Well, it's still a little early for "Obama fatigue" to be setting in. Could it be a reaction to the run-up to Super Tuesday, during which Sen. Obama threw all those big-name endorsements into the mix? He was the insurgent candidate until the Kennedy, Shriver, Patrick, Kerry, endorsements started getting such big play. Obama is still not as establishment as Clinton, but he's no longer much of an insurgent if he's so surrounded by establishment figures.

1 in 20 polls are by definition outside the 95% confidence level...

It could very well be possible, Kevin, don't take things for granted I say. But, in retrospect, Gallup had Barack winning in California, and we know how well that turned out?

Mac: Yeah, but this is three days running. Not likely to be a fluke.

Boorring: National polling is generally a lot less volatile than state polling. This is just a very weird result, especially since I can't come up with any persuasive explanation for it.

Still, I'll be curious to see if it keeps up, or if it's just a spike and Hillary's lead vanishes over the next few days.

As we get closer to important elections more people start paying closer attention.

I would think that Hillary is benefiting from previous undecided voters making up their minds. And Obama is being hurt from a closer examination by voters starting to look beyond the hype.

That plus the economy is tanking. Hillary owns that issue.

At the same time, Rasmussen's daily tracker shows no such movement. Who's right/wrong? Who knows.

I heard a lot of "last minute decision voters broke for Hillary" today on the cable shows. According to this poll it looks like many were giving Obama a 2nd thought, then decided against him the closer they got to Tuesday.

I can't wait for tracking polls a few days out, that might be the real tell, that and Obama's stunning campaign contributions today.

Here is a great article that can help explain it. From Steve Lopez of the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez6feb06,1,4590020.column?ctrack=8&cset=true

The article is about a Bush Republican turned Democrat who voted for John Kerry in 2004 and hosted an event for Barack Obama just last month in her own backyard - but decided to vote for Hillary Clinton after the debate.

I know that I found, as an Obama supporter, the celebratization of the Obama campaign to make his campaign feel more faddish and less sincere.

I take it that Kevin Drum never took a statistics course in HS? Even the best polling firms produce outliers occasionally. It's the nature of the beast.

I've heard a lot of things in the media, but Barack Obama lost California and still stayed even in Delegates. Everyone expected that Obama needed to win California, and he didn't, and I don't think it's sunk in with the media that the fact that he won 8 other states he was supposed to lose kind of changed the requirements for success.

What is going on? Nobody even seems to have final delegate counts yet.

2 factors:

1. Most polls do not use 95% confidence intervals (2 standard deviations from the mean) as their margin of error. They use a single standard deviation which means that there is only 65% confidence that a given poll is within the margin of error. 1 poll in 20 will be TWICE the margin of error (8-10% off) which accounts for a lot of the wacky polls this season.

2. Gallup uses a likely voter model that measures voter intensity. Its a ver non-reliable model that accentuates fluctuation. In 2000, one university estimated that 90% of the fluctuation in Gallup polls was noise due to that factor. It's bad polling but makes good headlines as one candidate or another is always "surging."

Here's something I posted early in 2004 cycle about it. http://www.cosmiciguana.com/2004/01/polls_apart_discrepancies_in_c.html

(Ignore the compliment I wrote about Zogby - they have gotten much worse)

The economy is causing a lot of anxiety for people, and many of these people are turning to Hillary. She is a known quantity (a "safe" choice), is perceived to be more knowledgeable on the economy, and most of all in my opinion, is associated with the strong Clinton years.

If you want to know why Barack Obama is winning higher income voters, it's because that group can afford to vote their hopes. Anxiety and fear govern voting behavior more than anything. It's why the worse the economy does, the better Clinton does, and if there is a terrorist attack in American later this year, McCain will be a shoo-in.

I don't think people realize that Obama has run an *amazing* campaign to do as well as he has in light of this and other factors, such as lack of an established network and lower name recognition.

these numbers are far too big to be merely a fluke.

I suggest you take a stats course.

National tracking polls now measure nothing of any significance. The 'national' primary was yesterday; all those states don't get to vote again.

There's been a trend of election-day undecideds breaking for Clinton, perhaps that shows up in the poll trend the last few days. Her number isn't that far above her total popular vote % yesterday, which makes sense.

The weirder thing is that Obama's number is well-below his popular vote percentage yesterday. So either he's got some folks moving to undecided from him or it's simply an outlier.

Take your polls and shove them. Look at your pretty graph and then consider that Clinton and Obama got almost exactly the same number of total votes on the 5th- over 7 million each. How do you justify this 52-39 Clinton surge? When will people learn that polls are a waste of time and money? - people tell you what they think you want to hear.

I've been back and forth between the two 'til I'm dizzy but if a news story I read the other day is correct, it's Hillary for good. Is it true that Michele Obama, when asked whether she would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, replied that she would have to think about it? Ouch!

The differences for the last 7 days: 6 points, 4, 3, 7, 2, 4, 5, 13. It seems that (possibly) something changed on Super Tuesday. I think it's what KDrum himself experienced-- the "I'm so sad for Hillary" effect. It caused a big bump in New Hampshire, too.

It may get her the nomination yet.

I think the polls have proven themselves to be volatile, to say the least. The campaign has a long way to go. But Mrs. Clinton has obviously proved herself capable of winning in areas where Democrats must win if they are to be successful in November, while Mr. Obama has -- with the noted exception of Iowa, Illinois and perhaps Missouri -- has performed quite well in places that can best be described as "GOP wingnut country."

I would hope that coolers heads would soon prevail, and that some sort of accommodation can be reached soon that would preserve the Democrats' collective sense of mission and purpose. Frankly, I believe the ball to be in Obama's court whether or not that accommodation can and will be reached.

P.S.: Taylor Marsh has reported that the Clinton campaign raised $3 million in the last 24 hours.

Clinton surge? I still haven't come up with an appropriate neologism. The clurge? Mobama just writes itself.

Is there going to be another debate? Or is it going to be all bio ads and horse race stuff.

The Clinton campaign raised $3 million in the last 24 hours.

I notice my wife tapped our credit card late last night.

The numbers started changing right after the debate. I thought her debate performance killed for the potential Hillary voter.

Tweety said today that Obama voters want someone who can reinvent government and Hillary voters want someone who can address their laundry list of needs. Hillary came off really wonkish on domestic policy (mostly healthcare), and I think she won a lot of those people over. I think it just took a couple of days for it to sink in for some.

