In MO he maintains a 6 point lead, 2 points less than Clinton, hardly significantly "slimmer."

The NAFTA issue is a joke. So Obama isn't a "protectionist" according to the "damning" memo? Well yeah, Obama himself could have told you that. However, even pro-trade politicians, like Obama and Clinton, want to amenda existing deals.

And let's not forget SUSA's match-up polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, Oregon, Michigan, etc.

I think the most troubling thing about these polls is that they are in very important states. Why in the world would McCain be performing so well in Dem strongholds in the northeast against Obama? I can understand some southern states swinging more toward McCain because he markets himself as a moderate type. But in Massachusetts? PLEASE TELL ME WE AREN'T ON THE VERGE OF ELECTING ANOTHER JOHN KERRY!!!

Some of the SUSA polls you ignored in your cherrypicking:

New Mexico (taken same day as the MO poll which, again, shows Obama and Clinton basically doing just as well):
Obama - 55, McCain - 40
Clinton - 50, McCain - 45

Minnesota:
Obama - 55, McCain - 40
Clinton - 49, McCain - 45

California (which Clinton cites as "proof" of her superior "electability"):
Obama - 61, McCain - 34
Clinton - 58, McCain - 35

Oregon:
Obama - 48, McCain - 47
McCain - 49, Clinton - 41

New York (Clinton's home state!):
Obama - 57, McCain - 36
Clinton - 52, McCain - 41

Virginia:
Obama - 51, McCain - 45
McCain - 48, Clinton - 45

Iowa:
Obama - 51, McCain - 41
McCain - 52, Clinton - 41

Wisconsin:
Obama - 52, McCain - 42
McCain - 49, Clinton - 42

Tempting, but no dice. Examine the polls again, when a nominee is decided. I suspect that indecision on the D side is creating some noise. I expect to see support congealing around the nominee after the primary is sewn up, which may explain McCain's consistent showing in the 40 - 45% range almost regardless of the state.

Also, NG, I'm not sure how HRC 51% showing (7% lead)is a 'trounce' while BHO's 49% showing (6% lead) is a 'slight lead.'

Last thought on MA- if the republicans are in a position to win MA in the general election, then I and the rest of the attentive public are missing something huge. In 2006, nearly every republican on the ballot in New England was ousted from office. So, my question is what has happened in 2 years since then that would seem to favor the GOP party? My answer is, nothing except further downhill. Unless Mac can un-tether himself from Iraq and the economy, I see little or no change from the dynamics of 2006.

Steve

I am crossing the line, but I am sure if any of you have read any of NG other post one might come to the conclusion that NG does not support MR. Obama but does support Mrs. Clinton. These are the facts, I am not disputing his numbers nor am I arguing against his criticism, but if one were to take the talking points from the Clinton campaign, there has been rampant criticism thrown at Mr.Obama by NG while Mrs.Clinton seems to be getting a free pass.

The bigger isssue I beleive is, "do you think that this contentious campaign will give the Republicans a helpingg hand come November?"

I think Obama supporters may be in for a shock in the GE. He may flip a red state or two, but he could also lose a blue state or two or even more. I was actually not a big fan of Obama before I read his blueprint for change. Except on the Iraq war, most of his public appearances have been short on policy specifics. A lot of what he talked about were things uniting the country and post-partisanship. I think a lot of people, including myself, took that to mean that he would sell out liberal issues to get everybody on board with his plans (i.e., kind of like Bill Clinton).

However, his policy blueprint is actually the most liberal, progressive agenda I have ever seen from a major candidate. That made me feel a lot better about him. However, this could cause him a big problem in the GE. None of his Dem opponents wanted to paint him as a tax and spend liberal for a number of reasons—the base likes tax and spend liberals and it would also lend credence to a republican talking point that has won many elections before. He is going to be savaged on his plans by the third party spenders. All they have to do is attack his specific plans without mentioning who to vote for and he could easily become toast overnight with a lot of the indies who now support him on sheer emotions but really have no idea who he is.

