The key point is the key indeed.

Good news for Hillary but it won't be long-lived. After they poll post potomac and Wisconsin, things will look far different.

What's interesting in the polls is that Clinton and Obama both do relatively the same against McCain in head-to-head matchups. I think the conclusion to be drawn is that people are voting for whichever Democrat against McCain in equal numbers, so even though 20% support Clinton over Obama, they still support Obama in a matchup against McCain. I think that's telling. That signifies to me that Clinton is winning out of name recognition, not because people think Obama is a poor candidate. Obama has a good opportunity in both states to make his case and pick up a good number of votes.

Right, but looking down the road a bit, can we estimate what the delegate breakdown would be if she wins those states by those numbers? How many pledged delegates to Sen. Clinton and how many to Sen. Obama?

I don't think those numbers translate into enough pledged delegates to catch Obama's pretty wide pledged delegate lead, obviously depending on what happens in Texas as well, but any idea how close that would put her?

Actually, most polls that I have seen show Sen. Obama doing 5 points or so better against Sen. McCain than Sen. Clinton does, with Sen. Obama having a 3-5 point lead and Sen. Clinton being slightly down or tied.

I live in a suburb about 25 miles outs side of Philly and am in my late 20. I can realistically state that I do know know of one single person planning on voting for Hillary regardless of age, gender or race. The Repubs I know are either not voting or for Obama and everyone else is for Obama. However, if Hillary becomes the nominee (especially through some B.S. superdelegate scam) a lot of the votes for Obama will not then go to Hillary. They will go to McCain or no one. I don't think thats wise, but I can understand as I will have an incredibly hard time voting for Hillary after supporting Obama. Can everyone just write in Obama in November if it comes to it?

It's only fair that Obama starts behind by double digits, as he has in state after state. Believe me, if this is supposed to be a firewall, it's flammable. Rasmussen National Poll hitting later this morning: Obama 49 - Clinton 37. Among women: Obama 46 -Clinton 41. This is a snapshot of the Potomac effect. Tidal wave. Next time you see Mark Penn he's going to be like one of those hurricane reporters in rain gear, straining to stay upright in the gale despite his considerable girth.

Rasmussen is out with two new surveys showing Obama with a small lead in Wisconsin and Clinton maintaining a sizable lead in Ohio:

Wisconsin (Feb 13, 855 LV)
Obama 47
Clinton 43
Undecided 10

Ohio (Feb 13, 754 LV)
Clinton 51
Obama 37
Undecided 12

Clinton leads by 18.0% in the RCP Average for Ohio.

On balance, these have to be encouraging polls for Clinton. She's within striking distance in Wisconsin (and at worst it looks like she will avoid getting blown out) and her leads in Ohio appear to be holding up thus far.

I'm an Obama supporter, but why in the hell isn't Hillary contesting Wisconsin?? Her firewall can start there considering the poll numbers. Sheesh, does she want to lose?

"and her leads in Ohio appear to be holding up thus far."

But I think that everyone will agree that three weeks is an eternity in politics.

Democracy for America has a petition drive to stop the attempt by HRC to steal the nomination through party insiders. Now is the time, now
that the Clintonites have stated publicly that is their aim.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/votersdecide

To Frank Rizzo: I was referring to today's upcoming Rasmussen NATIONAL poll. Clinton is in free fall. Yesterday, Obama was up 46-41, previous poll he was DOWN by 6 points. Today's will apparently show him up by double-digits. But of course such a poll includes many who live in states that Penn and Clinton feel don't really count.....

Hillery declares that Red State Victories for Senator Obama are meaningless.

Hillary declares Red State victories for her in Texas and Ohio will mean everything.

Two points. One - this is not over, and Obama and his supporters need to fight hard for Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two - apparently a new poll and a major endorsement are coming out in about 5 minutes, both of which are going to be huge for Obama. It would be easy for Obama supporters to gloat, because of the long row they've had to hoe to get to this point, but the fact remains that either candidate will need the full support of the party in November, so go easy on the Hillary supporters. She's a great candidate, she may still win, and she deserves our respect - even more so if she ends up losing the nomination.

"hanging on to big leads"

nice choice of wording ...

These states are locks for Hillary and have always been ...

Hillary / Obama is the ticket get used to it.

!

