I'm watching the CNN Democratic Debate right now. Obama seems to really have found his voice with the whole deal being mano a mano. Hillary seems on the defensive in this debate. I don't know if it'll have a demonstrable effect. But...it seems really clear to me that he's got a strength in this debate that he's not previously had.

Any other takes?

I agree. He seems much more comfortable.

and it's nice to see them both showing respect for each other too.

If the live blogging comments on the NY Times web site are indication, Obama is gaining ground. Just in the sense that the comments are usually heavily titled towards Hillary and today, it's still pro-Hillary, but there is a strong bend towards Obama. I don't think it's anything "important" but I do like it to gauge where people are with things.

Another comment is, I'm AMAZED that he's kept up with her in terms of his ability to fundraise. When he first announced his campaign, I thought he'd struggle to raise money, but he's done a hell of a job getting enough cash to go toe-to-toe with the Clinton financial juggernaut.

I'm sure it helps that they both represent two of the largest cities in the country, but she's been preparing her bid since her first Senate campaign and so, she's obviously had a lot of time to fundraise.

Given the ground he's had to cover, it's impressive that he's managed to make it even this far.

The fact that Obama could pull in 170,000 new donors in January is simply amazing.

Not only that, but wherever Obama goes, he has rallies that draw tens of thousands of people. Whatever else he may be, he's inspiring.

His gloating is a little premature, but I understand it. It's hard to be humble when you're right. But we don't know if he'll be right yet. Obviously it's looking like McCain will be the nominee. Romney isn't leading any Super Tuesday states that has been polled thus far. Republican primaries like New York, Arizona, and New Jersey are winner take all and McCain should win all of those. He'll also probably win the big state of California. Huckabee and Romney may win a state here and there, but it should be over February 5th.

The Democratic race is far from over. The debate tonight was basically a wash. Of the Super Tuesday states that have been polled, Clinton is winning in the rcp averages in 6/7. Obama is leading in Georgia. Clinton expanded her lead by 18 points in Massachussets according to the latest poll despite Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements. She's going to dominate New York and New Jersey. Obama has made grounds in California and Alabama. He'll dominate Illinois and win Georgia. So basically it's a tossup and it may still be after Super Tuesday.

While his actual skill as a potential president is debatable, his skill as a political orator is unsurpassed in modern history.

Somehow I doubt that. How's the fact checking going on with the NAFTA Superhighway, anyways? Oh, right, you didn't check those facts or a million others before posting inane comments.

When does "modern" history start? ;)

I'd say that Reagan guy was pretty good as a political orator.

You're saying that the NAFTA Highway is not being planned as we speak? What part of that is not correct? Think its you in La La Land on this one.

It's actually pretty scary when you think about it. Right now, it is possible to drive from the Mexican border all the way to the Canadian border without ever having to leave a road.

Your tax dollars at work.

Also, please check Kennedy, John Fitzgerald. He could turn a phrase.

Agreed. His speeches from about 50 years ago were very inspiring.

NAFTA Highway?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'll be playing blackjack with jb, so it doesn't bother me.

Indeed, they were. I'm sorry I missed them. My father has told me some interesting stories about his time on the Kennedy campaign in 1960.

[grumpyoldman] But you whippersnappers should know that the "modern presidency" did not start on your birthday. Most definitions of the "modern presidency" start no later than the beginning of the television era. But really, it goes back to FDR and the steps he took to consolidate power in the executive branch.

I hope you learned something. Now I'm going to go walk uphill in the snow to my one room schoolhouse. [/grumpyoldman]

I'd agree that Obama's oratory is the best we've seen as a nation in at least 8 years. I was at a campaign event for VA Governor Tim Kaine in 2005 at which Obama appeared. He was electric. I don't know what "it" is, but he definitely has it.

Reagan had an excellent delivery on prepared speeches, especially when reading off of a teleprompter. However, when speaking off the cuff, he would often stammer and stumble for words.

I'm one of the few, but I actually am very fond of Dubya's oratory.

That explains it.

Ann Coulter has just announced: If McCain is the GOP nominee, she will actively campaign for Hillary. Funny stuff. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Wow, that would be big blow for Hillary. :D

+1

It took me a while to get past his voice - it sounds fake and pretentious.

I don't know when Coulter lost it, but she has gone wacko the last two or three months. There was a time when she wasn't such a hack, but that was long ago.

