But, but, but...

... CNN said that he had a "hispanic problem."

Do you mean to say that the talking heads were wrong?

Oh-uh, Taylor Marsh's head just exploded - but then again, when it comes to Hillary, she is 2008's version of Yolanda Saldívar..lol

Warning: Premature exuberance.
Taking a look at some of the GE face-off polls I am starting to wonder if there really can be a rational reason to go with Hillary over Obama. From a purely numerical stand-point, Hillary loses to McCain in Nevada and Iowa based on recent polls. Obama beats McCain in Nevada and Iowa based on recent polls.
Nevada and Iowa went to Bush in 2004.
Hillary loses to McCain in Minnesota.
Obama beats McCain in Minnesota
Kerry took Minnesota in 2004.

Am I missing something here? I'm not being facetious but could someone please explain to me why a progressives would advocate going with a candidate facing the stiffest challenge in such a defining moment in History. 100 more years in Iraq could be a possibility. An admitted dunce when it comes to economic policy could mean added chaos around the world as markets crash due to failed U.S. economic policy.... AND KATRINA. What happens if there's another disaster and the less fortunate have to depend on someone who's claim to fame is to (now) be for Bush's tax cuts.

If the republicans can gel around someone they don't like so much just because he has the best chance of winning... why not the Dems. Am I missing something. Please... no mumbo jumbo supporting a candidate. I'm not a fan of Hillary... but I'd vote for her (if I could vote... Canadian citizen...not American) vs McCain. Why can't there be some rational exuberance? Please 'splain it to me.

I dunno about this one, the bottom line numbers haven't changed as dramatically as the chopped up ethnic/gender numbers. That seems kind of strange.

Bottom line, two points:

1. Polls lie all the time, don't believe the stupid polls.

2. One person, one vote. I don't care if they are an asexual purple person. One person, one vote and he is winning the vote battle.

This is huge if indeed Texas is to Hillary what Florida was for Rudy.

These numbers mean a lot (today at least) considering the number of Hispanic voters in Texas, along with two recent polls showing a very slight Clinton lead, and the delegate allocation system in Texas that would appear to benefit Obama. It all could add up to a knockout punch on March 4th.

Si, se puede!

(of course, if Hillary wins WI today and we've got a whole new storyline heading into March 4th)

I'd like to see these numbers on a state level. If California Hispanics have had a change of heart- it won't help Obama or hurt Clinton in Texas. What are the Texas numbers?

That large a swing in so short a time ... more than anything it makes me wonder how good the polling methodology was for either snapshot and for both. That looks like testing error, not a demographic shift!

Truth is that demographics can help understand voting preferences but only to the extent they are surrogates for life experiences. Two people of Hispanic origin may well make voting decisions similarly but only if they have similar backgrounds. They are more likely to have similar backgrounds than two people who are, say, white and black. But I believe a white voter and a hispanic voter who grew up in the same area, have the same socio-economic family situation, went to the same schools etc. are far more likely to vote the same way than that hispanic voter is to vote the same as another hispanic voter in another part of the country who lived a hugely different life. Surely it matters how long ago your ancestors immigrated, what your education level is, how your parents and grandparents vote etc far more than what your ethnic background is? The growth in hispanic support for Barack is simply part of the trend of general growing support for him.

Remember, fellow Obama supporters, Hillary could turn it all around with a Wisconsin win today.

That's all it would take for the momentum to do a 180.

Also, WI is significant for other reasons- it's a state in this composition tailor made for Hillary; so if he can pull of a 7-10 point victory in WI- would say a lot more than a Gallup poll. Also, I might add, a Hillary victory in WI will change this those election polling in a whisker.

Obama employed a new anti-NAFTA, populist, policy detailed campaign in WI- a theme he'll replicate in OH and TX. So, WI should tell us a lot more than less relaible GallUp poll.

These demographics on Dem side are fascinating. I do think that with all the focus on race and gender, that age (particulalry generation) still isn't getting the attention it should. Note that this Gallup poll shows Obama gaining among middle-aged voters--that's the group wgich will ultimately decide this nomination.

So much focus on the older generations going Clinton, the younger generations going Obama, but the middle generations are largely ignored, even though these are the voters likley to decide it, since these are the generations most closely divided between the two candidates.

Baby Boomers (born 1942-1953) and Generation Jones (born 1954-1965) are the two generations that will decide it. If you look at the exit polls, you find that these groups, particularly Jonesers, are the ones which keep vacillating between the candidates from poll to poll. And GenJones is about a thrid of the electorate, so keep an eye on which way they are leaning.

Now, this is some interesting info from the right-wing polling firm rasmussen. It's an electoral calculator, which predicts a dem win if the election were held today. It does give a detailed electoral break down, which is useful.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080219/pl_rasmussen/balanceofpower2008190820080219_1

Also, add in the toss-up states, if obama gets the nomination and he breaks 300. That's good news.

Not to rain on everyone's parade, but today Hillary closed to within one point of Barack on the Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104437/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Wisconsin straws in the wind:

Different parties, different motives
By Crocker Stephenson
Tuesday, Feb 19 2008, 12:19 PM

A vote doesn't necessarily mean a show of confidence for one candidate over another. Sometimes, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Take Audrey Murray, a 74-year-old registered Republican. She said she voted for Barack Obama at Glenwood Elementary School in Greenfield - but not because she likes him.

"I don't want to see Barack Obama get elected president," said Murray, a retired banker. "I don't want to see Hillary Clinton anywhere near the election."

Murray said she believes a lot of Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in order to weaken the challenge to McCain.

Other voters said they were crossing over to bring change.

At West Allis Central High School, Paul Haseler, 86, and his wife, Evelyn, 87, who both voted for George W. Bush in the last two elections, said they, too, both voted for Obama.

"I think we're just fed up with what they (the Republicans) have been offering us," Paul Haseler said. "It's time for a change

Copotter,

Just keep in mind, that there are as motives to vote as there are people voting. My 2 cents: yes, likely isolated incident. I can't imagine such motivated individuals turning out in droves and making any more difference than a point here and there.

Is there any reason to think that the returns from Milwaukee would be substantially different from other midwest industrial urban areas- St. Louis, Omaha, Kansas City, Davenport? They went strongly for BHO in their respective primaries/caususes. Based on that and the open primary, i'm sticking with Obama by 10 to 15 points.

The talking heads have hyped the clinton comeback story for so long, that we've lost track of election fundamentals.

Early this morning I was reading a Wisconsin paper online and one person said that there is a conservative talk show host with a decent following who said that she and her producers were going to vote for HRC and she requested her audience to do so also.

This is equally plausible for both our candidates because the Republican nomination is virtually locked up.

Quote: "A drop from 31% up to 4% down is a bit more than "erosion." From my civil engineering days, that would be categorized as somewhere between a significant breach in a foundation and a downright collapse."

Yes. In fact, the collapsed building now seems to be digging its own basement.