Rasmussen National poll....via Drudge:

RASMUSSEN National Poll at 11 AM: Obama Takes Double Digit Lead: Obama 49% to Clinton 37%; Obama leads among women 46% to 41%... Developing.

Sayonara, Clinton Machine.

I think it's still going to be difficult for Obama to win the nomination. The Clintons have made it clear they'll do whatever it takes to win, and with the press beating on her now, it's only a matter of time before they switch over to the comeback narrative. My fear is that the Obama camp is getting ahead of itself, like they did before NH, which will allow Hillary a way back in. She may need to win all three big to catch Obama in delegates, but even if she wins two, she'll be making a strong argument that she's the one the party really wants. Not that I agree with it, but they'll have to pry the nomination from her cold, dead hands.

Judging from past performance (Arkansas aside - I understand that they have a history of a large & proud toothless constituency), Hillary is basically @ her ceiling in OH & PA based on these polls (compared with NY, say).

Barack has three weeks in OH & an eternity in PA to close these things. Does anyone think he will remain in the mid-30s there? Or that she is going to jump into the 60s?

But although the fun part is making fun of Mark Penn, I do think BO needs to take one of the 3 remaining "big" states outright in order to avoid a bloody battle for the nomination. It would leave too many question marks (Mich & Fla, who has the "momentum," etc) to make the superdel fight a lock for BO.

The national polls do not matter at this time for anyone. This election has proven it with candidates like McCain, Huckabee, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama.

Having said that I think the super-delegate conversation is overblown. Each campaign is going to spin the information to their benefit. It is entirely possible that one candidate could get the most delegates and the other the popular vote.

For what it's worth, this is what I think the super-delegates should do if the candidates are within 150 delegates of each other; assess each candidates' viability according to the results of the swing states and decide in the interest of the party. Otherwise they should just flip a coin.

Before we put too much stock in these poll results, take a look at the cross-tabs, particularly in Ohio. They show Obama with 54 percent of the black vote, and losing to Clinton with college-educated voters. That may turn out to be the case, but it bucks every trend that's been established so far. I tend to believe that when it comes to actually voting, Obama is going to do substantially better among both those groups than the poll shows.

It's time someone quietly brokered a deal based on a SCOTUS nomination for her and a Mid-East special envoy slot for Bill and let them go quietly into the night.

Having HRC on the Supreme Court would be a much better place for her than in the Senate. It would allow her to support her issues and beliefs without the scrutiny and bickering involved with Senate deliberations.

As for Bill, it offers him a chance to be a hero should he be able to broker a meaningful MidEast deal.

For the Democratic Party, we avoid a contentious convention and the resultant media circus that would make substantive discussions of issues impossible.

PA numbers are meaningless at this point. And well we all know she has low ceiling. So if her numbers are to move in the next two weeks or so in OH, they are not moving upwards for sure.

If Obama can come out with another thumping win from Wisconsin- look for these Pre-Potomac numbers is change.

However, I'd like to see him start campaigning in OH and TX as he conitues to campaign in WI.

I've just posted my analysis of the polls out this week from Ohio and Wisconsin over on my reader blog. Let me make a couple of additional points here:

1) It's the Clinton campaign that has declared these three states firewalls, not mathematical reality. In fact, she needs a lot more than three states to keep the pledged delegate count close. Blowout wins in these three states could restore one of her key talking points - that, including Florida (and perhaps Michigan) she's drawn more actual votes.

2) The Rasmussen tracking numbers are interesting, in that they're recent, and may reflect Potomac Primary momentum. But they're not significant per se, because we're no longer watching a national race. As an indication of what we may see in the next round of state-level polling to come out in a day or two, they're worth noticing. But they're not, in and of themselves, predictive of the remaining contests.

I agree that the national polls at this point are not predictive of upcoming contests, but I disagree that they're significant. What they say to me is that Clinton, the one with the near universal name recognition, has not only peaked but begun to find her new level as familiarity with Obama has grown. So I think they are more significant as an indicator of what's happening in voter's minds vis a vis Clinton. They are beginning to see her as a possible loser. This is what is most likely to happen as voters in the individual upcoming states become more familiar with Obama.

While I wouldn't put much stock in these polls, the media is obviously going to start highlighting the numbers. I think the larger-than-expected margin is actually detrimental to the Clinton campaign though. Obama has plenty of time to close the gap, and if she can't pull off the big wins that she -- and the polls -- currently project, she's finished.

