Okay, it's over. Enough bickering and arguing and petty attacks. Let's bring it together and start on McCain.

According to the poll, they said that 25% of respondents already voted and that went 51% to 46% for Clinton.

Does that make any sense?

That doesn't seem to fit with any of the other numbers and the massive increase in early voting.

The Clinton's need to stay long enough to raise enough money to cover their debt. That's all there is left to it.

"The margin of error is ±3.8%, so this is still technically a dead heat. Nevertheless, it's good news for Obama and bad news for Hillary."

being almost within the margin of error is EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

For one last time, Texas doesn't count, per Bill Clinton. Markos says it all:
Clinton:

I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are.

Of all the Clinton mistakes this cycle (and both sides have had plenty of them), this is the one that rankles the most. And really, it's been such a stupid and counterproductive narrative that I can't, for the life of me, fathom why they persist in using it.

Like every other state, Texas will feature more than just the presidential contest. As Texas political expert Paul Burka writes after analyzing the astonishing early turnout numbers (follow the link, you won't be disappointed):

These numbers have made me a believer. Rick Noriega could defeat John Cornyn. The Democrats can win a majority in the Texas House of Representatives. The consummate irony is that George W. Bush, who made Texas a Republican state on his way in to the presidency, may make it a Democratic state on his way out.

Sure, but only because we are likely to have a nominee that sees the value in building a 50-state party, rather than Clinton's repeated efforts to denigrate and minimize 2/3rds of the country.

With a Clinton nomination, Texas doesn't matter because it's not in her "electoral calculation". No one is suggesting Obama could win Texas, but his ground game plus the excitement he's generating across party lines could very well mean the difference between Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Rick Noriega in 2009.

It's not over until a candidate secures 50% + 1. That will take a while, even with superdelegates. I hope both candidates (and their supporters) are able to stay positive, avoid mudslinging and rise above the bitterness. Let's not feed the Republican slime machine!

I voted Obama and I'm pleased with the trend. But never count out a Clinton and never celebrate a victory until it is secured.

So she needs to turn this thing around by 24 points by next Tuesday. That's a tall order.

And thank you Fred App. The "statistical tie" nonsense drives me bonkers.

Another interesting point that Kos makes is that it's good for Hillary not to drop out because it forces Obama to put his ground machine through a test run in all these states, which will pay off in November.

It's not so much whether Obama wins Texas in the general, but that he comes close enough to help other democratic candidates in closer races.

Clinton staying in to force Obama to practice his ground operation is fine, if she doesn't get so negative that she hurts him in the general - which is the direction she's going.

The slight lead Clinton has in early voters makes sense since Clinton was leading until now. With a week to go though, it should come out about even.

No, Hillary can't use the general election fund for anything but the GE. She needs to return the money if she doesn't win the nomination. Although, money would explain her recent outbursts. If donors thought she was conceding a bit at the end of last week's debate - funds might dry up.

McCain is getting a lot of bad press but no one is paying attention because the Dem race is still going on. If the Dem race goes on too long the window of opportunity may be gone.

If Hillary loses here, it will be because of Texas' large Black population voting 90% :rollseyes:

what's that burning smell???? ... ahhh, it's Hillary's toast