagiarism charges do have an effect, it will not show up for a few days yet.

Oh, and fear-mongering campaign strategy.

Check the head-to-head polls versus McCain. Obama can win, Hillary can't.

Hillary says, it is time to elect a president (I gave her credit so she can't sue me for plagiarism, right?) but I think she is wrong. It is time to elect a Democratic nominee who can actually win a general election and doesn't start with over 50% of the nation having a negative opinion of her.

Going negative seems to work, no matter how ludicrous.

I just hope his policy of only attacking her on issues doesn't hurt him. It's honorable, but sleaze often wins.

She's throwing everything at him and hoping some will stick. It's ugly.

I hope American people are better than to fall for this crap. But we all saw the Swiftboat attacks work, even though they were false and ugly.

Our only hope is that Americans see the desperation and ruthlessness for what it is, and penalize her for it. That is what happened in South Carolina.

Unfortunately, the media often acts as typists for the Clintons talking points. Their headlines always go "Clinton camp says Obama plaguarized". People would have to read the article to realize its nonsense. I wonder why the news gets away with acting as campaign mouthpieces instead of critical thinkers.

I'm really beginning to dislike Hillary.

I love it. Hillary has double-digit leads, sometimes even as high as 20 points, both nationally and individually in most of the states which have held primaries or caucuses already. And as soon as people see the candidates up close, her leads evaporate virtually every time.

Yet the first time Obama opens up a significant lead and loses it (within one day), the headline says GALLUP: OBAMA'S NATIONAL LEAD VAPORIZES.

Um yeah, that's indicative of the trend all right.

The charge of plagiarism will stick with Obama permanently. Not because it's true, but just because of the nature of human cognition. The more people hear about something like this, the more believable it gets, just because you tend to believe what you remember well. Denials just link the two concepts - "Obama" and "plagiarism" - even more firmly in voters minds. If he ignored the charge, people would believe it, but when he denies the charge, people also tend to believe it. It's lose-lose. That's why negative campaigning works so well.

Why do you think Republicans are resurrecting that garbage about Obama voting 'present' in Illinois? It's easily explained, but that won't matter a whole lot. Making the charge will just inject it into voters' minds,... but refuting the charge will do THE SAME THING. The Republicans know this, and so do the Clintons. In attempting to win the nomination, Hillary Clinton is just doing more and more damage to the Democratic Party. Negative campaigning in a primary contest hurts us all. And she knows that very well.

This is it? That's all Hillary's got? That Obama borrowed a coupla words from a friend? A former Clinton speechwriter has even said a plagiarism charge is absurd.

Going negative only works for a short time, until the American people figure it out.

Does anyone in their right mind really believe that Obama can't come up with his own words? It's preposterous. AND deperate.

Speaking of desperate - what is this report today that Billary will attempt to steal even Obama's PLEDGED delegates? Doesn't she realize what that looks like? That she's running for HERSELF, not the American people? That she would do ANYthing to wrest the nomination from someone who'd deserved it? Have a little class, Hillary!

haha, this is so funny, media seem to forget that Obama was behind all this time and is running dead heat against Hillary. Even Obama erased the double digit lead Hillary had in Texas few days back, but the media reports about Obama losing lead??? hahhaha
way to go media. you are the winner of all polls.

Wisconsin Primary day Straws in the wind:

Obama picks up votes in Brookfield
By Journal Sentinel staff
Tuesday, Feb 19 2008, 01:46 PM

In the Republican stronghold of Brookfield, Barack Obama was picking up some support among voters who cast their votes against rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and the war in Iraq.

Merry Risch, 47, said the ongoing conflict in the Middle East was swinging her typically Republican family to the other party.

"I just don't think that we want to be over there, and they don't want us over there," said Risch, who voted for Obama, along with her 18-year-old daughter and her daughter's boyfriend.

John Urban, a 40-year-old anesthesiologist, said he voted for Obama because the Republican race already seems decided and he doesn't want to give Hillary Clinton a chance in November.

He said he will probably vote for John McCain in the general election, but he also said he would like to learn more about Obama.

"If he gets the nomination, I'll be eager to hear his ideas," Urban said.

Business owner Mike Landwehr, 43, said he didn't want to cross over to the Democratic Party to cast his vote. Instead, he backed McCain, who he said would be tough on immigration control.

"In the business that we own, we see illegal immigrants coming to our door applying for work, and we think it's wrong that illegal immigrants would displace legalized citizens," he said.

Kathleen Stilling, a 53-year-old lawyer and self-described lifelong Democrat, said she was voting for experience by voting for Clinton.

"I really like Barack Obama too, and if he's the candidate I'll cheerfully vote for him," Stilling said. "But I'm here today to vote for who I want. ... Either way, it's a historic day."

Some more Wisconsin Primary Straws in the wind, to tease you before the exit polls are released.

By Journal Sentinel staff
Tuesday, Feb 19 2008, 01:37 PM

The staff at La Casa de Esperanza used their facility's new status as downtown Waukesha's polling place to help train staff in customer service, said Anselmo Villarreal, the agency's executive director.

They got plenty of experience, with about 150 voters visiting by about 10 in the morning.

Two seasoned Waukesha voters, 78-year-old Dolores Foncannon and 82-year-old David Wright, said they voted for John McCain.

He wasn't her first choice, but Foncannon said she agrees more with the Republican Party than the Democrats.

Wright's favorite candidate was Fred Thompson, followed by Mitt Romney. Voting for either Democrat wasn't an option, he said.

"He's the only choice I had," Wright said. "I certainly could not vote for either Clinton or Obama. Hillary's a socialist, and Obama's closer to being a communist than a socialist."

Another voter, 28-year-old William Gaynor, said he had voted for President Bush in the previous two elections but was switching to vote for Barack Obama this time around.