No way Obama should agree to another debate. He should take his licks and try to move things back up from here.

What caused the Hillary surge starting Sunday? Uhm, wasn't Saturday the day she cried again? Evidently, the more she weeps, the more she sweeps.

Since Jan 27, to choose an arbitrary start, the average difference has been 6.4, with a standard deviation of 3.6. Two standard deviations up is 13.6 (probability of such an event = about .05). Chance of not getting a .05 event in ten trials = .6. So, about even money that you'd get a 13 in ten tries. Of course, if it goes up again tomorrow, then ... -- but I seem to recall that these are rolling panels, so each day is only updated by 1/3, giving a false sense of smooth trends.

No one really knows what is going on. We just have to guess, based on what we know of the candidates.

One of the things we know is that Hillary Clinton is very well known by Democratic voters, and has been for a long time. Obama's history with them is much shorter. She is Bill Clinton's wife, a circumstance that sometimes arouses controversy among people who follow politics all the time but is a major plus for her among the people who vote in Democratic primaries. And she has the advantage -- it is a major advantage in primaries where more than 55% of voters are female -- of being a woman. Obama has the disadvantage of being black.

What I think all these things mean is that Obama still has to consider himself the underdog. A lot of his support is coming from people who don't really know a lot about him -- which doesn't mean they wouldn't support him if they did, but rather that their support for him may be softer than Clinton voters' support for her.

The other side of this coin, of course, is that many fewer people dislike Obama than dislike and distrust Clinton. This probably means his ceiling in terms of the general election is higher than hers is. But for that to matter he has to get the nomination, and the odds on that are still against him.

Gallup is correct. The reason Senator Obama is so close is that he is winning the caucus states where only a small percentage of party activists go to the caucus. These people tend to be extremely liberal and therefore do not represent the rank and file Democrats that prefer Hillary.

Maybe I’m the only one, but the disparity in delegate totals is driving me nuts.

New York Times:

Clinton 892 SD- 204

Obama 716 SD- 99

CNN:

Clinton 823 SD- 193

Obama 741 SD- 106

CBS:

Clinton 847 SD- 211

Obama 856 SD- 128

MSNBC:

Clinton 838 SD?

Obama 834 SD?

Open Left, Chris Bowers

Clinton 850 SD?

Obama 862 SD-?

2008 Convention Watch, Matt

Clinton 803 SD- 201

Obama 803 SD- 112

SD= Superdelegates

1 in 20 polls are by definition outside the 95% confidence level...

A 13 point difference is way, way past the 95% confidence level for a poll with a sample size this large, namely over 1200, insofar as you're looking to answer the question of whether Clinton is in fact beating Obama in the population (a little different question from the usual one the margin of error addresses, though, I should note). Don't have a chart, but I'm sure it's somewhere deep into the upper regions of the 99th percent.

Actually, what people don't seem to recognize is that the real problem with polls is almost always that they don't get a representative sample. That's why they come up with bizarre results so often.

We should be so lucky that the stated margin of error was itself an accurate estimate of the reliability of the poll.

It's clear that in a race between the first truly viable woman candidate and the first truly viable Black candidate, trying to poll, handicap, or otherwise predict outcomes is a mug's game. Voters are changing their minds at the last minute, voting their prejudices, voting *against* their prejudices . . . who the hell knows *what* is going on?

Even so, the mugs will continue to predict results with a straight face. And continue to *get* faced. If nothing else, this race has provided plenty of opportunity for shadenfruede at the expense of the big media honchos.

Stilliberal: "Is it true that Michele Obama, when asked whether she would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, replied that she would have to think about it? Ouch!"

What audacity--you mean she actually wants to *think* about her vote?!

Kevin, the answer to your question is: Caucuses. Barack won the Caucuses, which are notorious for disenfranchisement. Had Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, and North Dakota been primaries, we might have seen a very different popular and delegate spread.

Secondly, most of the polls underestimated the black vote. None of them predicted a 82-94% black vote for Obama.

Traven--
She teared up again? Man, if she can keep Bill in the basement and the waterworks running, Obama doesn't stand a chance.

New campaign slogan: "Leave Hillary alone!"

I work with data for a living and have to say that the obsession with statistical significance as it relates to polling is misplaced. I am certain that I sound pedantic but applying any statistical test is only appropriate if you believe that a variety of assumptions are being met. We have only a very rough idea what the population in question looks like (actual primary voters) so any claim that a random sample has been drawn is highly suspect. There are other examples but by now I KNOW that I am getting tedious so suffice it to say that any claim to significance (or description of the confidence interval etc.) really cannot be evaluated.

I think it may well BE a fluke. Right now, Rasmussen's three-day tracking poll still shows Hillary at a stable 4-point lead. And Gallup is by no means immune to such chance fluctuations in their sample.

I do think, however, that Hillary's California victory -- and the sheer size of it (I never dreamed she'd win by 10 points) -- may have hurt Obama, when combined with all those more predictable but still-big wins of hers in the East.

Is it true that Michele Obama, when asked whether she would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, replied that she would have to think about it? Ouch!

Ah, yet another HRC backer spreading this lie. What a shocking surprise. Do you freaks have no effing shame at all?

The Clinton campaign raised $3 million in the last 24 hours.

Josh Marshall reported that Obama raised over $5 million (now over $6 million) since the polls closed.

Kevin had a post a few days ago about a poll that showed Obama and Hillary tied 41% nationwide, but with Hillary leading by something like 18% in the super-Tuesday states. And there was a discussion about how improbable that was, since it meant that she would have to be trailing by something like 12% in the non-primary states.

I cannot find that post right now -- does anyone else remember it? Do posts disappear at PA?

Disputo: "Do you freaks have no effing shame at all?"

That's a rather novel way to win people over. You do P.R. for a living?

But Mrs. Clinton has obviously proved herself capable of winning in areas where Democrats must win if they are to be successful in November, while Mr. Obama has -- with the noted exception of Iowa, Illinois and perhaps Missouri -- has performed quite well in places that can best be described as "GOP wingnut country."

What this demonstrates (ignoring your slur against Dems who just happen to live in majority Red states) is that, assuming that HRC supporters will indeed vote for Obama if he gets the election (and are not merely projecting every time they falsely accuse Obama supporters of vowing not to vote for HRC in the general), is that Obama is the better candidate in the general, as he'll win the areas that the Dems need to win (thx to HRC supporters), as well as be competitive in the, er, Red states.

