Out of curiosity- when do you guys call it a statistical dead heat? This is pretty well within the margin of error- how can anyone tell who's ahead?

Whatever you thought of last night's debate, Clinton did NOTHING to blunt Obama's momentum over the last few days. She's going to have to do something or else this thing is going to turnout like Iowa.

As Obama steadily gains, and with McCain way ahead, I'm really surprised no one is talking about the campaign finance implications of an Obama-McCain general. Both have pledged to take public money -- converting what I've seen in some places predicted to be a $1 bil general election into a shoestring $170 million affair. It would also seem to neutralize what appears to be a big advantage for Dems, and increase the importance of 527. On the other hand, it is a bold, principled stand by two men who really seem to care deeply and personally about this issue. Why isn't anybody writing about this?

Don't hold me to this but I believe that comment from Edwards that seems to prefer Obama goes back a few weeks.

Come on John...speak up...now's the time.

Anyybody know where to get some gd polls????????? We are 4 days away from super tuesday and there isn't squat out there. This is absurd.

And, this national poll doesn't mean anything one way or the other, other than the trend is good and shows some mo, but it obviously depends on the state polls. How about some state polls??????

boo-lala

Edwards made that comment, or something very close to it, in the pre-NH debate... that was several political lifetimes ago -- certainly not since he has withdrawn from the race

Certainly if Edwards endorsed Obama between now and Feb 5, it would add to the sense of momentum reflected in the poll above

There is a Fox poll showing Clinton ahead by 10 and another poll showing Clinton by 8. When are you going post them? Nah, they do not fit your narrative!!! LOL!

We the people, not you the liberal elitists, decide who become the nominee.

Posted by FlyOnTheWall (still can't sign in. arg.):

Actually, the big news in this poll is that Gallup has made a call. Yesterday, it was on the fence, unable to say where Edwards voters were going. This afternoon, they've spotted a clear trend - they're breaking for Obama.

That ratifies what we've seen in Rasmussen, where Hillary's lead had shrunk again this morning. Rasmussen has a four day sample, but extrapolate it out, and we're now within the margin of error on both polls. And unless there's been a major Hillary surge this morning, Obama's climb willcontinue for at least the next couple of days, as the polls replace older data with newer samples.

Andrew Sullivan just posted links to polls in NJ and TN that reflect the Obama surge. We're seeing it in the national tracking. And from reports on the West Coast, it appears likely that Obama has just lapped Hillary in the biggest state of them all. He's scored SEIU's endorsement, is poised to pick up the largest Spanish-language paper in California, and has been touted in the past 24-hours on the two most popular Spanish-language radio shows in America. His rally in East LA this morning was much, much better attended than yesterday's.

There's a major shift going on here, and last night's debate did nothing to reverse it. Obama and Hillary both gambled that current trends would guarantee a win. Looks like Obama's winning that bet.

Although I haven't been polled by anyone, I suspect my own experience may reflect that of many late undecideds. Torn between Hillary and Barack -- and facing the need to caucus within the next 10 days -- I broke last week for Obama. I think they'd both make great candidates, but electability finally swung me around. I want to vote for the candidate who I feel has the best chance of beating John McCain.

The Fox Poll has HRC up by 10!!!!!!!!!!

47HRC
37BO

So, whatta ya thinka of that!?!

Also AL is now tied after BO was up on HRC
TRISTATE and New England -- HRC UP UP UP! Conn is the exception but we'll see...

Texas HRC up big!

Tenn/Arkansas HRC up?

What Obama MO?! Hillary has the MO!

DO you have other polls to show besides Gallup today.

Is there something wrong with the comment system....I am not being seen

Of course Obama supporters are "liberal elitists", lol, sounds familiar. I'm pretty sure calling Democrats elitists is one of the GOP's favorite attacks, I'm glad some of our fellow Democratic Hillary supporters are picking up on yet another GOP talking point. This ranks right up there with "vote for me or we may be attacked by terrorists, on day one". Congrats.

And I doubt this will even post, because none of the last 5 posts I've tried have actually gotten posted. Thanks TPM!

Does anybody know exactly what population is meant by "national" poll? Does the poll reflect all people in the country, including those in states that have already voted, i.e. Iowa, NH, etc. Or are these "national" polls only polling people in states that have primaries Feb 5 and beyond? Obviously, the latter would provide a more meaningful result, but I can't find any source confirming this to be the case.

test

Hooray, Obama has narrowed the gap in MO to within the margin of error. Or, perhaps I should say that Obama volunteers like myself have narrowed the gap (after going door to door in single digit weather, I am not feeling gracious enough to give all the credit to the candidate). In any event, that is exactly the sort of encouraging news I needed to see in order to get excited about all of the work that needs to get done over this coming weekend. Fired up and ready to go...

