Union workers and under 50K/year aren’t certain to go for Obama. You can’t use Wisconsin as an indicator, because over a third of the voters were independents and Republicans.

I think Obama will make a serious effort to get us out of Iraq. I don’t think Hillary will do the same.

I am willing to put up with the other parts of the Democratic platform (taxes, etc.) to get out of Iraq, but if they are not going to even do that then why bother.

Mr. Bonner–I agree entirely that current polling may not be indicative of what will happen in eight months, and I usually fail to note explicitly that polls are not intended to be predictive despite the habit observers, myself included, have of using them to make predictions. There is certainly nothing in the survey that suggests that it is impossible for Obama and McCain to unify their parties around them, but only that it isn’t happening yet. In Obama’s case, this may be more understandable, since there is still some real competition between the candidates. Some of Clinton’s voters may not have reconciled themselves to an Obama win McCain may be in worse shape: he still has significant ground to make up despite having essentially locked up the nomination almost a month ago.

But Clinton has more of the *Democrat* vote, which, you know, is what Democrat candidates usually need in order to be sure they’ll do well in the general.

“Then there are the true believers who think that Obama has the makings of a “game-changer” who will realign the country’s politics, and they are not terribly interested in anything that could contradict that story.”

I know. Like I said, I’m Kevin McCarthy and there are pod people everywhere. But while I understand the Obamabots thinking that way, I can’t understand why the Democrat leadership seems so eager to gulp down that Koolaid.

That’s the thing that amazes me–fundamentally, the endorsements, the fundraising, the ads, everything–they aren’t making a bit of difference. the demographics are largely unchanged. Look at the race, income, and party breakdown of the electorate, and the outcome is entirely predictable. Obama hasn’t made a single sale. Neither has Hillary. But Clinton needs far fewer African American and liberal cutovers than Obama needs whites and Hispanics.

How about blogs like this one:
The next President is going to have some MAJOR challenges.
I refuse to buy into the hype, on either side, but especially on that of Obama. However the “empty rhetoric” v. “history of accomplishments” arguments have prompted me to check it out on my own, not relying on any candidate’s website, book, or worst of all supporters’ diaries, like this one.

I went to the Library of Congress Website… http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

or articles like this one: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+B.+Hertneky%3A+Let’s+compare+the+public+accomplishments+of+Clinton+and+Obama&articleId=11dc4bb6-bc19-4f73-97a4-400fbd3dad27
Which reads: INSTEAD OF COMPARING Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s experience — a vague set of claims — I turned my attention toward accomplishments. Not what they’ve accomplished for themselves, but what they’ve accomplished for others…

I’ve done a lot of homework on all three candidates, we should all do that and stop relying on sound bites and and polls that have yet to truly predict an outcome.

Don’t you feel like you’re in some weird alternate universe? Why should anyone have to point out the obvious–that a Democrat candidate getting to the big show on the support of liberals without the base is going to have a bad time? What I can’t figure out is why the Democrats aren’t talking about this themselves. Doesn’t it worry them?

I feel like Kevin Mccarthy. I just can’t figure out if I’m in the original, and I get to the FBI before everyone is infected, or in the remake where I get run down by a car.

Because the polls were badly wrong in New Hampshire, and pretty much accurate everywhere else, we are now supposed to ignore everything they tell us. That seems badly mistaken.