Of special note in re to the electability arguments going on are the Quinippiac polls showing Obama and Hillary both losing to McCain, Hillary by 1 point, Obama by 2 (with 5% more undecided or other in the Obama-McCain matchup). Probably all that stuff is within MOE, not statistically significant. But as one who has been influenced, in part, by polls showing Obama does better against McCain and in some cases beats McCain while Hillary loses to him, I feel obliged to bring this up.

When you factor in the timing of the polls and the "have both candidates campaigned extensively in these states?" issue, I think this advantage is a mirage. A lot of the early reporting from other states has been indicative of artificial leads for Hillary, based largely on name-recognition and total unfamiliarity with her opponents. That brings up an interesting point. If those factors have largely held in most of these races, then we have a cyclical consideration:

A poll is taken well in advance of State X.
Clinton holds a large name-recognition advantage.
Clinton holds a large lead.
The media reports the results of the poll.
Contests are held in States A, B & C.
Obama wins/runs "better than expected".
The media reports on the results of the contests.
A new poll is taken in State X.
Clinton's name-recognition advantage decreases.
Clinton's lead decreases.
The media reports that Obama is "surging".
Obama starts campaigning in State X.
A new poll is conducted in State X.
Clinton's lead decreases again.
The media reports again that Obama is "surging".
Rinse & Repeat...

Put another way, Obama has the "Reverse Giuliani" effect. If Guiliani had just avoided campaigning when he was the frontrunner, he might still be in the conversation. But everywhere he campaigned, his numbers dropped. Just about everwhere Obama campaigns, his numbers go up.

I'm on the record as an Obama supporter, but I'll conclude with the notion that, if my supposition above is true, some measure of his success is effective campaigning and some measure of it is the inherently misleading and/or distorted nature of the early polling advantages for Clinton. Diminishing support is a story in and of itself. It will only be amplified when the perceived "frontrunner" is involved. The extent to which it is driven by the media is somewhat unfair to HRC.

I shed a lone tear for that...

The Wall Street Journal provides a snapshot of life inside Hillaryland: "But the campaign has something of a shellshocked feel, as staffers privately chew over a blowup last week where internal frictions flared into the open. Clinton campaign operatives say it happened as top Clinton advisers gathered in Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters to preview a TV commercial. ‘Your ad doesn't work,’ strategist Mark Penn yelled at ad-maker Mandy Grunwald. ‘The execution is all wrong,’ he said, according to the operatives. ‘Oh, it's always the ad, never the message,’ Ms. Grunwald fired back, say the operatives. The clash got so heated that political director Guy Cecil left the room, saying, ‘I'm out of here.’”

I haven't seen anyone mention this so far, but a big part of why BO is going to win Wisconsin by a healthy margin is that the state allows you to register to vote on election day.

How does it help Barry? Well, all those college aged slackers rounded up to go to the polls will be able to vote for him even if they have not bothered to register prior. It also bears repeating that these folks don't show up in the 'likely democratic voter' polls.

Any other election, I wouldn't buy this argument. But the numbers on the primaries so far show that Barry is getting the kids out to the polls in droves - and I expect Wisconsin to be more of the same, and more so due to same day registration.

Interesting... but I attended the first official Obama Organizational Meeting in Cincinnati last night. Over 1,000 volunteers attended.

I've never seen anything like that in the history of my state. That's why it's waaaaaay too early for Clinton to be confident that Ohio's in her pocket. Not so fast.

http://buckeyestateblog.com/just_got_back_from_the_first_obama_organizational_meeting_in_cincinnati

I recall someone asked about the african american demographics of PA. Some basic population info-

From 2006 US Census data. Yes, i know, raw and no indication of registration or affiliation.

TX
Self Identified Latino- 31.7%
African American- 11.9%

OH
Self Identified Latino- 2.3%
African American- 12%

PA
Latino- 4.2%
African American- 10.7%

Were the election in TX held today, I believe that BHO takes TX by 1-5 points. It's a back of the envelope calculation only, and applying conservative Potomac primary spreads. OH, today, much less confidence, although, if BHO sticks to form he should do well enough to seal the deal without this overblown brewhaha over superdelegates.

