Eric - you want to tell me what meaning this poll has?

You want to explain just how a poll between someone who has already lost the delegate count and the nominee is worth one thing?

Welcome to the carnival, everyone.

If this wasn't being constantly pushed, it would finally find it's place - which is not as big ass news.

She can't make up the difference so why are we doing this?

shameful.

PPP has not done a good job with polling as far as I'm concerned.

I don't trust.

More GOOD News:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows John McCain attracting 46% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 45%. In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, it’s Clinton 45% McCain 45%

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s Obama 47%, Clinton 43% (see recent Democratic Nomination results). Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. Today’s update shows the race as close as it has been since the Pennsylvania Primary. Results from the past two nights of tracking are even closer. If this tightening continues, it would suggest that the issues surrounding Reverend Jeremiah Wright are having a significant impact on support for Barack Obama. A separate survey found that 36% say a candidate’s character is more important than his specific policy positions. Most, however, are more interested in the policies.

Clinton leads 48-47 with the 14% of voters who described themselves as Republicans.

Operation Chaos in action.

I like how Thomas Friedman refers to the McCain-Clinton gas plan. Kinda says a lot about Hillary CLinton.

Oh, and he also describes it as "shameless pandering".

I can see it.

Damn that edit page - over and over and over I get error messages when I try to change the gravatar.

Damn blogging software - never works right.

Young Mr. Hillary. "More of a man than Rocky Balboa"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rleUPHX8yfM

Alternate Headline: Nomination Remains Out of Reach for Clinton

A new poll out today shows that Hillary Clinton falls well short of the 68% support she will need in every remaining primary state just to pull even with Barack Obama in elected delegates. In Indiana she polls at just 50%, a full 18 points short of the support she would need to blunt Obama's insurmountable lead. In North Carolina, she continues to trail Obama with no hope of catching up.

I'm heading back to Indy this weekend to rally our peeps. Y'all keep phonebanking and donating and we will deliver for our man.

Two questions might be relevant

1) What is the movement in this poll, if any?

2) What is the polling outfit's history of accuracy?

Obama is a liar. Obama KNEW his Pastor words from the pulit were racist and anti-American BEFORE he announced for POTUS. Fresh evidence of honest Barry-O:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0n16tLzsAI&eurl=http://redstate.com/

It's over--for HRC. Barack MUST run as if it's not over at all and fight for every delegate, every state that he can get. But it's over for HRC. The superdelegate news today, Obama's repudiation of Wright yesterday--it's over. The narrative is changing again, despite the media pile-on and the two-front HRC/McCain attack. She may well win Indiana, but it's over.

it shocks me to know end how, rather than actually show you can win the nomination outright by winning votes, the obama supporters here seem oddly bent on denying or dismissing democracy and voting and voter sentiment, and seem more intent on rationalizing arguments that try to justify ending the contest early and discounting the votes of the 9 remaining states + the votes of citizens of florida and michigan.

your guy is a hoopster, right? supposed to be well-skilled in "competition" and "playing a full 40 minutes" and "playing through the whistle." i know he was at unc the other day doing his "every man tour", and i realize unc is the birthplace of the dean smith "4 corners offense" (an oxymoron if ever there was one since there's nothing remotely aggressive or offense-oriented about the stall tactic that is the 4 corners "o"), but not a compelling win to win a nomination/"party mandate", and certainly not a strategy that has any chance of success in the general.

works for me and my candidate, though. while obama sits back believing he's got this "wrapped up" and can "coast to the nomination", my gal is going to just keep winning states and winning votes and making her case to the people the party and the super ds.

we'll see where things end up.

i'm optimistic.

I'll tell you hwere this ends up.....

Hillary must win the next 9 states with 70% of the vote... and when she doesn't.... Obama locks up the Democratic nomination for POTUS.

And is elected the next President of the United States!!!

Sorry for the double post, I am a newbie to the posting boards here and tried to put the link in before I sent off the first one.

The markets follow CW and are not indicative of anything beyond that. It's been obvious since PA that the media believes HRC's chances have improved. All I'm saying is that there's still no way she can win this. Complacency? Absolutely not. HRC is going to stay in the race no matter what. She would've stayed in even if she'd lost PA, and she'll stay in no matter what happens in IN (frankly, I do think she's going to win here and have thought so all along). Obama needs to keep running hard and to shore himself up in areas that he'll need for the GE. He needs to court HRC supporters more aggressively. I'm just saying that the gloom-and-doom cloud to which Josh alluded yesterday is beginning to dissipate.

I'll say this yet again--even though it is next to impossible for HRC to win the nomination, IF she did, I would support her in the fall. I'm still astonished by the threats and hatemongering from some of the HRC supporters here (somewhat akin to the reports that Bill Clinton is threatening uncommitted D's). And btw, I really hope there's nothing to the Peter Paul vs. Clinton case and the allegations that HRC is on videotape committing criminal conduct. As a Democrat and a progressive, I really do hope that's not true. The media's been so busy obsessing over Wright that they've forgotten about the considerable ethical/legal baggage that the Clintons continue to carry. The GOP will be happy to remind them, should Clinton pull off the impossible. But that's not going to happen.

Still, I'd vote for her. The party, as well as the future of the country, matters much more to me than sour grapes.