Thanks for pointing that out, Don. Once again you have been a big help.

I call it as I see it, Don. I'm not a shameless liar such as yourself.

Disputo, if you really think Democrats are going to be competitive in states like Utah, Idaho and Alaska, why don't you volunteer to walk the precincts of Provo, Pocatello and Fairbanks for your candidate?

And it's quite notable, Don, that instead of helping the rest of us correct the record against the lies being propagated by the HRC campaign, you lay down cover fire for the liars.

But I guess that that is what PR is all about, isn't it? At least for a political operative such as you.

Stilliberal: "Is it true that Michele Obama, when asked whether she would vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, replied that she would have to think about it? Ouch!"

For the record, the question was not about whether or not she would vote for Hillary but whether or not she would actively work for Hillary should Hillary get the nomination. Whether that was an appropriate response or not is another issue.

From the Kansas City Star:

"Four-hour waits. Long lines zig-zagging into the night. Elderly voters forced to stand outside in the sleet. Overflow meeting rooms. Mass confusion.

"One day after Super Tuesday, Democrats were looking back in frustration — and wonder — at their chaotic, jam-packed caucus night with some demanding a switch to quicker, simpler, less-time-consuming primaries.

"'Shame on us for being too cheap to set up a real vote,' said Elliott, who wondered whether her vote Tuesday on a sheet of paper was ever tallied.

"Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, the state’s chief elections officer, said tens of thousands more Kansans likely would have voted in a primary with a turnout equaling, or even exceeding, the 36 percent showing of registered voters in Missouri on Tuesday.

"As it was, about 37,000 Kansans crowded into 50 meeting rooms around the state."

Caucuses are undemocratic and the reason Super Tuesday didn't correspond with the national Gallup poll was because Barack scored big on the Caucus votes due to a large showing from some of his diehard supporters.

Disputo, if you really think Democrats are going to be competitive blah, blah, blah...

Once again totally ignoring the point; but that is the game you play, isn't it? The truth be damned. It's all about spin to a political operative like you, huh?

I have to say that I appreciate the dirty crap of this campaign for one reason -- that it has revealed quite clearly who are the crypto-wingnuts pretending to be progressives. Being progressive isn't just about adopting a particular set of policies. It is about how you live your life; about your personal code of ethics. If you cheat at poker just to win, you're a lying punk; I don't care what your position on [liberal item x] is.

If Hillary won the nomination and picked Obama as a running mate, I am sure Michelle would be working her butt off for Hillary.

My guess is the debate more than any other single factor (assuming of course that these polls are accurate, a qualification which cannot be overstated this year in the Dem contests) combined with the horrible economic news during the same period. It is much easier to sell the Obama message of hope and inspiration when people aren't worrying that major economic calamity is just around the corner, especially when the candidate selling it has a thin resume in national politics and little to no record in dealing with serious economic issues as is the case with Obama. I also have to wonder whether his increasing tendency to take swipes at Clinton in his speeches is also taking some of that luster off the self described post-partisan politician who does politics differently than the bad old ways of the past with negative attacks and such. For those already "converted" to the Obama cause they are not going to see the problems with his resume as serious nor are they going to be willing to recognize that the name Clinton is tied in many minds including I might add independents with economic prosperity (regardless of how fair this perception is it exists and complaining she doesn't deserve any such credit won't change that) which is a major selling point for her.

The stock answer Obama has had whenever his experience and fitness for the Presidency is raised is his anti-war stance in 2002. When the war and foreign policy is the prime focus that is a major selling point for him as he has shown so far, but what happens when it shifts to the economy? What card can he play to show he has good judgment and can be trusted to guide the nation through turbulent economic times? That is a real problem for him.

When I first starting commenting on the race here one of the points I made was what would happen to Obama if/when his message of inspiration/hope was no longer a dominant factor, what else did he have to justify why someone with three years of experience on the national stage and no political executive experience at all have to offer to recommend him as the better Presidential choice? We may be seeing that question starting to be answered with these polls and if so it is exactly what I feared might be the case, but if this is the case at least it is happening before he locked away the nomination. Having this sort of collapse of message/support/basis for a candidacy once he was the nominee is one of the only ways I could see the GOP winning in November. Remember, this is not what I am saying is happening, just one way to explain what this poll is showing if it is true, so please do not read more than that into it please if/when you respond.

There is also another factor which needs to be remembered, for years now everyone has been told that HRC is unelectable, that the more the voters get to know her the more they will turn away, yet the results in the primaries do not show that at all. Indeed, given her dominance in late breaking votes on the day of the voting in the primaries there is a stronger argument that the more the voters see of her the more attractive a candidate she looks, and if that perception starts catching on one of the core reasons for people to support Obama (not wanting to lose in Nov) will be seriously undercut if not destroyed altogether. There is also the fact that Obama's wins have been fairly narrow in their demographics and he may be looking more and more like a limited appeal candidate to many voters, another possibility to consider.

So I can think of several potential reasons for why this shift is happening in the Gallup polls that are consistent with reality, so if it is a true reflection of reality it is hardly inexplicable, at least if one is not blinded by preconceptions and partisan blinders. Something I know most of the Obama supporters here do not believe of me is that I really do not care which wins so long as I think they should be able to win in Nov, and Clinton I have always believed that true of and Obama I used to think that was true of, at least until the last several weeks, which btw is why I started commenting here about it hoping to have my concerns shown to be without merit/basis.

Alas though instead I have found more and more reasons to be concerned, not less, and much of it is from the clear talking from both sides of his mouth on the so called new politics of post-partisanship versus the actions his campaign takes AND what comes out of his own mouth as seen last night in his speech where he took multiple swipes at HRC. I find it bitterly ironic to listen to both Obama and Clinton and hear far more negativity coming from Obama about her than I have heard from her about him, especially when his followers appear completely oblivious to it or worse, are happy to see him "fighting back against the evil Clinton attack machine" without once recognizing that it completely contradicts his message AND by the fact that he has no other way of responding shows the hollowness of his claim to do politics differently, especially if the other side isn't willing to play by his rules which the GOP most certainly will not.