As a rule, anything that drives Coulter nuts -- I like.

I'm gonna need an explanation here.

The last "two or three months"? I think it was way before that.

Ann Coulter has never gone wacko. That implies that there was a time she wasn't batshit insane.

I could only watch half the clip before feeling a strong urge to stab my laptop.

What can I say? I just enjoy listening to him talk, more so than Bill Clinton or Hillary or Papa Bush or even McCain really.

I'm in Alabama and I've only seen Obama and Huckabee ads. I dunno if it means anything but I'm just saying

Figures. Some of you guys (generically-speaking) rightly never gave any credence to what Coulter had said and now she is taken seriously?

I've always given a lot of credence to what Coulter has said insofar as how it relates to putting money in her pocket. She is an exceptionally shrewd businesswoman, and rest assured that she doesn't do or say anything without calculating the potential benefit.

+1

Same here.

There's obviously times Bush loses himself and stops making sense (and those are the moments you see on the Daily Show), but more of the time, once he gets rolling, he has a pretty inspirational manner of speaking - (if you can seperate the manner from the points he's making). And obviously all that ties together, and I'm not a Bush suporter, but the guy can control a room.

It's really amazing how people can get such different viewpoints from the same thing. When I watch him speak I hear condescension and mangled syntax. Granted, I agree with him on practically nothing, so that might play a part.

My thing with Coulter is that when she first, first, first started, she actually made some points (as most pundits that make a name for themselves do). Then, she became a bigger deal than her message, and then she proceeded into hackdom. Finally, in the last few months she has gone bat-shit crazy.

Crazy like a fox. All the way to the bank.

Thanks for making my point.

Ah, this to me would be an obvious example of a terrible orator. Go figure.

Still waiting, your point being that NAFTA doesn't really exist, or that it does exist and its a good thing? Which is it? How does being non-committal and obtuse make you look like anything more than a side-stepping liberal?

Like when you ignored the point about Bush's port giveaway? You side step counterpoints in almost every thread you dissolve.

Just a slight correction - liberals don't side step. Point obfuscating conservative idiot apologists side-step. *cough*

Thanks, I almost used that word in my last post, then realized that the first to call names loses. Always the liberal thing to do.

care to reference your earlier negative connotation regarding foreign involvement in our country vs. Bush's port deal, or are you going to pull a Limbaugh, lie or make a ridiculous statement than not apologize when caught in it or clear up the hypocrisy in it? I mean at least he's high.

Liberal isn't a bad word, fuck is, shit is, etc.

Liberal's first response when losing an argument is to name-call. You and a few others here do it on a steady basis. If I do it I get 'boxed', but conservatives have learned long ago that we need to win on merit while liberals get a free pass on trolling.

Like Lee Marvin says to Robert Ryan in Dirty Dozen..."You really are quite...emotional...aren't you?"

how about the Bush Ports deal? You missed out on that, again.

You referenced as a bad thing, foreign involvement in our country, we're you against the ports deal? Just want to make sure youre consistent.

...and why does it take 4 reminders to get you to comment on the FACTUAL stuff, that you claim to be all about, but when it comes to name calling you're tit for tat. If you would debate about the issues, like this one, and the hypocrisy or consistency, that would be nice. So what is this, poke number 4 on the same issue to get you to see if youre going to be consistent when it comes to foreign involvement in our government and country. BTW, for reference I was WRONG on the issue originally and was able to listen to oppositional standpoints and be open minded enough to change my viewpoint on the issue.....but am still glad it didnt happen.

amazing. I saw him on here reading it yet still nothing. Tis easier to spin BS and get into a namecalling contest than actually debate issues or fact, for him.

sorry to hijack the thread, back to your regularly scheduled thread but please note this as another time where BW ignored a direct response or question regarding an issue he brought up.

Yes, let's get back to talking about Super Tuesday.
New polls show Connecticut and Missouri up for grabs. Both within the MOE. Alabama is a dead heat.
Chicago Tribune poll shows Obama ahead by 30 points in Illinois.
Still no new post debate California poll without Jonn Edwards.
Hillary is still way ahead in Tennessee, New York, New Jersey, and Massachussetts.
Minnesota, Alaska, Colorado, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, Delaware, Idaho, and North Dakota have not been polled.

