BREAKING: Obama opens up 26 point lead on Clinton!!!

The poll also found Obama expanded his lead over Clinton in the Democratic race to 26 percentage points, doubling his advantage from mid-April as Democrats begin to coalesce around Obama and prepare for the general election battle with McCain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2034087120080521

Obama 59 Clinton 33 + 26
Obama 48 McCain 40 + 8
Clinton 43 McCain 43 +:rofl:


Look at those numbers. :party:

:rofl:

And how can I get one that says "Bitter Franco-Americans for Obama"?

I think they photoshopped it.

See this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5479055&mesg_id=5479144

Anybody know what's up with photobucket again? Seems to be another censorship spree goin on over there.

STOP THE DRAMA
VOTE OBAMA!!!

Gallup should show a greater gap, too, today.

:toast:

Starts getting more supers in the coming days.

Let the hounds loose!

LoL

INCLUDING the word "just" ... since it's Hillary that's resurrected that old canard. ("It takes me longer to get ready.") :grr:

to be the least bit complacent or celebratory until the day AFTER the election. But it's good to see Obama gain.

A thought experiment: WHAT running mate raises Obama the MOST percent in the polls over McCain? What running mate, even if not that terribly well-known now (possibly Sen Stabenow of MI) WOULD over time boost Obama the most? The second question (which I saw in Obama relative to the other candidates back when he was polling way way behind HRC, including among African-American voters. I think of potential VPs like Sen Boxer of CA and Stabenow of MI who in various ways have at least the potential to significantly boost Obama's strength as the key, more than contemporary polls. Whoever is or are those electorally strongest nominees are worth the closest scrutiny.

A While THAT individual might not necessarily make the best VP or president, there are probably a very small number of potential VPs who would RAISE Obama's chances of winning the most, and surely in that group there are some great potential presidents (being better than McCain is arguably sufficient to support a nominee, but that approach gets tricky).

I am too worried about the prospect of McCain keeping the country in Iraq 'until we win' to have any desire to deviate sharply from that small group of potential candidates. I don't think Hillary Clinton is in that small group -- her baggage and her negatives/unpopularity for many (I'd have voted for her for president in a second against McCain if she'd gotten the nomination) are NOT going to go away soon -- but there are a number of candidates who at least MIGHT be:

Boxer
Stabenow
Sebelius
Napolitano
McAllister

males -- I think a female would VASTLY energize the ticket much more -- include:

Schweitzer
Webb
Strickland (though he's awfully DLC for my tastes, he might help
carry Ohio)
possibly Richardson (in my view, the strongest VP cand of Obama's
competitors in the primaries)

Lots of folk are pushing Clark, Nunn, and Hillary Clinton, all of whom would move the ticket significantly to the right without any corresponding political gain in my view. Some say Boxer would skew the ticket too far left, but I don't think that voters are as motivated on that issue, unless a candidate is like Kucinich (for whom I voted in 04 in MA after Kerry was already the presumptive nominee) or Pat Robertson. I am not particular impressed with how Edwards did as VP nominee in 04, especially in the debate.

Webb and Strickland both seem to turn towards the right ("center") but also involve potential political trade-offs. But I think the gestalt of a popular, extremely likeable candidate without serious baggage who has special appeal to a range of constituencies and who would generate enthusiasm especially in constituencies not already "fired up" for Obama is much more important.

Anyway, I do think it matters of progressives coalesce around a particular candidate, or more likely, a particular set of criteria.
My criteria are: someone who never supported the Iraq War Resolution, who would make a first-rate president (as good as Obama), and who is maximally electorally boosting. I strongly prefer a female, which also I think would be maximally electorally boosting. This is a year when a lot of people feel it's high time that we not only had a woman on the ticket, but a woman on the WINNING ticket, which surely Obama has at least an even shot at being, especially if his choice of VP is a political master stroke, and HOPEFULLY Hillary doesn't even try to force herself on the ticket (which is what she might very well be trying to do).

as being the best running mate for Obama.

You're still living in a cave.