It speaks volumes that he is winning mainly caucuses and not primaries, and most of the States he wins do not have large Democratic party membership, while Clinton does take those States and most of the big important swing States like Florida (which does count equally for all since no Dem campaigned there) as well as the primaries in large States where the AA demographic is not disproportionately higher than the national average like in Alabama and Georgia. There is also the assumption that he is bringing in most of the "new" voters, yet this is not proven out, it could just as easily be her candidacy bringing out the most new voters, or as I tend to think the crappy Bush years combined with real fear of major catastrophe coming soon down the road wanting major change that is behind most of the voter turnout increase for the Dems. He is also not winning the youth vote as much as his supporters claim, and taken together she appears to be the choice of the clear majority of Democratic party members, and I think that is something the superdelegates are going to have to consider when they decide which side to go for. Besides, which demographic is larger the AA voters or the Latino, let alone the female ones? So if you must disappoint one of these groups which one from the cold strategic POV makes more sense? Especially if with Clinton you can lock in the Latino affiliation for the Dems given their growth as a demographic as well as the increase in women voting for the Dems in even higher numbers than they normally tend to?

Yes, Obama has played a valuable role in energizing the base and youth in particular, but that does not make him automatically the savior of the Democratic Party able to lead the party into a brighter tomorrow. Obama has not been able to increase his demographic appeal significantly between SC and Super Tuesday going by the demographic breakdowns, and that is a real problem for his candidacy. I don't see him being able to change much of the percentages with women and while I think he has a slighter better chance of changing Latino minds it is not by much. The Clintons spent years cultivating that community, and Obama just recognized the need in the past few weeks, and I don't think the Latino community is going to buy that sudden recognition as anything more than the standard reaction of a politician that suddenly sees a demographic that will sink his candidacy if he doesn't give them some love, classic political pandering in other words.

There are a lot of viable causes/factors for explaining why Clinton could be rising again in the national polls from Gallup, or it could be yet another major polling mistake. If it is not though, if it is real, then it is quite explicable even is Obama supporters don't want to hear it. That is always the way with partisans, especially ones which appear to be following the focus of a cult of personality (I am sorry, but I do not agree that Obama is the head of a true movement, especially when considering that his voters are following him first and not the party and the principles it stands for first and he and his wife repeatedly make that point when they say he will get all of the Dem voters for Clinton while she cannot get all of his, indeed his refusal to try to make the case that the most important thing is that the Dem candidate gets all the votes from those supporting any of the candidates is one of but not the only reason I consider this a cult of personality and not a movement) as I see happening with Obama. I would have thought the cult of personality surrounding GWB in his first term would have shown why that is an unhealthy thing for any democracy, but apparently not. Time will tell us whether this is real or just another pollster illusion like so many we have seen in the last several weeks including leading into last night.

Arkansas has about the same amount of delegates as Kansas. Arkansas was a primary and got 250,000+ votes, while Kansas had only 37,000 because it was a Caucus.

Seniors, rural voters, and mothers are no-shows for Caucuses.

Did Michele Obama say that she would have to think about voting for Hillary? I have a lot of things wrong with me, but my hearing and eyesight are very good and I saw and heard her say that in a clip on CNN.My jaw fell!.......and I'm a Edwards guy....or Gore...or Obama or Hillary.

Work for,not vote is correct. I was wrong, but just thought both were about the same and that it was not a proper response.

Here is that CBS poll that Kevin discussed a couple of days ago. It says The poll found that Clinton and Obama both have the support of 41 percent of Democratic primary voters... Among voters in [the super-Tuesday] states, she leads Obama, 49 percent to 31 percent....

Still cannot find Kevin's post on this -- it should have been on Feb. 3. Curious if he deleted it.

IHAVE JUST POSTED THE BELOW UNDER THE "ON THE COUCH" THREAD, but with your all's indulgence, I'm reposting my comment here because I think Hillary's surge has something to do with the fact that Obama's campaign has morphed into a MOVEMENT that has certain cult-like attributes which turns many off. Since Democratic voters have nowhere else to go, except Hillary, hence Hillary is experiencing a surge. Below is my reposting:

Kevin, Scotian, nepata, Boorring, Sharon, Donald from Hawaii, etc, etc, … anyone on this blog …

I noticed something new and odd about Obama’s speech last night that I don’t know how to interpret and have a serious and honest question about, a concern really, that I have not seen addressed anywhere. So, I hope others here can help me make sense of what it means.

That is, I noticed Barack Obama using the word “MOVEMENT” over and over again to refer to his quest for the nomination and the Presidency. He said things like, “I want to welcome to the Movement” . . . “our Movement is going forward“. . .“our Movement is gaining strength” . . . etc.
When he first used the word I thought it was a gaffe, that he meant to say “campaign,” but when he used the word, over and over again, I recognized that it was a very deliberate choice of words. What do you (meaning others who comment on this blog) understand from his deliberate choice of words here? Does it ring certain alarm buttons for anyone else here?
To me, the word MOVEMENT does not belong in American politics. It connotes a controlled ideology and group thinking, group pressure . . something I associate more with Communism, or Nazism or other forms of despotic “’isms” than with American Democracy. Obama’s characterization of his quest as a “MOVEMENT” scares me, a bit. I remember my mother (who grew up in Austria when the Hitler phenomenon and the Nazi movement swept over the land) telling me with what spirit of unquestioned adulation she and her friends enthusiastically joined the Hitler youth program and waived and excitedly screamed their approval when Hitler marched into Austria. She explained, I and my friends did not investigate or understand what Nazism was all about, “we weren’t political,” she said. We were just caught up in the fervor and fever of the Movement that promised to bring change and hope -- the economy and other things were so very bad in Austria in 1938, she explained.

Now, don’t everybody get excited! I am NOT in the least suggesting that Obama and Hitler have anything in common (except maybe a penchant for rousing speech-making). Obviously not. What I am saying, however, is that an emotionally propelled rush to join-up to a new political MOVEMENT, fostered by adulation of the movement’s leader because his speeches “inspire” people, scares me. And, I’m explaining why I have that reaction.
So, I'm asking: what does “MOVEMENT” in the context of Obama’s political campaign mean to you, and why do you think he has now chosen to use that charged word to describe his campaign?

