http://www.gallup.com/poll/107395/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Opens-16Point-Lead-Biggest- Yet.aspx

I don't know how to post the image of the graph (assistance anyone?), but it looks like the electorate is also moving towards the idea that Obama is our man.  This is the biggest lead he has had in this poll!

Just curious...

Lost my ability to rec here - Obama supporter.

I think it wil be interesting to see what the breakdown is.

FS

Jerome is very fond of talking about the popular vote, and how, somehow, if you ignore that Obabma wasn't on the ballot in MI and you ignore the states that don't report totals (IA, NV, WA, ME...thanks but you don't get a say!), well, Hillary's ahead!  

But does anyone think the superdelegates are buying that? Of course not!  Everyone knew the rules before the election started.  Obama played the game according to the rules, and so did Hillary...and Obama played it better.  The goal was to maximize delegate count, and he did it.

If the rules were "popular vote wins"  Obama would have played the game differently.  If in baseball, a point was scored for every base a player gets to, the strategy for the game would be different.  You can't go back and change the rules in the middle of the game and come up with a different winner...especially when a change in the rules would lead the players to a change in their strategy.

So Jerome and everyone else who keeps trying to change the rules in the middle of the game...no one's buying it.  The superdelegates aren't buying it.  It's a nice sound bite, but everytime someone mentions it, they need to be asked "Don't you think Obama would have used a different strategy if the winning metric was popular votes?" and also "Why are you using a metric that ignores 4 states?"  Then we'll see if the goal is fairness or if the goal is to just choose some metric where they can say that Hillary is ahead.

According to ABC News:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/ story?id=4818637&page=1

Sen. Barack Obama moved into the lead today in the last category that Sen. Hillary Clinton had claimed to have an edge -- support among the Democratic Party's superdelegates.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has taken the superdelegate lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., in their battle for the 2008 Democratic nomination.
(AP Photo)The Illinois Democrat grabbed the superdelegate lead thanks to a switch by New Jersey Rep. Donald Payne and an endorsement from previously uncommitted Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon.

Those two votes gave Obama a 267-266 lead over Clinton. That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday.

============

That was her last talking point...her last place where she was in the lead.  Drip....drip....drip....

FS

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is the first outlet's count where he passes her...since superdelegates are so difficult to count, other places still show her with the lead. The bad news for her is that this means the story won't be over in one day, as it will be a new story from every network over a week or two as their specific way of counting shows Obama taking the lead.

<>"Meanwhile, Barack Obama pocketed the support of at least four Democratic convention superdelegates on Wednesday, building on the momentum from a convincing North Carolina primary victory.

Obama, now the front-runner, was home in Chicago during the day as his aides spread word that he would soon begin campaigning in states likely to be pivotal in the fall campaign. They also relayed word of the four endorsements, expected to be made public later in the day."<>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/campaign_rdp; _ylt=AvP6faK94HIqGdlL2DzUDVxh24cA

Movement like this should continue over the next few days.  The names should be announced sometime later today.

FS

Lord Voldemort today endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying that she would be the only candidate to bring together the Slytherin and Gryffindor houses, which would make it easier for him to destroy them.

He then ate four babies with a gulp and a burp.  

Why does Hillary Clinton associate herself with this baby-eater? Those poor babies were gulped because of Hillary!

*From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Obama is now within 30 superdelegates of Clinton (255-225), as he added one more superdelegate to his total today. Montana National committeewoman Jeanne Lemire Dahlman told AP, and the campaign confirms to First Read, that she is throwing her support to the Illinois senator.

Obama now leads by 134 in the overall delegate count, 1,641-1,507. He has a 164 pledged-delegate lead, 1,416-1,252. *

This brings about a questions for those that think Hillary can still win...what's she going to do?  He's had overwhelming support from the superdelegates since Super Tuesday and she's lost 5.  Who are these superdelegates who are going to change their mind and give her a win?

I will gladly vote for either candidate in the general, but I just don't see any path that gets her the nomination.

I'm creating a diary from a post I made in Linfar's thread. As I said in there, there may be lots of reasons to dislike Obama or Hillary, and there are many intelligent arguments to make for and against both, but people who are screaming about the oversampling are not understanding the term...hopefully the below offers a clear explanation and we can move on from this "oversampling" issue.

.......

I'm going to explain oversampling (I've been doing statistical analysis for 15 years!)...let's forget the candidates for a second.  Oversampling does not automatically equal "bad".  So let's use a different example.

Let's say someone wants to put a garbage dump in the Bronx.  A local news station polls 1,000 people in all 5 boros of NYC asking their opinion. (Do you favor the dump? Does knowing the dump will add $10 million in revenue to the city budget make you favor it more?)

That means, on average, they'd get 200 people actually from the Bronx.  Now they want to ask some questions specifically about how the dump would affect peoples everyday lives (will the smell bother you?  Will you be annoyed by the trucks?) So, they poll an additional 250 people who specifically live in the Bronx so that they have a more accurate sample.  That's oversampling...asking more people a specific subset of questions....

BUT, and here's the big but...those additional 250 people aren't included in the original sample!  So the results from the overall questions still only include the original 1000 people, not the additional 250!  The original results aren't skewed.

Now you may have lots of problems with the media, Obama, etc...but you're not helping your cause by blaming oversampling.  It's a normal survey technique used to get more accurate results on a specific subset of questions.

So, PLEASE, stop blaming oversampling for the results of the MSNBC survey!  I'll be glad to answer any additional questions you may have!

FS