I'm hearing the news about the Spanish language media support (huge), and I'm making the logical assumption that Edwards supporters will go to Obama (thanks for letting us loose, John) and I'm anxiously awaiting the stunning one two Edwards/Richardson endorsements. Anyone with me on this? Tuesday is going to be one heck of a day!

I think these poll numbers are very soft, at best, and misleading at worst. They are likely correct that the spread is narrowing but Clinton basically retains the lead in all Feb. 5 states. I'm sure we'll see a lot of volatile polls in the next couple of days but beyond being good conversation topics, they won't mean much. Once Tuesday's votes occur, any gains Obama makes now will evaporate just as quickly.

One of the reasons I think they are soft is that while Obama did good in the well-watched debate last night, his best performance so far, he was still clearly bested by Clinton. Even if you don't agree with this, I'm sure an easier consensus is that Clinton won simply by not making a serious error and losing. The results give Obama some good press but I don't think he changed anyone's mind last night--except for the question of driver's licenses for illegal aliens. Even if this doesn't hurt him now, if he were to win the nomination, it'll kill him later on many fronts--immigration, national security, and so forth.

Anyway, these polls, the viewing audience last night, and the historic participation in the primaries and caucuses is clearly writing on the wall that this is the Democrats year. Stronger still with Clinton to shove the failures of the Republicans and their Clinton-hating propaganda down their throat in the upcoming general election.

I can't imagine 24 years of executive rule by two "royal" families.

Support Obama, or McCain or Romney (forgive my blasphemy for the last two) for that matter, but don't throw out that 'royal' family stuff as a reason. Your choice of language only shows the extent you've been affected by the campaign. Where was this talk when Bush Jr was running, especially after his first term and people saw how he performed? Choose Obama because he thinks illegals should be allowed to get drivers licenses (at least you will know who they are), while Clinton does not. Choose Obama because he doesn't think there should be a mandate that people buy health insurance, like Clinton apparently does. Choose Obama if his "I was always against the Iraq invasion" stands up to analysis, unlike Clinton who 'voted for it before I was against it'. I know, I know Kerry said that, but you get the idea. Chose one over the other because you want them to be your leader, not just because you think they can win.

Obama has been on an upward trajectory but Clinton was started to move upward, too (although at a lower tilted trajectory).

None of these polls reflect last night's debate where both candidate's had very good nights. Heading into next Tuesday, I think the great performances by both give Clinton a slight edge.

Why? Because she is the front runner and the truth is, there are really VERY FEW true undecideds in this race. Most people listing themselves as undecided have already been leaning one way or another for quite some time. Some who are on the undecided list are former Hillary leaners (probably predominately women) who were put off by the harsh tone of the campaign (which, unfairly, has been far too one-sidedly blamed on the Clinton campaign). Her performance last night reassured them enough to return to her camp.

The "undecided" focus group of CNN last night started the night about 50%/50% and claimed they exited 60%/40% Clinton. That may be evidence of my point above. Undecideds included former Clinton leaners coming back to Hillary.

There was also a Lutz focus group on Fox News that split heavily for Obama but that group was a joke and "undecided" in name only. You only had to listen to them to realize that they were predominately Obama leaners (at the very least!) going into the debate. A true "undecided" would have come out of last night's debate feeling that both candidates did really well where this focus group was very one-sided in their appraisals.

The Luntz group also included a young, bimbo Paris Hilton type who just said Hillary was boring and people her age wouldn't be able to relate to her. She didn't give a very attractive picture of an "undecided" and her comments were insulting to young people. Oh well, I guess Hillary gets the benefits of "Obama is a muslim" types so Obama is entitled to vacuous valley girls.

I'd just like to say I am not surprised if Hillary slips in the polls. MSNBC has been pushing Obama shamelessly. Their coverage favoring Obama has been shameless.

They won't let guests talk, they put words in the guests mouths when they don't like the answers, and for every minute of free air time they give Obama ads, Hillary's lucky to get a few seconds.

Even FOX has more balanced coverage. And they are clearly not pushing one over the other. Shuster and Mathews are really disgusting. I tune into CNN now. I just can't stomach MSNBC any longer.

"I'd just like to say I am not surprised if Hillary slips in the polls. MSNBC has been pushing Obama shamelessly. Their coverage favoring Obama has been shameless."

Yes, I really don't know what their motivations are. They'll have an entire panel of Clinton bashers with the exception of Pat Buchanan who is at least skeptical of both of them. However, Pat keeps pushing the Dick Morris race card theory which is really unfair to the Clintons. The Clintons did not start this race issue.