..... by far you are one of my favourite commenters on any internet site Scotian and after reading your lengthy diatribe the only issue I find myself taking with it is at the very end you describe a similar cult of personality surrounding Obama that surrounded Bush during his first term. Obama is a politician, we get that. He has flaws juss like any other. He isn't a saviour type of any kind and as one of the demographic groups that are tilting heavily towards him (liberals) he is far from my ideal candidate but truth be told he or she doesn't exist.
Why am I so supportive of Obama when he doesn't strike me as particularly progressive, and I don't have much hope that he'd govern that way? What he does is represent such a shift from what this country has ever advanced as a leader of its population that there is a chance (slim one at that) to transcend the last 75 years of governing? Maybe more? You can look at men like Carter and Clinton and say they weren't entrenched in the halls of power as they rose to the highest office. They were white southerners tho, not a huge break from that which came before them.
To me H Clinton loses that argument as she approaches the table. I am tired of entrenched power, do I think Ms Clinton will govern competently? Heh. According to many news reports I read her ability to connect with people on individual basis has served her exceptionally well. She will protect a woman's right to choose, but I juss get the sneaking suspicion that if her name was Hillary Rodham she'd have the same amount of support that Libby Dole had when she explored her chances to become President (I have that right don't I?). To me she has been able to gain support as much through her last name as her laundry lists of accomplishments in the Senate. Neither candidate has particularly done themselves credit with their service in that once august chamber but than again only one of them went in there with 28 years of experience (now 35) as a headstart and resulted in a monumental disappointment, not to mention get hoodwinked on a pretty easy nay vote in 2002.
As always what you said was eloquently stated and I look forward to your future musings....................

........ should've used preview me thinks.

Here is a link to the (three day rolling) averages from Gallup over the past two weeks.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

I can't help but be highly skeptical of the reported swings for both candidates over this period. It is amazing that after the polling issues in NH, SC, and prior to Tuesday, that anyone here can so passionately argue that these results are precise. My only prediction is that tomorrow if the Gallup numbers swing in the opposite direction supporters for both sides will be vigorously defending the other's position...

I'm having Obama fatigue. Enough with the 'There's tons of new dirt on Clinton! Really!' 'People hate Clinton, Really!' 'In one poll, Clinton lost to McCain. Really!' Ugh.

Anyhow. Mostly what I want is...

One Clinton/Obama ticket, please.

Don't mind Disputo. He thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is a political operative with a nefarious agenda. It's a reoccurring theme with him!

Based solely on that chart, it looks like Edwards supporters initially broke for Obama (as Edwards' numbers dropped, Obama's went up), but upon more reflection, some of them changed their minds for Hillary..

Erika, all I can say is wtf?? That was just ridiculous....did you feel the same way about the Civil Rights Movement?

Antiphone, a good breakdown of how different news agencies are counting delegates can be found here: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/your_election_central_delegate.php

Basically ABC, CBS, and The Washington Post are counting the tallies as they are coming in, AND also including superdelegates in their totals. These totals will continue to be updated as the count comes in. CNN is doing the same (counting the tally as it is coming in) but not including superdelegates. NBC though, is doing their own projections based on the vote totals (not including superdelegates), which is why they show Obama leading. If NBC includes the superdelegates though, Clinton takes the lead.

Surprise! A-list bloggers turn out to be as clueless as the MSM. Gee, now why would Hillary's numbers go up when the "beautiful people" start going all ga-ga over Obama? Gee, why could that be?

It's because poor and working people--the heart of the Democratic Party--are voting for Clinton, that's why.

OK -- mystery solved. The discussion I referred to above was in one of Kevin's threads but it was about a post from TPM quoted by frankly0. Nothing has disappeared.

sven, I don't think many people here believe polls are close to accurate. But for a political blog, they are grist for discussion.

The numbers you linked to are the same ones that are in the graph in Kevin's post. By the way, as far as I can tell, these 3-day rolling averages can be misleading -- each one is based on only about 300 - 400 new interviews which receive 1/3 weight, and in the last two days' interviews which receive 2/3 weight. So these are not independent data points, as one initially assumes before reading the fine print.

And speaking of the fine Gallup print, it includes this: In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

I think that Jim and Jonathon up the thread have made excellent points about Obama's victories in caucus states. I was puzzled by the that and I hadn't considered that caucuses depress participation compared to primaries.

Outside of my family, I haven't really discussed the Democratic race with anyone, as I work with a bunch of Republicans and we don't talk politics much. So maybe I'm just sheltered from the "cult of personality". That said, I caucused for Obama, even though I prefer Clinton's position on health care. I thought that he has the best chance of advancing a progressive agenda if elected and he's less likely to be bellicose on foreign policy.

The funny thing is, I don't feel like I've joined a cult. BTW, I'll happily vote for Clinton in the general election.

Scotian,

A brief response at the moment. The word 'movement' doesn't bother me in reference to those who support Obama because to me it IS a movement of sorts within the Democratic party.
There are lots of 'movements,' right? The environmental movement, the pro-choice movement, the anti-war movement, etc. What Obama's 'movement' represents to me is a group of people (his supporters) who are tired of seeing special interests in Washington control legislation in Congress in almost every single area. We're tired of hearing liberal rhetoric in campaigns get nowhere in reality, compromised out of existence by one special interest or another. This was really John Edwards major message although I've always heard it in Obama's speeches too, although expressed in a different way. The 'Yes We Can' mantra of Obama supporters is 'Yes We Can' change the system. I don't know if it's possible or not within the current structure of US government but I see it as being our last best hope.

Re Jonathan

The twin cities had similar accessibility problems as those mentioned in the Kansas City Star. We attended our precinct caucus (suburban minneapolis). The voting window was from 6:30PM to 8:00PM; long lines and not enough ballots (the ballot was a tiny square of paper 2x2 inches) and there were some concerns about ballot integrity and disenfranchisement of many voters that couldn't make it to the caucus in that narrow time window.

R.L.: Did Michele Obama say that she would have to think about voting for Hillary? I have a lot of things wrong with me, but my hearing and eyesight are very good and I saw and heard her say that in a clip on CNN.My jaw fell!

Actually, your hearing, memory, or honesty aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Here's the transcript (note the deliberately misleading headline to get people to click the link):

ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

ROBERTS: That's not a given?

OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

One very critical bit of context is that Michelle Obama has explicitly and repeatedly stated that her work for husband's campaign comes second to her parenting. She says she is always at home to feed their daughters breakfast, make their lunches and get them to school - then back at night to tuck them into bed. Once they're off to school, she will fly out somewhere to campaign for her husband, but returns home later that day.

Given that context it's hard to imagine that she would work for Hillary when her husband's campaign already takes a back seat to her parenting schedule.

Would she support Hillary? Obviously she would. Would she vote for Hillary? Obviously she would. Would she work (read: campaign) for Hillary? Probably, but she'll wait and see.