I have a question. What polls are generally considered to be the most reliable? For example, in Tennessee, InsiderAdvantage has Hilary up 33%, Rasmussen has Hilary up 14%, and WSMV-TV has Hilary up only 5%. I don't see how all these polls could possibly be accurate if they were all setup correctly. All of these polls were taken between January 28th and January 30th.

look for the ones with the lowest margin of error combined with an actual disclaimer about who they polled.

obviously one that polls only women in one community at a grocery store is going to be less accurate then one that polls 5,000 people at random by telephone.

I guess a larger sample size would also make for a better poll, but I don't know much about which ones are most reliable. I usually use the rcp average, but those can be misleading as well in these states that haven't been polled more than once or twice recently and go back all the way to December. The rcp average for Tennessee taking all of those 3 polls into account is Clinton 48.0, Obama 30.7, so I guess that's a little more accurate then just going by one poll but in some of these states there is only one recent poll. I see your point though, as Massachussetts has Clinton ahead by only 6 points in the 28th, and ahead by 24 points on the 30th.

Does anyone know if polls done by local newspapers, colleges, and tv stations are generally better than national pollsters like rasmussen's and survey USA?

OMG :eek: Bubba is ......... a *LIBERAL* !!!

*cue scary music*

Mostly depends upon who they paid to do them (very few of the smaller sources are set up to handle their own polling, it's typically outsourced to a polling firm).

I have no real need or interest in reminding you of your hyperbole and innaccurate and false statements on the subject in the thread that you started on the topic and the factual, correct, and rational rebuttals from others you wouldn't respond to. You can go re-read that thread yourself.

I'd also add that it wasn't your name calling but more your offensive and racist thread starting that got you banned.

As to your question, yes NAFTA does exist. It was signed and ratified several years ago.

And you calling someone else "sidestepping" is perhaps one of the most hilarious comments you have ever made.

The RCP average with fresh polling data is extremely accurate, and always has been.

They nailed the 2004 presidential election.

Here are the RCP updated states, with fresh polling data:

Alabama - Clinton +1%
Tennessee - Clinton +17%
Illinois - Obama +28%
Massachusetts - Clinton +17%
New Jersey - Clinton +10%
New York - Clinton +21%
Connecticut - Clinton +3%
Missouri - Clinton +12%
Georgia - Obama +8%
California - Clinton +11%

Right now, it appears that Obama will add Illinois and Georgia to his South Carolina victory, with a decent shot at Alabama and Connecticut.

Same here. Mangled syntax aside, when I listen to Bush, he always sounds like a) he feels he knows better than everyone else, especially his audience and b) if you disagree, you're clearly a lunatic.

Of course, I disagree with his policies too, so maybe that's part of it as well. If that's the case, though, then are there "great orators" we can all agree on? And if so, what is it that they do that makes them great orators?

I mean, I think Obama's a great orator, but maybe you guys on the other side of the aisle disagree, in which case he's not a good example.

Winston Churchill? FDR?

Wesley Clark?

Ted Haggard

I'd say he's only OK. To me, a great orator makes his/her point to the audience immediately, directly, and on both an emotional and intellectual level. You leave inspired with a sense of direction and purpose. Perhaps it also depends on the occasion, too.

I feel this with Obama, but the other thing I get from Obama which is new to me is the feeling that he's thought about what he's saying. Contrast this to Hillary. Whenever I hear her speak (watch the latest debate, for example), I feel like she's just spitting out the lines her team has had her memorize. Obama sounds like he's considered the question carefully and is giving as thoughtful and honest an answer as possible.

But again, I'm a partisan here.


Can't say I've heard him speak.

I think Obama is a convincing orator to the people who already agree with him - Clark came to mind because his actual positions on things struck me as ludicrous, but his speeches had a hypnotic effect on me. I found myself nodding, and saying "yeah, that's it."

I've been trying to think of other contemporary guys that I don't agree with their positions but find myself swayed by their oratory, and I'm drawing a blank.

sorry I thought you meant oral, hence the Ted haggard. Carry on.

I don't agree with Obama politically at all. I tried really hard not to like him and what's been more telling isn't the fact that I'm even remotely close to considering voting for him in November, though it's not a slam dunk at all (not that it matters whether I do or not, since I live in Wyoming which will go GOP and I'm moving to Illinois which is already his territory), as much as the people who come to me who are more to the right of me who are saying that he's "their guy." They all know what the political implications of voting for him are, technically.