I think that shows how name recognition might be important for a candidate like Obama who is less familiar:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=162d4baa-59af-4ec5-9d9b-eb6e658e86c5

(Iraq War Resolution). Edwards is neither. As for boosting the ticket, the enthusiasm generated in whole new constituencies (ones that might in significant numbers VOTE for Obama, but not quite as heavily and CERTAINLY not support as enthusiastically, is something the realpolitik calculators overlook.

In 04, against my own assessment, everyone went trashing Dean and flocking to Kerry b/c Kerry supposedly had what it took to win. Kerry got toasted on his unsure position on Iraq. Now the DLC types are at it again -- Edwards is better than Nunn, Clark or Hillary Clinton, but I'd prefer Sen Boxer, Gov Sebelius or Sen Stabenow, or maybe Gov Napolitano. Among males, there's Schweitzer, maybe Richardson or Webb, and THEN, after all these, I'd go for Edwards.

I do NOT believe Edwards would be a MASSIVE boost to Obama's ticket, nor Hillary, possibly but only possibly Richardson could have a significant upward push. I'm not wild about Richardson either (he's basically another Clintonianish Democrat) but of Obama's competitors in the primary race, he seems the MOST likely to really help Obama get elected.

make a pretty huge difference in Pennsylvania, so I'll keep an eye on those sorts of polls over the next month.

On #2, some pundit described the difference between Kerry and Obama on the forign policy thing as.. Obama can speak strongly and decisively on Iraq, but Kerry had to twist himself into a pretzel, saying he was for it before he was against it. I agree that an unqualified opposition to Iraq will be important in choosing the Vice President.

I would have thought Sebelius, but I saw somewhere that she was a negative, at least in a couple of states. Personally I love Boxer, but as she has said, someone has to stay in the Senate and she has more balls than all the Dem men there combined, IMHO.

and I think she REALLY has what I'd like to see in a president, the way Obama does (albeit they are different KINDS of people, which is fine on a national ticket).

Boxer brings not only her gender (which CANNOT be honestly overlooked, although some might see it as adroit to avoid the APPEARANCE of it -- unlike in 84) but an appeal in places like Florida, and to suburbanites in places like around Philadelphia, or at least that's just my guess.

anyway ...

I will start threads, after having already started some in recent weeks about the VP choice. People come forward going gaga over the likes of Wes Clark and I get all frustrated ...

:woohoo:

:sarcasm:

It makes me feel better because posting GE polls that don't mean anything. Because I remember DU in 2007 when the Clinton supporters used to triple post the same polls over and over again about how Hillary was inevitable and that no one else stood a chance and how Obama/Edwards/Richardson/Biden/Dodd supporters should just give up.

:bounce:

:crazy:

I'll be interested to see what the Gallup is today.

Where you will never see an "ignore"

:rofl:



GOBAMA!

But oh well it is over and they know it is over.

:rofl:

SUSA fucked up IN, NC, and MO. Zogby fucked up CA and OH. They all fuck up. But Zogby was real good in IN and NC.

Sounds like it was pretty close.

for example

Pollster A says Hillary wins spain 82-18
Pollster B says Obama wins spain 51-49

Results say Hillary wins spain 52-48


Your logic would say that pollster A is more accurate because it got the winner right.
My logic would say that pollster B is more accurate because it was only 3 points off instead of pollster A that was off 30.

one candidate ahead by 1.5%.... and the other candidate wins by 1.2%.... that pollster was INCREDIBLY accurate.


If a pollsters has a candidate ahead by 1.5%... and that candidate wins by 20%... then the pollster was INCREDIBLY inaccurate, even though they picked the winner.

Mosteller's methods can rate the same poll 6+ different ways.

http://www.electoral-vote.com /

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May21....

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May2...

Updated daily........great bookmark. They contain averages of many polls by each state.

Super delegates should be looking at these.........

Black NATIONALIST sexist elitists, with limos, sipping lattes, driving on 22 inch rims...were polled.

people would not vote for Obama....:shrug:

That's quite a bit.

:)