Please stop attacking and lying about Michelle Obama. It reflects poorly on you and your candidate.

"Erika, all I can say is wtf?? That was just ridiculous....did you feel the same way about the Civil Rights Movement?"
(Dan, at 2:48AM)

Dan, that's exactly my point. The civil right's movement was NOT a political campaign. Rather, it was a "movement" a group effort oranized around a common cause or ideology for the purpose of influencing the thinking of others, the legislators and elected leaders and voters. It was not a political campaign, as such.
That's what I'm asking, what is it about the Obama campaign that makes him insist that he is heading up a "movement" -- like the civil rights movement?
Buut, you are right "movements" can be for good or bad. It was error on my part not to note that and just bring up Communism and Nazism as examples.

"NBC though, is doing their own projections based on the vote totals (not including superdelegates), which is why they show Obama leading. If NBC includes the superdelegates though, Clinton takes the lead."

That's interesting, Dan. I didn't know that and it now makes sense - because Tweety today started laying the groundwork: he was saying that if it turns out to be basically a delegate tie in the primaries, then the Superdelegates will be the deciding factor. And, as he put it, these aren't regular people, but Congressmen, Governors, etc. and they are skewing toward Hillary.

And all those black folks who finally have a chance to get a candidate nominated will then be up in arms if their guy doesn't win, thwarted by all these fancy people in their smoke-filled rooms (I swear he actually used that phrase). And of course, Andrea Mitchell (but maybe it was David Gregory) then eagerly agreed with him.

So NBC not counting the (agreed upon in advance by the Dem. party) Superdelegates votes makes sense now.

Oy - when there's a race war in this country, Tweety will be thrilled. And he will blame the Clintons of course. Just fucking amazing.

Augustus,
While I appreciated your well- reasoned and evidenced defense of Michele Obama, it would be more in the divisive spirit of this subthread to say, "As a black woman, I resent the implication that, should Hillary win the nomination, Obama and his family should work as slaves in the Clinton campaign." Who knows, maybe there's a bit of that as subtext here, to assume a candidate's spouse would automatically go to work for the other campaign. . .

The answer is that on Sunday, having flirted with the possibility of Obama, and having taken his measure, people fell back on their original choice, Clinton, because they began to see something wanting in Obama. Obama just came off the best press in his life, and that press encouraged every Democrat to take a look at him. Not everyone saw a president there. Some did, and some saw nothing they wanted, and still more saw a Vice President.
If Super Tuesday were Super Wednesday, you'd have seen the movement to Hillary on Monday. The impending election has a way of compressing the mind.
I thought one of the most interesting things I read today was Kevin's admission that, having voted for Obama, he started rooting for Hillary. Kevin that was the drugs wearing off. Come back, come back . . .

As I have said before, ignore the pundits and the polls. These are atypical candidates in an atypical election year.

Posted by: robbymack on February 7, 2008 at 2:38 AM

Understand something please, I was not saying that all of Obama’s supporters fall into the cult of personality trap, you clearly do not by virtue of the comment you left in the referenced cite at the top of this comment. However, it has been my experience/observation from lurking at many major progressive blogs, both Obama and Clinton supporting/leaning, that the majority of Obama supporters will defend their guy from anything no matter how factual/true/reasonable a criticism/concern it is, no matter how bad the double standard they apply between his message and actions, and then attack the personal credibility of the person making the criticism exactly like the GOPers did with/for Bush.

I evaluate the behaviour of the supporters (and the percentage of those exhibiting this behaviour) to determine whether I think it is a cult of personality versus a movement, and one of the key differences is the ability to tolerate dissenting views, and on this I have found the Obama supporters in general to be FAR less tolerant of such. Worse, too many of them go out of their way to attack those dissenting views not on their substance but by attacking the credibility of the messenger, which is another sign for me of a cult of personality. The refusal of many to support other than Obama if he loses being yet another example/criteria as is the willingness to take all his virtues on faith and to expect everyone else to because they are so obvious to the believer/supporter and all his criticisms as gospel regardless of the actual facts/chronology of events because he is such a paragon of virtue and the tendency to view anyone that opposes his aim of becoming the nominee and subsequently the President is somehow evil/corrupt/shill/propagandist/etc. Heck I have gotten that from a few people at this site myself.

So as much as you may disagree with it, even though you clearly are not one of his supporters caught in that trap, I cannot in good faith take it back/reconsider it as being too harsh a comparison, sorry. The problem is from what I have seen too widespread within his base online for me to view it any other way. Indeed, I was looking for signs that this was a movement committed to principles first instead of a leader/figurehead personality, but what I have seen shows me that is not the case in general. I am sorry if you feel I am being too harsh here, but it is what I see, and all I can say is what I see. Thank you though for the kind assessment of the rest of my “diatribe” (at least you didn’t call it a screed…*chuckle*), I rarely get that from Obama supporters, which again separates you from the majority of Obama supporters in my experience and shows yet again why you at least are clearly not in the grip of the cult of personality which I see as having formed around Obama.

Well-said, Scotian. I agree with your assessment. I have found many of the Obama supporters(who post on blogs) to be intolerant and insulting. I figured that a lot of them were pretty young, and that, well, when you can't argue on the merits of your candidate, insults are your only option. It is really off-putting. I don't dislike Obama-although I am not voting for him next month-but many of his supporters are just obnoxious.

Sullivan links a post on TPM muckraker about this. It's worth reading.

nepata:

See my response to robbymack as to why I cannot call this a movement. I understand why you see it that way, and I understand why you would disagree with my characterization, and I do not hold it against you as you like robbymack are one of the few Obama supporters who has not acted as if in the thrall of such a cult of personality when responding to my concerns/questions regarding the Obama candidacy. As I keep mentioning I am emotionally detached from this since for me there is nothing to get partisan about, and that detachment allows for a perspective that is not so easily gained when one is within the dynamic themselves. You know, very much like not seeing a forest (let alone its shape) because of all the trees when you are in the forest but it being very easy to see the whole shape of the forest from the outside.

Please understand, I don't think almost everyone that supports Obama is a cult of personality victim, but in my observations over the past several weeks I would have to say the majority of online Obama supporters do alas fall into that description. If there was a loyalty to core principles first or an ideology or even just the Democratic Party needing renewal then I would be more willing to consider this a possible movement. However, the focus is not on any of these things but rather how Obama will save the nation and bring peace to the wars domestically and if he has to say break the core principles of not using old style attack/negative politics is necessary well it's in a good cause for the right person and therefore excusable when if anyone else did the same thing it would be seen as a heinous act/sin, as I have seen done to HRC and her campaign more than once. I do think the possibility for a movement to grow out of his candidacy is there, but as of this point I don't see it, otherwise I would not be calling it this way.

