The Numbers

Senator Obama is going to win the American Presidency by a landslide. I cannot tell you how many republicans I know who are voting for him. I live in California (conservative Orange County), and I have never been polled in my life (51 years). I don't trust the polls. Most liberals I know, including myself, are for Obama. Senator Obama is just what this nation needs.

nice to see how Hillary is un-ravelling in all her glory and showing her real nasty side.
Maybe the CIA or secretive Bilderberg hoodlums will bump off Obama just before the finish line
Deja Vu Martin Luther

The tired old crocodile who snaps and snarls,..but nobody cares a damn any more

She would have had more credibility if she had divorced Bill the cigar man.

rt,

Don't speak for Asians, when you are not even one. I am and I will be voting for Obama. The numbers you have made up are pure jibberish and mean nothing. Please present a plausible argument, this time perhaps for your own race.

s.b., are you running exits polls in TX and OH, or are you just a Clinton campaign hack? How can you possibly know how the voters in these states have and are voting? I believe we should wait until March 4 to count the votes in their *MARCH 4* election. Until then, your speculations are just that - speculations. You cannot possibly know what's going on with votes that have not been, and cannot legally yet be, counted.

Moreover, TX is a combined primary-caucus state (which Clinton herself admitted that she hadn't taken the time to figure out). Early voting might matter there some, but it is not the entire picture. Just because Clinton had some early support (e.g., before the last debate) does not mean that she still has that support, or that she will have sufficient TX voters turn up to caucus to gain her many delegates there. Polls have consistently shown Obama and Clinton running even in TX over the last week - there's just no mystery there.

As to OH, who knows? I wouldn't profess to know how the state is going to go, because polls have not yet been static enough to "predict." But I certainly wouldn't go around telling people how the voters there "are" voting or "have voted" - because the election hasn't taken place there yet.

The national polling services do not want to admit the real problem with polling this season is that most people under thirty use cell phones exclusively - and polling services cannot legally poll people on their cell phones. Add that to caller ID, which allows people not to answer the phone when strangers call,and you get a very, very small non-representative sample from which to poll.

Clinton is history, however, whatever the polls say. Obama is the one who is bringing out enormous crowds at speeches and the polls; beating Clinton by double digits in the last 10 primaries. People know Hillary and they are rejecting her. There is nothing she can do to change that. Nothing - and no one has the courage to tell her, now is the time to bow out gracefully. Hopefully, she will realize that before she ends all future political hopes.

People who are saying that Obama has no chance to win the general election because he won't win NY and Cali need to be realistic. Kerry, a less popular candidate than both Clinton and Obama won those states by 10 and 18 percent. They will go Democrat. As will Washington, Illinois, Hawaii, and all the NE. Penn and Oregon are likely to go Dem as well based on their voting records.

Clinton supporters best arguments should be that she could win Arkansas, Tenn, Arizona (states that are mostly red but go blue for popular or hometown candidates) and have a slight edge in carrying Nevada and Forida (if you add Edwards to Obama votes as most primaries have shown that is what is happening, you end up with Clinton 49.7% to Obama's 47.4% and that's without campaigning, something that would also help Obama). They need to also show that she is up big with the largest groups of voters, the elderly and women.

Obama supporters need to show that he has large advantages in possibly carrying Colorado, Louisiana, Georgia (states that are usually red, but have gone Blue for popular candidates), and Virginia (which has gone red but had fairly close elections, particularly when Blacks support a candidate) and have an advantage in not losing Iowa, Wis, and Minn (which are usually Democrat but have had very close recent elections). And that he has done much better with independents, the group which has primarily decided the last two elections. They also need to point out that he has the overall delegate and popular vote lead (If you don't count Mich and Florida he is up 1 million, if you count Mich and Flo, he is up 300,000, if you count likely voters in Mich and Florida - the Edward votes in Florida and the Uncommitted in Mich, Obama is up 800,000, and no matter what he would still be up in pledged delegates).

All other states are pretty much decisively Red or Blue or the races between the Democrats are too close to make a major difference (Missouri, NM). And for those arguing that Republicans are voting for one candidate or another because they would rather face them in the general election...get real. There is no way a group could mass organize a campaign to a scale that would make a major difference without democrats and independents knowing. I'm sure you guys have lots of other conspiracies you believe in too. Both candidates are good candidates for the Democrats, why can't the blue just agree on that and stop tearing each other down. The big election is in November and fighting with each other is only going to hurt the party. I suggest people start looking for reasons to like the "other" candidate as that is what both Clinton and Obama would want come November.

Sorry for the length of this comment.

"ABC and the Washington Post have oversamples african americans in every poll" - Great, now it turns out the polling people are not even honest.

It is time the American people wake up and smell the coffee. If they nominate and then elect a 1st term junior senator with zero legislative accomplishments then they will merely reinforce global attitudes that began to emerge after the great American public voted for GW Bush. Why would America continue to allow un-tested vapid characters to lead their nation. Obama may occassionally sound good but he won't look good when he starts making monumental mistakes on the global stage. A vote for Obama therefore is a vote for the same old stuff. In Clinton´s great favour is a commodity rare in American politicians: pure sound intelligence.

Playing the political correctness card, Mr. Obama is benefitting from an army of Liberals who like to think of themselves as being in the far left. (Anywhere else in the world, they are not even Moderates!) Meanwhile, the media that in America is predominantly Republican at heart (and wallet) joins in the momentum just because, as Humm said it already, it works for the Republicans. Just imagine how dumb would McCain will look debating Hillary; but he could look "fatherly" with Obama. I find it amazing how little "the educated" who follows Mr. Obama knows or is willing to accept the undercovered racism in America.

