Wow.

Is this the same CNN that torched Obama Friday night?

"Will you sing 'God Bless America' now?"

and while you're at it, do a little dance, too.

Eric, I believe you, and possibly the poll itself, have slanted the false dichotomy of alternatives a tad, which has been, for Hillary, more about: best candidate = vague 'electability', and/or best candidate = undeterminable 'popular vote' taker.

It is likely that a bunch of respondents to the poll simply consider 'winning the primary contests does equals the best candidate'. So the poll question placement and actual wording is important. How many respondents understand the differences conceptually?

Let us not forget that Obama has picked up 10 SDs since OH and TX while Hillary has picked up 1 (with a net of zero with Spitzer getting spitzed).

Reeps are loving this. They know if Obama get the nod they can come out full guns blazing with all the crap that is flying below the radar of the typical people polled.

Once again the Dems engage in a circular firing squad.

Sad.

Here's what I find significant:

"The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll was conducted by telephone March 14-16"

This is during the peak of the Wright controversy saturating the airwaves. Despite another poll saying 56% less likely to vote for Obama because of this, it doesn't appear to have really made a significant dent in his national numbers.

Eric:

"each to well with demographics that have trended their way in recent primaries: Young voters, men and Dem-leaning independents for Obama, and women, older voters and whites for Hillary."

It's funny that you and all the commenters so far have failed to point out the obvious bias here: you don't mention that Obama is doing very well among African-American voters. Come on! Is that plain fact really so unmentionable?

If we're ever going to have post-racial politics in America, we're going to have to get past the point where Eric and other commenters reflexively omit any mention of race (or at least the preferences of black voters) because they are so afraid of being accused of playing "the race card".

Yeah, yeah. It's great that you have the inside scoop on irreparable damage being done. Or maybe you just left out the words "I hope" prior to that last sentence, which is pretty hard to decipher anyway.

I guess that's all some folks have left. Personally, I keep hoping for at least some voters being less gullible, and more willing to focus the issues which really matter in this election. Even though I'm not religious, I can still hope.

Hm. We have RaeK, and Aimey May, and now there's Marginal Player - or Mr. Softee Head, as I prefer to dub it. (BTW: always refer to trolls as "it"; don't let them have a gender for free; make them argue it.)

It's trite to point out grammatical errors in blog posts that are really just typos. But in the above post by Marginal Player, I think it's pretty evident that this person has problems with basic English.

The misspelling "Gallop" could come from a spell checker. But it's a long way from what's written ("Far more accurate, there is irreparable being damage with 27/7...") to "According to the far more accurate [poll], X is being irreparably damaged [by] 24/7 [coverage]..." This string of words is produced using grammar rules that are different from standard English.

In other words, Marginal Player is fairly intelligent - for some one locked in a Punjabi boiler room, getting paid by the blog post.

Outsourcing trolls. Have the Clintons no decency? No decency at all?

I like the way you headline this favorable CNN poll for Obama, but not the USAToday/Gallup polls showing him in a downward trend on all fronts. CNN polls have always been way off the mark. There in the tank for Obama.

This is also the same CNN that, as part of their Spitzer coverage, aired a piece on Anderson Cooper last Wednesday evening that re-created (staged) the "prostitute" walking down the hallway of the "hotel", re-created (staged) the handover of the cash, and re-created (staged) a shot of the prostitute sitting on the bed waiting for her client. Unfortunately, they forgot to turn down her audio in the editing room and the viewer could clearly hear the "prostitute" asking how "high" the videographer was shooting her. Of course none of this "footage" was identified as a "dramatization". This one seemed to have slipped by all the journalist watchdog groups out there...Where have all the ethics gone?

Mr. Kleefeld;

This is a sincere question from someone who has conducted polls but is nevertheless confused by the general election "matchup" polls we keep reading about. I am worried because I believe the superdelegates may actually use them as a tool of measurement at some point.

A poll, of course, is only as good as its sample is representative of the folks who will actually vote. Of course, polls this far out are of dubious value anyway, but beyond that there is a bigger concern.

The one thing we know for sure about November is that Obama and Clinton will not only perform "differently" as against McCain (based on their relative strengths) but that they will actually draw a very "different" turnout. For example, Obama can be expected to draw a higher degree of young and black voters, and perhaps some extra independents. Clinton may draw more women and blue collar voters to the polls, etc. The nomination of either will certainly alienate some of the loser's supporters and cause them to stay home.

However, these matchup polls, as I understand them, use the same exact sample when testing each candidate, and make the same assumptions about the make-up of the voters.

Shouldn't this make the sampling margin of error huge? Aren't we comparing apples and oranges? I'd appreciate if someone knowledgable would actually try to explain this in this thread.

John