I try not to use such descriptors unless I am truly comfortable that I am using them fairly and with reasonable basis, unlike some people I am not into being a rhetorical bomb thrower, perhaps it is my inherent Canadian niceness/politeness factor, but it really isn't my style. I prefer to offer my conclusions after showing why I have come to them and upon what basis I am deriving them from and then applying a negative/positive description of it, I really dislike those that throw out wild/serious accusation in simple declarative sentences as if the fact that they say so is enough to treat it as fact. I also take politics very seriously and do not treat it lightly, so when I offer an opinion/observation I am doing so with all serious consideration first. I know I will be wrong at least some of the time, after all I am human and we all get things wrong periodically, but I do try to limit how much I will pile assumption onto assumption so as to at least limit my exposure to massive error. Indeed, one of the things I really find worrisome in modern political dialogue is the willingness to presume the motives/thinking of people as if one can read their minds and know for sure, be they public figures or anonymous commentators on a blog, which is one of the reasons I tend to get a little irritated with people treating their belief in the motives of say the Clintons as proven fact when there is no way anyone can reasonably do so, especially when those assumptions are built one on top of another.

In any event I hope you are able to understand why I cannot agree with you and accept to agree to disagree on this point. That we can both recognize in the other someone of good faith in their position even when we disagree sharply on such points. Which from what you have shown me in the past I certainly have no problems extending to you, and I would like to think judging by your conduct in the past would be equally doable for you.

I heard Tom Daschle say it was thrilling to see people giving their "hearts and souls" to Obama. I heard (forget her name - former head of NARAL) say that Barack would change the country in a "cosmic" way. I've heard many similar statements from Obama devotees.

I've worked in politics many years and I've known some politicians I truly admired but, give my heart and soul to them? To me, this is the stuff of cults and it disturbs me. Admiration is one thing but reverence is something else altogether, something that should not be extended to any human being because no one can be perfect enough to live up to it and means that worshippers have to delude themselves to continue to believe.

I distrust the "movement" aspect of Obama's campaign because it isn't directed toward a cause but a person.

Of course, I'm a "lunch-bucket" Democrat. I'm on the lower end of the middle class. The pie-in-the-sky rhetoric leaves me cold. I want the deficit brought down, everyone to get health care - the ordinary problems of ordinary Americans solved. So, give me Hillary. She's paid her dues, learned her stuff and will work hard every day. And the Clintons have a proven track record on the economy.

As Maxine Waters said, I don't want hope, I want help.

We received 2 content-less, direct mail pieces from Obama last week. The last one attacked the Clintons in a really stupid way.

We caucused for Obama, and we will stay in his camp, but the content and tone of the mailings pissed us off (even more than having dinner interrupted by robo-Hillary's phone calls.)

Vicki Williams, Hillary fought hard against the deficit hawks such as Robert Rubin, in Bill Clinton's administration..Hillary wants more expansive defence policies, more expensive healthcare, and deeper tax cuts than Obama, the consequences unintended or not will increase the deficit.

Brad DeLong, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, who worked on his srong deficit reduction 93 budget and wants a return to prudent fiscal management, on his blog Tuesday called Bush's budget proposal 'a clown show'..On Wednesday, he said he just voted for Obama and explained why.

So what makes you think gallup is such a "reliable" operation. They had dur chimpfurher WAY TOO HIGH in 2004, providing cover for that STOLEN ELECTION.

What makes you think they are any more honest today?

easy to understand bump - HRC's persona is defined by press caricature, much of it hostile and dishonest. When people actually get to 'meet' her, whether virtually through debate format and ads or actually in person, they're surprised, often pleasantly by what they see. In the super Tuesday push a lot of people got to 'meet' her for the first time - the bump is the result of that. The same thing works in reverse for Obama - the press loves him, left wing intellectuals love him, the Daily Show loves him - but when average working stiffs actually get to meet him they realize the hype is hype, the image created divorced from reality, he's not actually the second coming of Christ, or JFK for that matter, and there's no real reason to immediately prefer him over Hillary.

I disagree with some of the statements here (bit surprise!)

I do not believe that the rich are going for Obama or that Hillary has a lock on the economy.

The war is ruining the economy. How many more years of war til we are totally bankrupt? Iraq is totally tied to the economy.

And all of the folks, including me, who are for Obama are educated, yes, but sure are not rich. Or young even!!

I think Obama's big problem is with Latinos. Do not know even ONE who is for him.

I thnk the new support for Hillary comes from Edwards supporters. Everyone seemed to assume that Obama would pick up all of Obama's supporters, don't know why. As an ardent Edwards supporter, I switched to Clinton because I think he is a rock star and I value hard work. I am a rural, white single mother.

I resent hearing Michelle Obama and Barack Obama suggest they won't work for the Democratic nominee unless it is him. Screw that. I kow for a fact that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton AER loyal Democrats. I refuse to vote for someone that childish.

Also, Obama is walking around with blinders on if h thinks the Republicans will not go after him as hard as they will Hillary. He seems to think that there is some contstraint in the Republican smear machine that requires they tell the truth. Hillary has dealt with their vicious lies and attacks for years. Republicans feel no opbligation to use attacks that have any basis in truth and believe me they will come with the same kind of lies to use against him as they have against the Clintons for years. You all seem toforget that most of what the CLintons have been accused of was not true.

Obama better get some thicker skin.

It looks like on the positive side a lot of people were originally attracted by Obama's clear political skills, his great rhetoric and his promise to bring a new, non-confrontational attitude to American national politics. Obama also semed to offer a safe harbor from the threat of the media-demonized "Clinton." It all looked good on a general basis, but when it came to crunch time and they actually had to decide who to vote for, enough Democrats were turned off by the uncertainty and went with the know quantity, Hillary.

What Democrats are turning out for this year is to get back a government that works and to remove the conservatives from control. Bush has proven that politics has real effects on the every day life of a lot of Americans, and competence and reliability in the Presidency is very important to Democrats. Obama's rhetoric and promises simply don't explain how he will accomplish those things, while Clinton does explain (sometimes in excruciating detail) how she will accomplish what she proposes. Then, in the last debate, the demonized "Clinton-devil" simply wasn't there.