It is a shame that US has not made a whole lot of progress in the area of sexism. Dee Dee Myers, former White House Press Secretary, pointed out that if Obama was a woman, no one would take her seriously as a candidate because of the lack of experience. But how is it that Barack Obama's lack of experience doesn't seem to matter? Didn't the US already elect a president who had no experience, i.e. George Bush? And look at the mess we are in now?

As an outsider looking in: I would say a vote for Obama is a vote for the Republicans, McCain will ever so kindly make mincemeat out of him if it came an election. Hilary is a force to be reckoned with - she's seen off the worst of them when it has come to the crunch - and has policies and the ability to lead pragmatically. Obama seems to me to be too much like our ex, Mr Blair - full of boyish charm and well-spun speeches - a political opportunist.

I don't claim to know the whole voting process but what about the independent voters that weren't allow to vote in the primaries. Don't their votes count at all?
I also think that reporters and media have been a lot harder on Senator Clinton than Obama. The problem is it's easier to pick on a woman than it is a black person. If you do your a racist and if you don't your a sexist. I'd rather have someone in the White House that at least knows what there're doing. I don't think he has the slighted idea of what's going on. All I know is I have had enough of the last seven years to last a lifetime. I think the best part of the day is watching Letterman and the Presidential Speeches and wondering how in the world did the people ever elect such a duface. I sure hope they wise up before we have another go around the next four years!

My faith in the ability of many Americans to vote wisely has eroded. I remember how disappointed I was after the 2000 elections. I was told that I had not even given GW a chance. So I decided to wait and watch - look what happened to our country!

Now I have a very sinking feeling about Obama and I do not understand this hype over a man who has barely been in national politics for 3 years. He seems to be opportunistic in what he says and what voters he's trying to attract. It's disappointing that the American public are willing to be lead along again by a dud.

Can CA/NY ELECTORAL VOTES change hands without a Clinton?

The Democrats lost New York twice in 1980-1984. The Republicans never thought losing California after 6 consecutive winning elections 1968-1988 including the first President Bush and it took a candidate like Bill Clinton to win CA for the Democrats.

Bush and Kerry were not good candidates in 2004. While Kerry won CA by 9 points and NY by 19 points in 2004, he did not beat Bush among white voters of those states who represented more than 60% of the voters in CA and NY. I have not drank MSNBC kool-aid to convince me that Barack Obama facing McCain can do better than John Kerry in 2004 among white voters.

If Barack Obama continues having troubles convincing Latinos about his candidacy including no reaching 45% in Texas, CA and NY are likely to be in play this November. Texas will be strong for McCain and Barack Obama can not attract Latinos and old voters in Florida with his position about Cuba.

Rudy Giullini and Pataki with a now unpopular Democratic Governor in NY, and Arnold in CA can help the Republicans to at least put those states in play against a democratic candidate like Barack Obama.

As an indigenous person coming from the US colony of Guam, it is simply funny to see how sexism towards a white woman trumps rascism toward a biracial man (or does his father's ethnicity erase his mother's?), as well as touting the "presidential" experience of Hilary Clinton. Where was her experience when voting to go to war? All I can say is that whether junior senator or not, I know that it is rare to find someone to stand up against the tide, in this case, a tide of ignorance and arrogance. Indeed, an Obama win would impact all doubters of America's true destiny--whether the founding fathers meant it or not.

I will vote Obama, so the next President
of United States be a Republican !
NICE JOB OBAMA !!

I weep for our country when I read some of these internet comments. The ignorance can be...pungent. I support Obama, and I don't particularly like the way Clinton's campaigned, but all three candidates are capable and would represent a massive improvement over the last few years. All are patriots; Obama is a Christian, but I wonder at the implicit assumption people make that being a Muslim is a "bad" thing. Why shouldn't a Muslim have the same chance to be president as anyone else? Because there are extremists who claim to follow the same religion? Same is true of any religion. Clinton, while she likes hardball, isn't going to assassinate anyone. Obama supporters have not all drunk poisoned kool-aid, we just really like our candidate. There's no evidence McCain had an affair with Valerie what's-her-name, just a bunch of innuendo. There are plenty of legitimate concerns about all the candidates, as there would be with any flawed human being. If we have to make the negative case against our opponent's candidate, rather than the positive case for our own, why not talk about those? E.g., Clinton's judgment, Obama's falling short of the ideals he champions, McCain's ties to lobbyists.

What this election proves (and I'd show you my own polls I did for my amusement) is that in the United States misogyny and bigotry are common sense, even though a few will sense or acknowledge this. For example, in one of my polls an American will rather trust (and elect) a blind, deaf and mute male/man over a female/woman. And this is not only true for males. That far the "advanced" American society reaches out. No wonder why a female earns 60 to 70 cents for every dollar a male earns in the U.S. Furthermore sex ratio nationwide (2007 est.) is 0.97 male/female, whether there have been 35 women in the United States Senate since 1789, meaning that out of the 1,897 Americans who have served in the United States Senate since that time, 1.85 percent of all Senators have been female.
If there's a need for a major change, this is the one, not inside the White House, believe me.
To conclude, if Senator McCain will play nicely/soft (as Senator Clinton did), which I doubt, we'll have a new cheerleader in the White House, now from Democrats.

It's time for the media to take a vacation and stop trying to manipulate the voters. The lovely media gave us the miserable failure, George Bush and we don't need another George Bush Jr. aka Obama.

Hillary brags about experience,what experience is she talking about? Is it the Lewinsky or preparing breakfast for her husband? Come on people, America is not a family business.