"I've voted Republican in everything up til now, basically until I heard him," Gaynor said. "We need to get rid of the Baby Boomer generation, because since then there's been nothing but turmoil."

Gaynor said he worked for two years as a contractor in Iraq, and is using the money he earned there to put himself through nursing school at Carroll College.

"I've been there, done that," he said of his experience overseas. "And it's nothing but people my age."

Several other 20-something voters said they also were supporting Obama in this primary, citing his promise to bring change to Washington politics.

Just goes to show you, going negative works.

Always has, always will.

Except in South Carolina. Din work so well there. Kinda blew up in her face, actually.

What part of +/- 3% do you not understand? I'll wait for a bit...

I cannot believe how willfully stupid the authors of this site are. Your daily pool numbers, even three day tracking polls are full of random noise and yet you treat each turn like a frickin' plot twist in a soap opera. 50%-50% could mean 53-47 for one candidate or 47%-53 for the other. We don't know. Until you understand this, you should stop reporting these numbers all together

I read this page for Josh Marshall's usually trenchant and occasionaly brilliant analysis, but the rest of the the "reporters" on this site might as well be working for the NY Post.

Unfortunately, dirty tricks work. And the media is eating up what the Clinton camp is selling, particularly this canard about how Hillary just has to get close in Wisconsin to beat expectations—even though the demographics of the state favor her. If she wins in Wisconsin, there will be a bruising battle from here on out. Nothing else has been working for Hillary so far. And as soon as Obama responds with anything remotely negative, she's going to say, See, he's as polarizing as I am, so you might as well vote for the more experienced polarizing figure (though her claim of experience—another thing the MSM is eating up—is dubious). If dirty tricks change the direction of this race and Hillary manages to eke out a victory (still a longshot, according to Intrade), she'll lose my vote. Bottom line: As long as we continue to reward negative campaigning, it will never die.

Many of you seem to miss the gist of the story, though the depressed writings of many posters suggests not all is well in Obama-land. First, he plagerizes, then admits it with the throw-off statement that they are just words. Just words!? Not his words. You can nuance this all you want that it was a friend. Well, I've seen reports, even TPM has noted, that there are other reports of this occuring. Yes, its stinks and will stick. Remember, for those old enough, how quickly plagierism killed Biden's earlier run for president and how long it took him to recover his reputation.

ow does Obama answer a question like this:

"Senator Obama, you claim to be a new voice for change yet we see multiple reports, some you admit to, that your new voice is simply plagiarized. You even appear to dismiss plagiarism as anything serious--words from a friend, I think you said. If your daughter was caught plagiarizing and she explained that it was just shared from a friend, would you be as equally accepting of her actions? If not, then what does this say of your credibility in politics and your campaign that you find committing plagiarism no big deal?"

This is a potential self-inflicted knock-out blow to Obama.

basically, hillary's been foolish to only use one line of attack (obama's inexperience doesn't really seem to bother dems). she's been slow to open up several new lines of attack--and they seem to be flailing, but give them credit: the campaign is smart--if sleazy--to diversify its attack. if she can develop four or five different rhetorical threads then the media will have more than just one negative story to explore, shifting the total news ratio in her favor. hillary will use each of these memes in the upcoming negative ads and debates and odds are, one of the many negative approaches will ring true with somebody out there. it won't matter if they're bogus; she's out to tarnish the obama brand. this is dangerous stuff for obama: his "more of the same old nasty politics" is a good rejoinder, but less fresh.

This result is actually margin-of-error variation. The MoE of thus poll is undoubtedly greater than three points, and each candidate's result varied by exactly three points, one higher, one lower. Hard to imagine this "plagiarism" charge deciding anybody's vote.

The real question is why would Hillary open herself up to 2 weeks of everyone scrutinizing everything she has said on the campaign trail? It was a completely STUPID move on her part.

The overall trendline is clear. Look at every single state on pollster.com and Obama's trend line is at about 45 degrees. Hillary's best trendlines are about 10 degrees. This isn't a recent phenomenon; it happens everywhere he starts to campaign. She knows it and this is her last gasp. It ain't going to work. Obama by 10% in Wisconsin and then by 5% in Texas and Ohio.

OK, thanks TPM.

One more try with the Gallup link:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104428/Obama-Gaining-Among-MiddleAged-Women-Hispanics.aspx

The shift to Obama among Hispanics was a big tidal wave.

It seems Clinton's politics as usual smear of Obama as a plagiarist, despite the fact that Deval told him to use those lines, has been successful. I will never vote for a politician who will resort to these kinds of BS attacks.

I have really been enjoying this site the past few days, especially the geeks who cause me to spontaneously erupt with laughter reading their quick and clever parody takeoffs on the Clinton camper stillborn attempts to birth negative memes about Obama. Thanks, all......for the much needed humor.

The subject here is often the rovian stuff coming from the Clintons. But remember that the object of such is an unsophisticated electorate, just as that was the target in Karl Rove's campaign days.
What I think is a gift to Americans from Barack Obama and the way he is handling his campaign is that he is using this campaign season to help raise the awareness quotient of the electorate, and is doing so in a way that does not further insult the voters. Obama has made a masterful judgment about what is needed for real change.......an informed and aware and involved electorate.
Whether that awareness reaches a critical mass in this season is not yet known, but the gift of it will keep on working for us all, whoever wins.
It does seems that the movement Obama has started is like a pattern of critical mass entrainment seen in other phenomena, like pendulum clocks being set at different times that suddenly one day begin to and continue to swing together. In this analogy, Hillary's negative attempts just seem as inane as some pendulum clock factory technician hurrying around to try to counter that cohesion.

Geez, aren't you all the same people that said Hillary should step down when Obama was a little ahead?

How funny.