So Clinton offered what the voters were looking for and offered a reasonable way to get there, while all Obama has offered is sweet words and empty promises. Sort of like Bush did in 2000, in fact.

That leads to a Hillary tendency - small, but sufficient.

I think Armando has it right. Obama has peaked. For his promise, Obama simply can't take "... women, Latinos, older voters and lower income non-African Americans" away from Hillary. Since Obama did not get California, Massachusetts, New Jersey or New York he has peaked in the Democratic-leaning big states. For delegates, he has even less chance of getting Texas, so the primaries are going to give roughly a tie in delegates, with the party professionals (Superdelegates) deciding at the convention based on who they think will have the strongest coattails.

A small majority of people are deciding to go with the candidate they know better when they get down to the final decision to vote, and my bet is the superdelegates (party professionals) will do likewise. That's all it is. There's still too much uncertainty in Obama for him to be able to defeat an almost equally attractive and much better known candidate, Hillary. Since most of us will take either one of them over any Republican, that's enough margin to give the final nod to Hillary. She's a safer decision.

The reason why the final decision is being made at the last moment is that the two candidates really are so nearly equal in attractiveness to most Democrats.

I think Obama's big problem is with Latinos. Do not know even ONE who is for him.

Here's what he should do--divorce his wife, and marry a Hispanic woman, someone cute and fun. He might be able to marry a gal with charisma who's good on the campaign trail, but, barring that, if he marries a woman with the surname Rodriguez, he skates to the nomination. Is J Lo available? I haven't followed celebrity news for quite a while.

When people actually get to 'meet' her, whether virtually through debate format and ads or actually in person, they're surprised, often pleasantly by what they see.

I cannot dispute this. I met her in 1993 and I thought she was a charming woman. This was when she was having trouble figuring out what to do with her hair. I can't remember who my wife was at that point, but she ended up adopting her hairstyle before everything flamed out for her in early 1994.

Many posters are missing the point. You cannot explain this as some sort of genuine movement away from Obama and toward Hillary. The VERY SAME DAY that Gallup had Hillary up 13, voters across the nation supported Obama and Hillary EQUALLY. This is as far off as the pro-Obama polls were before New Hampshire. This poll is flatout WRONG, whether you support Clinton or Obama. You cannot claim to measure voter intent on the day of the election (and the three days leading up to it, for that matter) and then get the actual election results completely wrong. What did Gallup do?

Jonathan has a post upthread at 2:04AM that ends with a point well worth thinking about:

Caucuses are undemocratic and the reason Super Tuesday didn't correspond with the national Gallup poll was because Barack scored big on the Caucus votes due to a large showing from some of his diehard supporters.

Why should we believe that Obama is anything more than a hot house flower candidate, who can't manage to win big states with diverse populations in actual elections, without something tilting things in his favor (such as the endorsement he got in Missouri and the fact that Missouri neighbors Illinois).

Lots of undecided voters broke for Clinton at the last moment in New Hampshire. I'm wondering if that's a larger trend. The question I'm wondering is how many people making a decision on the last day are going to Clinton and how many for Obama?

I'm from Minnesota, and I wish you'd quit knocking our caucuses. This was the first time in my memory that our caucuses came before the race was decided, and our turnout was big. Bigger than we get in some primaries. Lots of excitement, lots of first-timers.

I just like the fact that the reality of this primary election is outrunning the press's ability to compose a narrative. Fabricated, journalistic narratives that supposedly explain election outcomes are no better than the bogus explanations we get from business news outlets, telling us what the "market is thinking" every time the Dow moves 50 points.

I'm from Minnesota, and I wish you'd quit knocking our caucuses. This was the first time in my memory that our caucuses came before the race was decided, and our turnout was big.

Oh, I poo-poo your caucus going ways. What an asinine way to conduct affairs. This country was built on the principle of the ballot box, not the potluck dinner where everyone sits in grumpy little groups.

The last time I was in Minnesota, it was a hundred degrees outside and the humidity was through the roof. I was wearing a sweater and heavy pants at the time, because I anticipated some brisk weather. I've never been so disappointed in a climate in my life.

Cut Michelle Obama some slack, too. Of course she will support the Democratic nominee - it was a dumb question to ask her. Right now, we're trying to decide who the Democratic nominee will be, and she's focused on that.

The correct thing for her to do was to say something like, "Of course we all want a Democrat in the White House, and I think the best way to get one there is to support Barak." That would reaffirm that she's a Democrat while bringing the focus back to the concrete present.

Her problem isn't that she's not a loyal Democrat, it's that she isn't yet practiced enough at handling stupid and distracting questions. Her husband is a genius at it.

I'm so tired of the experience arguments. None of the candidates has any Presidential or Vice Presidential experience. None. So they're all inexperienced. Now, make a real argument.

Amidst the torrent of petty arguments going back and forth, one point stands out: Hillary Killed at the last debate. In fact, it's fairly obvious to me that not only is she the better debater (everyone says this and I agree) but HE'S the better speech giver. Obama should resist the call to more debates. It's good strategy.

- His stump speeches are what got him where he is
- Her stump speeches are fairly tired and uninspiring
- She is a great at debates as she laundry lists the wonk bullet points
- He stutters and stumbles in the debates
- He has more money
- Debates are free advertising for her cause

Bottom line: Obama needs to limit his exposure in the debate format. That will cover his weakness and require HRC to spend precious dollars on getting her message out. Tactically, this is his only move.

Addendum: I think, based on Obama's speech from Tuesday night, that we're going to see a repositioning of his campaign toward the economy. He won't ditch the Iraq issue, but obviously the economy is coming to the fore.

I'm from Minnesota, and I wish you'd quit knocking our caucuses. This was the first time in my memory that our caucuses came before the race was decided, and our turnout was big. Bigger than we get in some primaries. Lots of excitement, lots of first-timers.

Please. No one can compare the legitimacy of caucuses as opposed to that of elections as far as representing the will of the people. Imagine how much outrage there would be if someone proposed that we change the Constitution so that we could use caucuses to vote in the general instead of actual elections. I mean, no secret vote, all kinds of nasty social pressures being applied, a selection factor for people who can't or won't attend such social events, etc., etc. Democracy it ain't.

Caucuses favor hot house flower candidates. Your guy is such a candidate, and that's why you love them so much.