You know a poll in CA showed large numbers of Obama supporters (close to 50% in some cases) are pro-life, against stem cell therapy, don't believe in global warming, don't support labor unions, etc.) There are not the type of people who support liberals when the facts come out. They have been duped into supporting someone they think is a moderate who can heal the rift between the liberals and the conservatives. I have a bad feeling this is gonna be Mcgovern or Mondale all over again.

I hope you are wrong heretic. If this election boils down to wedge issues being any sort of key component to winning then I agree with you that there may be problems come November, of course the same is true if Hillary were to win the nomination, wouldn't you say. If the democrats can simply point out that all the Hub-bub regarding issues such as pro-life, stem-cell research and global warming simply put ourselves in stalemate in Congress then what we all realize is that nothing will be done on either side of the aisle. It is the 21st century and I am not going to believe that the doubts surrounding these issues will be resolved, rather I choose to believe that these issues are as contentious today as they will ever be, so the message should not be one in which you promote divisive policies but rather push for polcies that put America moving forward on issues regarding the economically,foreign policy, immigration, poltically etc.

"The same day in MO shows once again Clinton trouncing McCain 51-44, while Obama carries a slight lead 49-43."

So a seven point lead is "trouncing," but a six point lead is "slight"?? Your bias is showing. Beyond that, MO goes blue regardless so where's the beef? Let's look at states that polling indicates will actually switch sides depending on the candidate. Here's a few:

Minnesota (Rasmussen, 2-16)
McCain 47, Clinton 42
Obama 53, McCain 38
Obama swing +20

Wisconsin (SUSA, 2-18)
McCain 49, Clinton 41
Obama 52, McCain 42
Obama swing +17

Oregon (Rasmussen, 2-14)
McCain 45, Clinton 42
Obama 49, McCain 40
Obama swing +12

Pennsylvania (Rasmussen, 2-14)
McCain 44, Clinton 42
Obama 49, McCain 39
Obama swing +12

Nevada (Rasmussen 2-13)
McCain 49, Clinton 40
Obama 50, McCain 38
Obama swing +21

Colorado (Rasmussen 2-13)
McCain 49, Clinton 35
Obama 46, McCain 39
Obama swing +21

LOL! MA and NJ will NOT go red.

This is the silliest argument for Clinton I've ever read...

if that's all you've got, please, concede now and vote for the leader of the popular vote and delegates...

OBAMA.

six months before primaries, Hillary was trouncing Obama by 20 points everywhere.

Good gravy, people.

Before you all carried away with these poll numbers consider that John McCain has salted away the Republican nomination. That means while Obama and Clinton beat up on one another and dominate every single available news cycle, he basically gets a free pass.

There won't be any accurate/meaningful poll numbers for either Obama or Clinton in a general until one of them is out.

The last few elections have held that the winner must take 2 out of the three of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Currently Obama loses to McCain in Ohio while Hillary beats McCain. Currently Obama loses to McCain in Florida and Hillary beats McCain--and Obama will not be able to win Florida because the nearly two million voters that he has to disenfranchise to win will not be too enthusiastic. Maybe he still has a shot at Pennsylvania.

But all of that is thrown off if he loses New Jersey, which was in play last cycle (but ended up being solidly blue). Obama will not take Texas in the general--that is a fantasy. So that leaves Michigan (where they will remember not just that he wanted to keep their votes out, but that he pulled off the ballot before the DNC decision on delegates was even final so he could kowtow to Iowa) as the last big in-play state.

Unlike the primary, the general elections states are almost all winner-take-all. There won't be any New Mexico "I was close so I get some delegates" type situations, or Nevada where he loses the popular but wins the state.

But I'm sure he will give some great speeches during the race before losing heavily to McCain.

I voted for Hillary, and I get to vote for her AGAIN at the precinct convention tomorrow. I'm looking forward to voting for her a third time in the general election.