But he seems to represent something to them that they're really happy to see, that they're glad he's there when he is and it seems like it just takes the cake that his main rival in this race is Hillary. The like-minded conservative folks I've talked to -- excluding my college friends who are rooting for Ron Paul on principle -- seem turned off by Romney, think McCain is too old and that you can't really believe anything he says and so when the choice is a RINO, a flip-flopper and Obama, the choice for them seems easy.

Whether this will translate to anything is anyone's guess. But I will say that there is no doubt that he's transcending politics in a way that no one really expected and that the steam engine he's riding is catching momentum, it's not slowing down.

I would have figured Illinois & Georgia were obvious Obama's (incidentally, he's spending a nice chunk of change in GA for the past week, the only candidate from either party to do so). Alabama doesn't surprise me at all, while Connecticut would probably cause me to raise an eyebrow slightly if he wins it. Tennessee is the one I'm expecting to be closer than expected.

So, from a perspective of "is this thing over now?" -- what does Obama need to do on Tuesday to keep his hopes of being the nominee alive? In my view, if he pulls off wins in his home state, one southern state, and maybe one other wild card... while Senator Clinton rolls to easy wins in delegate-rich California, New York, New Jersey, and most everywhere else on the table... isn't this thing basically over Wednesday morning?

I'm just curious -- let's say Obama makes it fairly close in California and Tennessee (he loses by maybe 3-5 points in each state?), and he wins both Alabama and Connecticut, on top of IL and GA. And she sweeps the rest. Is he still a viable option for someone who is undecided but votes on February 12th? I really don't know.

My gut says that either Hillary will have a huge Super Tuesday and kill hope or the polls will be wrong like New Hampshire and we'll see a pretty big upset. I think she'll win where she's expected and he'll win around the country and will use that momentum to play the whole red state v. blue state thing against her. One of those two scenarios seems the most likely to me. Muddled and close would be...interesting and anti-climatic. But possible.

If he wins states like Kansas, Georgia, Illinois obviously and perhaps a western state like Colorado..he'll be able to play the whole "we're representing all of America" and turn her into the big city candidate, giving him flyover country momentum.

It's in his best interest for this thing to drag out as long as possible, because as soon as he's the presumptive nominee, the GOP will sharpen their knives and he'll be sullied or at least, there will be so many internet lies out there that the media might pick up, that undecideds who might be on the fence about him, might jettison the chance to pick him.

It's hard to say, but...this whole race hasn't played out like "it was supposed to" yet, so I just can't imagine that he's gonna just "go away" like that. I feel like the storyline isn't going to be written that way.

Oh I just wanted to say that he has to win some of those states you mentioned. I don't think "close" is gonna do it for him. He needs some solid cross-section wins, especially in states where he's not "supposed" to win or where it's close for him to be able to come out of that day with some life. If he just notches where we expect him to win as of today and gets nothing else, he might experience the tumble.

I guess it comes down to the states that could go either way. It's proportionate delegates so Obama can lose closely in those big states and still keep the delegate race close. The perception will probably be that Hillary is the big winner of the day though if she wins all of those big states. New York and New Jersey should go to her easily, but California may not. I also think she'll win pretty easily in Massachussetts despite Kennedy and Kerry's endorsements of Obama.

Obama can counteract with winning fairly big states like Illinois and Georgia. But the key is if Hillary is able to win these close states like Connecticut, Alabama, Missouri, and of course California. Then you look at the states that haven't been polled and Hillary could get decent sized states like Minnesota, Arizona, Arkansas, New Mexico. I think Hillary has the latino vote behind her which bodes well in CA and those south western states. Arkansas was her home for many years.

It could be over Super Tuesday. Depends how those close states go and how close Obama can keep the race in the larger states. But she could keep close in states where he wins too, so it works both ways.

I actually think Obama will win New Mexico fairly easily.

Seems more likely to me that a win in Georgia would just further label him as "the black candidate", which is something that really started to pick up momentum in South Carolina. And while Kansas & Colorado (presumably) go against that, the Georgia win would be the second largest & I would think would get more play because of it.

From the perspective of perception, I would think he would be far better off in the long term to (hypothetically) lose Georgia and get the same number of delegates from other states that wouldn't be so easy to dismiss. I don't think that'll happen, but he'd be better off if it did.

Clinton's new stump speech, might actually help Obama among independents.