I don't think these polls are accurate. None of the DC, VA or MD polls had Obama with such a significant lead. Maybe the pollsters are not reach the young voters? Younger voters are less likely to have a land-based phone line, are the pollsters calling the public on their cell phones? I don't think they are...

I think TX will be harder for Obama to win but I think he will win OH. Clinton is losing traction, whether you agree with Obama's message of "Hope" or not how can she effectively combat his momentum? It doesn't look good for her.

right on!

We have early voting here in Texas starting 5 days from now: February 19-February 29. I don't think this will have the same kind of impact it had in Florida, where the voting started a lot earlier. By now, even in Texas, Obama has closed the name recognition and credibility gap--no one doubts that he's a viable candidate--and early voters are likely to be people who feel strongly about their choice and are not likely to be swayed by last minute campaigning anyway. In other words, I suspect most of the people who are sway-able will not vote early.

Don't know about Ohio.

So, will you Obama supporters keep claiming he's catching up in name recognition right up until his inauguration, or do you think it will take the first couple of years of his first term before voters know him as well as Hillary? I'm sure all of the voters in Ohio and Pennsylavania are saying "who's this Obama fellow I've been hearing about?"

There's no question Hillary had a huge name recognition advantage going into the primaries. That's part of the reason Obama shows such a strong trend line through the course of the campaign. He had nowhere to go but up. I'm not discounting the things he's done to help himself, including being a very good candidiate and having a good organization. But looking at those trends as being on an unstoppable upward sweep ignores the realities of the situation. I think that's old news now, and projections of an infinite upward trend for Obama based on that idea don't make sense. Why is it so hard to believe he may have a ceiling, as well?

Do you think maybe the people of Ohio &* Penn are smart enough to realize that hope and change are only words that drinking kool aid doesn't change them. Unbelievable to think that a 2 year Senator can change Wash.what a laugh. Congress makes laws the Pres just signs them into law he can HOPE that he agrees with it.

As someone who has watch politics for a long time this polls to me are troubling. Each time we hear of a poll we keep hearing new polls. Years ago there was only a handful of polls that were really repected but since we are in the spin era I keep hearing about numerous polls that a few years ago were never mentioned. Years ago we tended to rely on certain polls that had a history of producing reliable results. Now we use in poll that shows results we can use for a story and spin to our advantage. There so many polls out there and each one has a different result. The Gallop poll has Obams and Clinton in a statistical tie and this is the only poll that I am familiar with to know it has a good track record and its methods have not historically been questioned. Most of these other are so new to the scene that I do not have any way reviewing thier methods and reliabilty.
In order to have a sample that represent the general poluation you have to have an unbiased sample. An earlier poster questioned if they had just luck into an Obama rally. This could be a problem in polls. Everyone keeps talking about everyone they know thinking that this unofficial poll proves thier candidate is ahead. Since we tend to assocaite with people that are similiar to us then this is a biased sample. Also if the sample size is small it can lead to an error in the results. As far as national polls go--where are they choosing thier groups from? A mean the last I check their have been no poll results in Kentucky. If the polls are only hitting hotspots then the results can have a lop sided effect no matter how much the hotspots resembling other spots not used. I question this because in my work in ED research we have run into studies that have a biased sample with the same problems. So in my expereince I would have to view how they collected the data itself before I put any faith into a poll.

Hillary was trending down and Obama up even before the Potomac primaries. I'd also suspect it's unlikely she can reinvent herself, or cry a third time, without it doing her more harm than good.

So I'd have to agree it's likely Hillary's continues to diminish in TX, OH, PA.

In TX for example, the largest coming state, there are 228 delegates. Hillary had a 10 point lead a while ago, which has probably diminished. But even if she can hold a 10 point lead in TX that would only be a net gain of around 22 delegates for Hillary.

Another thing that may favor Obama is that TX has a mix of a primary and caucus. A little more than half (126) of the delegates are pledged via the primary vote, and then the remaining (102) are withheld until later, more than half of those (67) being pledged to proportional turnout in the caucus immediately after polls close on March 4. The remainder (35) are ratified at the convention.

Which is a bizarre system, but one where the caucus side may favor Obama if his ground operation turns out.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UPL8G80.html

Obama currently leads by 119 elected delegates, and gained +58 delegates more than Hillary in the period after Feb 5. He'll increase his lead on Feb 19.