Hillary is NOT to be believed

Greg, congratulations. You finally found a way, no matter how tenuous, to link something on the ground to Obama's "small town" comments.

Mazel tov!

Hillary is sweating. Her polyester pantsuit is giving her fits. The wedgie is in deep.

She needs some relief.

Let PA relieve her of her nomination bid, forthwithly.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-gains;_ylt=AmDDFz.AtGLmE_Rr5H6THgus0NUE

In a dramatic reversal, an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll found that a clear majority of Democratic voters now say Sen. Barack Obama has a better chance of defeating Republican Sen. John McCain in November than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While Obama and Clinton are both sustaining dents and dings from their lengthy presidential fight, the former first lady is clearly suffering more. Democratic voters no longer see her as the party's strongest contender for the White House.

Movement is good for Obama. Even if you assume that the undecided voters break for Clinton in PA like they did in Ohio (60-40 for Hillary) that only leaves her with a 5-6 point win. Not nearly enough to change the delegate math.

Zogby basically shows the same number for Obama as every other poll. The only variables in all these polls in PA are the numbers for "undecided" and for Hillary. When you push them to make a call, Hillary's number goes up and Obama's doesn't. That should tell you that on Tuesday, Hillary will pick most of 'em up if they vote, just like in Ohio.

Hate to be such a buzz-killer, Obama supporters, but I don't want anyone getting all Chicken Littley and gloomy and doomy if it happens because they were taken by surprise. Bottom line is that Pennsylvania has more than its fair share of people who live on the ragged edge. Every day is is so cram packed with risks for them, and at such long odds, that they are understandably risk averse. Just like Ohio, except more so.

So, on one hand, you've got this lady running an old-style campaign full of old school plays and old fashioned promises who claims she can play Trivial Pursuit better than the Republicans. On the other, you've got a guy who says that as long as we're playing politics by the Republican's rules, we will lose, so you've got to trust me when I tell you I've written a new book of rules with which we can win.

Of course they're going with Hillary. If every new thing that's happened for the last twenty years has turned out bad for you, your framework for analysis is "known = good, unknown = bad."

Just that simple. The fact that our party's penchant for going with the "low risk" candidate is why we keep getting slaughtered at the polls is irrelevant. They've got too much risk in their lives to deliberately take on any more.

So just keep in mind, if he holds her to 8, its a big win and we celebrate. If he really gets creamed, we shake it off move on to Indiana, where it could be close, and to NC where he's going to crush her.

It's true. You are obsessed with inserting the small town quote into any post you can fit it in. In this case you're reducing your analysis of an open question to one variable, because, like George Stephanopoulos, that's the variable you want to talk about. You're not biased against Obama, but you do seem to be biased towards vapid regurgitation of CW.

Seems like the fact that Hillary once lived in Pennsylvania, and Obama didn't, might weigh more heavily on people's responses to this question. No, no! It must be something he said in a fundraiser. That's the only possibility worth considering.

There have been a lot of comments about Zogby's reliability and what the headline should read as, etc. The key point that is being missed here, and Zogby himself is partially to blame based on his own headline, is that the difference between the candidates' levels of support is within the margin of error. This means that the poll found no significant difference between the candidates' levels of support. In statistics "no significant difference" means that one has failed to find any difference at all. The truth is that Zogby's data shows a tie. The term "statistical tie" is not needed here because we are examining statistics so any outcome is "statistical". To be sure they are not actually tied, this poll just cannot tell us which one is winning. Based on these results it could be either candidate.

Journalists almost never get this right; I think it's because until you've failed a statistics exam because you said something like "The rate of recovery in population A edged out that of population B by 4%" when the margin of error was 4.1% it's never going to stick in your head that differences between subjects within the margin of error actually show, specifically, NO difference. I have personally flunked students for that. They should really add a stats class to journalism curriculums.

Kristen Bell's smile is not to be believed.

BO can order a cheesesteak with the best of them (and in more than one language). BO can play hoops with the best of them!
Pennsylvanians, the world turns its lonely eyes to you ...
end it on April 22.
When in that voting booth remember Hillary is the corporate whore and doesn't give a damn about your struggles after the votes are counted.

This is pretty sweet. The Economist reporter covering the Clinton campaign has thrown in the towel because he can't take the level of bullshit flowing out of it. Can't say I blame him.

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but my will has been broken. I’ve realised that covering Mrs Clinton's campaign without explicitly stating that it has turned into a win-at-all-costs operation fueled by phony outrage, hypocritical proclamations and absurd notions of who is electable and who is not is an exercise in deliberate deception, and I can't do that. Perhaps I am weaker than my colleagues, but a certain fatigue sets in when trying to sort through it all. Mrs Clinton does have substance, and some well-thought-out policy prescriptions, but did you know Barack Obama is an elitist? Never mind that the Clintons largely agree with what Mr Obama said, or meant to say.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/04/thats_it.cfm

It seems to me that she is just nosing Obama out in PA. To her, that's a massive loss. Her nasty performance in the debate didn't help her. The more frantic she gets, the more shrill she gets and the more it seems (at least to this Democrat) that she is willing to ditch the party and let McCain take over the White House than she should be. She seems to be saying "If it's not me you want, go **** yourself" and I don't appreciate that. I am not even happy about re-electing her to the Senate when her term is over. Unless the New York Republicans run a complete moron against her, she may have sacrificed my vote.