Dola --

The first comment from that blog post:

I think it just means there's not much to do in Idaho.

He's right. I've been there ;)

SI

Not that Idaho will change the election, but it is interesting at least that Obama got seven times as many people at his rally as caucused in 2004.

Okay, with all the necessary caveats about polling, here's what electoral-vote.com posts in its summary for the Feb 5 states in the D primaries:

I will sort the two groups to make it easier to read:

Clinton states:


Obama States:


...plus several other states without recent statewide polling -- DE, ND, KS, AR, NM -- but I am not aware of Obama holding much organization or maintaining much particular presence in any of them. I don't have any particular reason to guess that Obama has a particular edge in any of them.


So, if the list of states holds according to that polling summary, I think the extended headline is basically:

CLINTON ROLLS TO MAJOR WINS ACROSS COUNTRY
OBAMA WINS SELECT STATES, BUT TRAILS IN DELEGATE COUNT BY 250


It seems to me that for Obama to come away looking still viable, he basically as to have a hidden tide at work -- one that isn't showing up in the polling, even that done since the win in South Carolina - and he needs to close the gap and win all the states that are even fairly close. Using the same polling data ass above, I think he probably needs to win a list that looks like this:



...and honestly, even then she wins the day, but he can claim that he remains competitive (I guess). I guess I still look at this thing as basically over with -- Obama has shown thus far that if the electorate gets an extended view of both candidates and hear form them in depth, he can compete with her head-to-head, but in a nationwide primary, it's much more about the organization, early supporters, and the machine -- and she has him by leaps and bounds there. All these states like Oklahoma and Minnesota are just flyover country for him (by necessity, I'm not trying to criticize), but she started out with huge name recognition and support from the word go, and they are *all* hers to lose.

Some of you guys are depressing.

QS- I'll narrow it down even more. If Obama manages to steal California he wins, otherwise there's no way to spin all the big states as anything but a major win for Hillary.

That's pretty much where I am, too, and I just don't see it happening. For both entertainment and political purposes, I wish it would, but I think he is just too far back and has too little time to do so.

Honestly... those last few days leading up to the SC primary when he stayed, but she gallivanted all across the country at appearances and fundraisers -- I reckon it helped him get his impressive margin down there, but those are three or four days he wishes he had back right now.

The key is, as has been stated, if Obama wins one big unexpected state like California. That's all he needs. But it's no guarantee.

So assuming Hillary takes the nomination does anyone think a Ron Paul / Obama ticket is possible?

And what other state is on the table for him to make that sort of impact? New York? New Jersey? Fat chance, he's way up the track everywhere in the northeast. New Mexico? Minnesota? Missouri? I don't see any one of them... hell, even all of them... adding up to "this guy can win." I really do think it's down to California.

And can he keep momentum by getting an "elector split" in California? Mathematically, sure -- if he finishes within a handful of points of her in the vote count, and he gets something like 45% of the delegates, then he could claim that he didn't really fall to far behind in CA. But what is the headline? What is the perception?

I think he needs to pull of a stunning win in Cali to stay alive for the nomination, and I don't see any other mosaic of closer-than-expected finishes elsewhere adding up, unless all the polls in most states are wrong by some massive tidal wave of voters who for some reason are not indicating their preference for him but who will descend on the polling places come Tuesday. And if that happens, we will need to come up with some clever new name for what we just saw, because it will be unprecedented.

No.

QS - Bear in mind that I believe a lot of those states reward their delegates on a proportional basis. So he can lose a lot of states by a small margin, but still be pretty close in delegates. So the real question is where he can go to make up delegates. Obviously his big predicted win in Illinois will help (Illinois is #3 in number of delegates, I believe), but beyond that, I'm just not close enough to the numbers.

The X Factor here, of course, is that the polls for this nomination have been all over the place. I know I'm not placing a lot of faith in them beyond indicating general trends.

Well these numbers from Zogby are interesting, although I would add the caveat that Zogby's numbers have been a bit hit or miss. I don't know if he has enough time, but the numbers almost everywhere seem to show Obama has momentum.

California

Obama 45
Clinton 41

New Jersey

Clinton 43
Obama 42

I wish it were a better source, but if he could pull those two states, Clinton would be sunk.

QS: I think you're missing two important pieces of info here of how Obama could still win (though I think Hillary is definitely the favorite).

