Yes, and virtually all of the polls in NH showed that Obama was going to win, didn't they?

Look, anybody but a fool has learned by now that the real problem with these polls is that they may very well not be getting a representative sample -- statistical significance is the very least of it. And, beyond that, even if they are capturing the real voter sentiment, how much does that sentiment change from day to day? What happens to voter sentiment if Hillary wins tommorrow? If she doesn't, what happens to it if she wins in TX and OH on Mar 4?

While you're doing every last thing you can do to trump up the significance of these polls, it's just dumb to make a big deal out of something so unreliable and evanescent.

If your guy Obama is going to win, it's going to have to be by actual votes of actual voters -- and those numbers may bear only a small resemblance to polling numbers. Maybe that will happen and maybe it won't, but your trying to hype something like this into something it isn't ain't going to turn that trick.

Check out the CNN polling in Texas..out today:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/18/poll.texas/index.html

And to date, Obama has more that a million more votes that have been cast for him than for Mrs. Bill Clinton. Thoses are the facts. You can spin the polls, but you can not spin the actual results.

Hey, excuse me, but why isn't the fact that all the polls show Hillary losing blue states to McCain in the general election not headline news? I've been looking all over the blogosphere, and at different news websites, and there are nearly no discussions of electability. Nothing else matters if one candidate obviously can't beat McCain, and one can, there needn't be any more discussion, there needn't be any more arguing, there needn't be any other considerations at this point, all of the polls and all of the common sense show Hillary can't beat McCain and Obama can, end of story right? Why is she trying to hard to lose this election for the Dems???

Here is the best discussion of the recent polls I could find:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/26659785

We need Democrats in the states yet to vote to wise up and realize there isn't a choice anymore. We either want to win or we don't, everything else is secondary at this point. When are people going to wake up??

Yawn.

Given that over half the states have already voted, what does this national poll tell us about the state of the election? Seriously?

I'm with franklyo on this.

And I can hardly believe I'm agreeing with franklyo, but there you have it. This national poll just isn't very informative, in my opinion.

Even if I like the direction it's heading into.

the significance is not in terms of swaying people but in seeing trends and I believe that if one goes back about 2 weeks ago (perhaps 3) these 48-42 numbers were reversed and if one goes farther back then one sees an even bigger swing. Such large swings that have taken place over time are rarely completely reversed again. They also give a sense that acrosss the country people are starting to get a more fixed view of the race, i.e. they are making up their minds. A reversal of a substantial lead as Clinton enjoyed is generally devastating to supporters and candidates alike no matter how much talk of we'll fight to the end that the campaign employs.

Did anyone catch Meet the Press yesterday? The assorted GOPers (including Robert Novak, that much vaunted "douchebag of liberty") made it clear that the Republicans haven't a clue as to how to run against Obama, "a more likable candidate." Also mentioned was that "nothing will unite the GOP" like having HRC to run against, particularly given the lukewarm support for McCain. Running against her is all they've got.

No doubt, this is all part of the ongoing conspiracy to get Obama as the Dem candidate, so they can beat him like a rented drum. Come on, Frankly0, Rae...tell me again about how this works. While I'm waiting, I'll just go mix myself a big ol' batch of Kool-Aid. Mmmmm. Tastes like victory.

I would like the news if it came from a trusted polster.

Gallup isn't one. They are nearly always wrong. Just like ARG.

In fact, I wish liberal blogs would stop posting results from these two specific pollsters.

Not fair to either side.

Poor workerbee.

So much reality, so little spin.

I notice how in the latest Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by 16 points in Florida, and leading Hillary by only 6 points. That's a huge 10 point difference in a state that Democrats desperately need to carry to win the next election.

Obama is a paper tiger and a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of highlighting how infatuated Democrats currently are with Obama's well-financed personality cult, TPM would do better to point out the very real electoral danger ahead if Omama gets the nomination.

I notice how in the latest Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by 16 points in Florida, and leading Hillary by only 6 points. That's a huge 10 point difference in a state that Democrats desperately need to carry to win the next election.

Perhaps you also noticed that Rasmussen has McCain beating Clinton in Minnesota but Obamam over McCain, and perhaps you noticed SurveyUSA is out today with a poll showing McCain beating Clinton in Wisconsin but Obama over McCain. And Rasmusses says the same about Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Oregon. You might also have noticed Rasmussen has McCain over Clinton nationally but Obama over McCain.

Sadly, Democrats will ultimately run Clinton and win about as many states as Dukakis; I need a drink.

I support Sen. Obama and have been careful not to be overly critical of Sen. Clinton because there is still a fair chance she will be the nominee. I would never vote for Sen. McCain and I don't believe most Obama supporters will either.

I believe the one major wildcard that is not being discussed is the on-again/off-again independent presidential bid by Mayor Bloomberg. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to forsee a Bloomberg bid if Clinton wins "ugly." A lot of Obama supporters would find his fiscal conservative/socially liberal positions attractive. I believe he will run if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, especially if the nomination is controversial.

Hillary Clinton's triumphant New Hampshire "Comeback" was a mere two points ahead of Obama. She came in THIRD in Iowa. She got a few more popular votes in Nevada--but, Obama won 1 more delegate. Do we have to rehash South Carolina?

OK...she won the populous states of NY, NJ, Calif., and less populous states on Super Tuesday. But she and Obama nearly split the delegates.

The last 10 primaries and caucuses went handily to Obama...Obama blew her to smithereens in Virginia, 62% to 37%--the southern state that gave us the "macaca" Sen. George Allen.

To quote a former president: "Give me a break."

Hillary is teetering on defeat, as she should because in all of her myopic, privileged, elitist experience...she has never once committed to the good of the whole. (i.e. the Democratic Party). She is a bird who wants to feather her own nest. To hell with everyone else.

If this nomination goes to the convention, with Hillary clawing and demanding the lion's share of "Super-Duper Delegates" it is the death of the Democratic Party. And, she and her change agents, who are just changing the prism through which we are seeing the same picture, will be responsible.

"There'll be fighting on the streets, with our children at our feet....We WON'T get fooled again." --Roger Daltry and company.

Oh, but they can spin that. She's now the winner b/c self-identified Democratic votes for her outnumber Obama's by 500k. She will win, even if she loses TX/OH/PA/NC/SD/PR/WV/KY/IN and all the rest. Her husband will just pull out all his FBI files and start dialing up SDs. Oh, that was wrong, but at this point it seems they will go to any lengths to discount Obama.

Has anyone seen recent GE matchup polls from TX and OH? It doesn't look like any other states are going to potentially flip from red to blue with McCain as the republican nominee (with the possible exception of CO, but I doubt it as it's almost McCain's home turf). I notice one of the few states where his lead over Obama is three times that of his lead over Hillary is FL. That does not bode well for the Dems. Sure, they lose either way, but it looks like the chickens are coming home to roost. By participating in the disenfranchisement of the voters of MI and FL, Obama has written off those states for the Dems if he is the nominee. Hillary could take them but I doubt it. So, its all about TX and OH. If McCain wins those states, he is going to be president. I think the scenario there is pretty much the same as FL. She might take them; Obama definitely won't. Looks like Iowa has handed the Dems another loser and John McCain is going to be our next president. Obama's flip-flop on public financing is going to be the final nail in his coffin with swing voters. One can only hope that the net result of another electoral debacle for the dems will be a wholesale revamping of the nomination process. The fact is that a liberal Democrat has not won the presidency since Roosevelt (if you can actually call someone who was practically president for life and tried to pack the supreme court a liberal) and I doubt one will ever win again. Its probably time to move to Europe.