Why are HRC supporters so bent on discounting the votes that have already been cast? He's won 30 of the 45 contests we've had so far. HRC agreed with the other D's that MI and FLA had broken the rules and would not count--then she hypocritically kept her name on the MI ballot and started singing a different tune when she realized she was in trouble. (And God! Read Terry M.s' comment from his book about Michigan and 2004...flaming hypocrisy! Can the HRC team EVER follow the rules?) I'm just saying that the media meme that it's a wide-open ballgame is false. Obama will win North Carolina, Oregon, and Montana for sure, and quite possibly 1-2 more in addition. He's going to finish on June 3 with more votes and more delegates. I'm not advocating a "4-corner" (with which I'm quite familiar) at all. He needs to run as hard as he can, because HRC is relentless and interested only in her own political career and nothing else--certainly not the Democratic Party (which will be all but destroyed if she gets the nomination)--or her fellow D legislators (who will be looking at a 1994-style debacle come 2010 if she's elected). He needs to have as much of a lead as possible come June 3. He's going to lose Kentucky and West Virginia by a lot, so he needs to run hard. And he is. He's facing a huge test, but he's coming through and will ultimately succeed.

Didn't you already post this poll yesterday ?

ThomasPaine, the Obama campaign is very aware of school ending...the early-vote operation in the college towns here has been phenomenal. And how can you say "the Supreme Court be damned?" Roe vs. Wade will be history. Women will lose the right to control their own bodies. That's one big reason why I'll vote for HRC if she's the nominee. D's who refuse to vote for Obama if he's the nominee will be selling the women of this country down the river.

I would certainly like to see a better-organized primary system myself. But all camps agreed to the rules, and you can't change them in the middle of the game. Clinton supporter and ally Terry McAuliffe, in his own words about 2004:

>>They thought I was bluffing. But it was my responsibility as chairman to take action for the good of the party, and taking away half their delegates was well within my authority. Now all the presidential candidates were upset. They were getting calls from Iowa and New Hampshire asking them to pledge to come to their states no matter what Michigan did, putting the candidates in an impossible position. The whole primary calendar was in danger of spinning out of control. The candidates kept calling me and asking what was happening with the schedule, and I made it clear that I was not going to let Michigan throw the entire process out of whack. Finally I'd had enough and scheduled a meeting in Carl's Senate office for April 2 to settle this once and for all.

As I was escorted into Carl's office with my staff, Debbie Dingell and Carl's chief of staff, David Lyles, were already sitting there waiting with Carl. Sparks flew when I sad down with Phil McNamara and Josh Wachs and immediately complained about all the leaks to the press, which led to finger-jabbing and shouting back and forth between various people in the meeting. Soon, Carl and I were going at it.
"I'm going outside the primary window," he told me definitively.
"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make the case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."
He kept insisting that they were going to move Michigan up on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.
"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.
"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

So what changed?

Still waitin' for that "idiotic" fool to chime in here.... No luck so far, so I'll fill in for the chump.

THIS IS WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!! FOR OBAMA!!!!!!

bill delyon and shoeless joe mccarthy:

1. please cite for me where the dnc penalty ruling on michigan and florida mentions anything about candidates withdrawing their names from the ballot? don't bother, you won't find it because, as you already know, no such provision exist.

you're candidate and edwards and biden selectively removed their names from the michigan ballot at the behest of iowa who indicated it could/would help those candidates curry political and voter favor in iowa in advance of that caucus.

while you falsely claim that hillary was the only candidate on the ballot, you fail to note that dodd, kucinich and gravel also kept their names on the ballot in michigan.

2. terry mccauliffe in 2004 spoke and his words were heeded. states didn't jump in line, voters were not allowed to go to the polls and cast votes that were certified and registered, and no abrogation of democracy occured.

howard dean clearly doesn't have the same command as dnc chair.

so what we have is a situation where the party either tells 2.2m dem voters, "hey, thanks but we don't/won't count you this go round, but please, come vote again in the general!"...or the party decides to count the votes and apportion the delegates in the same fashion used for all other states in this election...or the party figures out a way to do a primary re-vote in both michigan and florida.

money isn't an issue for the re-votes: financiers have already been identified.

timing wasn't an issue until obama continued to stall (apparently his favorite new campaign strategy), but still might be managed if decisions are arrived at quickly.

and clearly, it's the most fair way to address the concerns of the voters who had no part in the political decisions here and want to participate fully in this historic election, the candidates and their various concerns, and in the best interest of the democratic party and its hopes in the fall.

so tell me, fellas, what's your problem with such an effort?

I give the Hillary supporters a lot of credit. They're staying by her side at the station even though her train is no longer in sight.

Another train will be coming their way soon enough; and they'll have to choose whether they get on or stand on the sidelines.

For their sake and the sake of all Democrats, I hope they find a way to meet Obama and his supporters in Denver this August.

It's the polling, and the people both. The thing to remember is that it's not the same people being polled day-to-day, but only a sampling. Even within the margin of error, it's normal for fluctuations to occur. The trend-lines really are the thing to watch, as some have pointed out above.

I want Clinton to get it. I think Obama will get it. If he does, I'll vote for him. I wish the same could be said of the average Obama supporter, but sadly they seem to be more intent on His welfare rather than the country's.