1. The Democratic primaries aren't winner take all. I would say both candidates remain viable as long as the delegate split is around 55/45 or closer.

2. After Feb 5th, the calendar slows down a lot. Obama has done better when there is time for him to really campaign in a state. I could see him doing better with this slower calendar.

You're kidding right? Neither would have incentive to do this. Obama has money, notoriety and well...credibility. All things Dr. Paul doesn't.

Let's not even talk about politics. Ron Paul doesn't represent any real wing of the Republican party, so it's not like has much of a constituent base and his core are people who spend their time at the Mises Institute lamenting the way the country "has been lost" and who falsely thing that supporting a guy who just want to "change" the country by browbeating us to death over stuff that he's not going to change, will work.

I appreciate his presence in the GOP debates, because at least he's interesting. Well for a few minutes until he starts to ask detailed policy questions to his opponents. Then he's just being belligerent and it's when people stop listening.

Those people have a very bichromatic view of the world. They don't understand the nuances that exist in the margins of society and I can't see how anyone could profess to want to run the country without having at least a decent understanding of the people who make up this great place.

Ok, back on topic now.

I do think the Obama ground game is really been stepped up since they first got started. I think that Hillary has her elites and such, but...if the Obama folks on the ground do the work they're supposed to, they might turn some heads. I do think they're going to suffer with the Hispanic vote in places where that's going to matter.

But just from the stuff I've been reading the past few days, the indication is that they're on the rise and that they're constantly turning people who were initially pro-Hillary over to their side as this thing goes on.

I think the idea that he'll do better as the calendar stretches out the single states is a good idea, because he does do better when the stage is set for them to both descend upon the same place, because I think those two are a real contrast.

I am sticking to my plan. If Obama wins, and Romney wins, I will vote Democrat for the first time in my life. Ron Paul has no chance, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna vote for that slimball Romney.

+1


i'll just add "for president" to this sentiment. I did vote for Barack Obama when he ran for senate in illinois. Of course, alan keyes (i think that's his name) was an idiot and got dumber every time he talked.

Don't forget the undemocratic "Super Delegates" who are going to vote mostly for Hilary.

SO looking around at a number of various polls what has struck me is that undecideds are often still at 15% or more. In a number of states the gap between the two is within the margin of error, so that many undecideds makes it impossible to predict. In both NH and SC the undecideds broke very heavily towards one candidate(Hillary in NH and Obama in SC).

Look at the Field poll(2-2) in CA(Field is very highly regarded). They have Clinton at 36 and Obama at 34, but Undecided is at 18 and Other is at 12, meaning almost a third of the voters are still up for grabs. I just don't see any credible way to make a prediction at this point.

I don't think that's necessarily true. They've been breaking awfully heavily towards Obama ever since Iowa. She certainly had an initial advantage, but it hasn't held up as of late, with Obama outflanking her on the left and right.

Zogby AND Rasmussen both have Obama ahead in California today.

That is pretty surprising to me and I do not see Clinton gaining anymore traction there (as I think Obama has more momentum on his side right now) between now and Tuesday.

Wow. If he wins there, credit the ground game for sure. That would be huge.

I'd say the ground game and the number of high profile endorsements he has been receiving.

I honestly thought that momentum was on his side, but that he would not have enough time to make up ground on Hillary. Not that a California win is guaranteed for him, but a few days ago, I figured Hillary would sweep nearly all of the Super Tuesday states and cruise to the nomination. If Obama can win, even by a narrow margin, in California, I think he rides the wave to the nomination.

Field and Mason Dixon both have Hillary ahead in California, so it should be close.
We finally have polls for Oklahoma(Hillary up 24), Utah(Obama up 24), and Arizona(Hillary up by 2 in mason dixon and 6 in rasmussen's). Another poll from Tennessee came out and Hillary was up 20. Missouri is extremely close, but Hillary is still up by a decent margin in N.J. in every poll except Zogby.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...lls/index.html

Actually, it's looking like the date of polls is a huge factor right now, as Obama seems to be gaining day by day in quite a lot of places. He may make a race of this thing yet, I'll be damned.

I got a good chuckle from the Utah GOP poll. :)

Romney is up on McCain by a margin of 84-4. :)

The latest good news for Obama is the unexpected endorsement of Maria Shriver. By itself it's fairly meaningless, but it will generate a ton of free local coverage in CA.

Hitlery http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/...ampaign_rdp_31