I think MSNBC's coverage has been so incredibly one-sided, though, that it may actually backfire.

I agree with your latter assessment that a very good tie may slightly favor Clinton.

Maybe. Hard to say. One could just as accurately spin this the other way and say that much of Clinton's case has been staked on her superior qualifications. If it comes across as a tie, it means that Obama does not appear too young or inexperienced, which could serve to nudge those who like him but were wary of his youth over the edge into supporting him.

"Yes, I really don't know what their motivations are. They'll have an entire panel of Clinton bashers with the exception of Pat Buchanan who is at least skeptical of both of them."

I'm glad someone else has noticed this. Of course it's kinda hard NOT to! :) Their bias treatment is so blatant!

It finally got me tuning out. I just don't watch them anymore. I switch between CNN, HeadlineNews and Fox. (Egads! I never thought I'd be watching Faux news! :) LOL

Well its not new that Mathews is a misogynist! Maybe this attitude against women comes from the network! He shouted at Dee Dee Meyers (is that her name?) one night because she disagreed with his opinion. Wow, the nerve of her to disagree with him. It was an argument about when Hillary became the front runner.

a guest wrote "I'd just like to say I am not surprised if Hillary slips in the polls. MSNBC has been pushing Obama shamelessly. Their coverage favoring Obama has been shameless.

Even FOX has more balanced coverage. And they are clearly not pushing one over the other. Shuster and Mathews are really disgusting. I tune into CNN now. I just can't stomach MSNBC any longer."

I don't think CNN is much better. Just listen to John King--he is not good at hiding his disdain
for Hillary Clinton.

Texas HRC up big!

Well, good for her. On the other hand, Texas votes a month after Super Tues, so goodness only knows what present poll numbers there can be taken to indicate.

all point in capital letters that Obama is the more LIBERAL of the two.

wait, i thought he was a reaganite. well, whatever sticks to the wall.

Miracle! I'm in!

Looking at the trends in the Gallop poll, it is astonishing to see the way that Obama continue to gain on hillary. From about 16 points behind her on the 25th of the month to just 3 points today. With gains each time they've polled. Given that trend, he may overtake hill by Super Tuesday.

Yes, thanks to Bill Bennette for keeping it real. He practically told Gloria to just stop with the spinning. Anyone looking at the debate, without a preference with no incentive to spin, would have to admit that Hillary won the debate hands down. She's the better debater, regardless of who's side you're on. That is just the facts.

just looking at some polling break downs. several have M/F ratio of 45/55 to 35/65.
is this really representative of likely voters?

Following New Hampshire and South Carolina, it's amazing to me that we're giving these polls even a moment's consideration. Hasn't it become abundantly clear by now that the vast, doughy contingent of undecided voters will eventually determine who gets the nomination? And they will make their "decision" in the same way that they merge their cars onto the freeway: They will say a little prayer to the Patron Saint of Eternal Vacillation, close their eyes, press down on something, and hope for the best.

Democracy, as usual, is being held hostage by the uninformed and the wishy-washy.

Rasmussen

Alabama
Clinton 46
Obama 41

It seems for now at least in Bama the Edwards vote has shifted to the Clinton camp.

After the polling debacles prior to New Hampshire and South Carolina, it's amazing to me that we're giving these polls even a moment's consideration. Hasn't it become abundantly clear by now that the vast, doughy contingent of undecided voters will eventually determine who gets the nomination? And they will make their "decision" in the same way that they merge their cars onto the freeway: They will say a little prayer to the Patron Saint of Eternal Vacillation, close their eyes, press down on something, and hope for the best.

Democracy, as usual, is being held hostage by the uninformed and the wishy-washy.

It appears that it has become *politically correct* to endorse Obama. I think some people, especially in the media (celebrities, etc.) think they need to endorse him to be seen in a positive light.

For example, Bill Maher, last week was talking as though he was a big Hillary fan and anyone watching could assume he was supporting her. His guests however were Obama supporters and he didn't get a lot of applause when he made his arguments in her favor.

So what does he do this week? Well, of course one of his first statements when he walks out onstage is to state that he's NOW supporting Obama and gets applause. It would have been more interesting if he had made an applause comparison with the two candidates. But I suppose they know who their audience is so don't need to.

I'm disappointed in Maher. I would have thought he'd be true to his convictions rather than jump ship for political correctness.

Yeah. The average voter put Bush in office after all. And if you're from a red state its really frustrating. My painter actually told me that he supported Republicans because he felt that even tho the tax cuts didn't really help him, he believed that by helping the wealthy business owners, in the end it helped him. He was sold the Reagon trickle down economic theory over 20 years ago and still believes it.

Now it's 7