kmcolo,

Your argument could be a factor. Pollsters also do evaluations of the "raw" data and modify it afterwards depending on other factors such as who was willing to be interviewed after voting (screening effect/criteria).

I have also read that basically the pre-election polling was accurate for Obama. His 37% of votes received was well within the margin of error.

Pollsters stopped one day in advance of the vote and therefore did not have a gauge for the Clinton tear effect. Prior to the vote some polls showed that up to 21% (from an article, what I saw was more like 10-12%) of voters had not made up their mind and appeared to be moved by the one show of human emotion Hillary has displa...

kmcolo,

Your argument could be a factor. Pollsters also do evaluations of the "raw" data and modify it afterwards depending on other factors such as who was willing to be interviewed after voting (screening effect/criteria).

I have also read that basically the pre-election polling was accurate for Obama. His 37% of votes received was well within the margin of error.

Pollsters stopped one day in advance of the vote and therefore did not have a gauge for the Clinton tear effect. Prior to the vote some polls showed that up to 21% (from an article, what I saw was more like 10-12%) of voters had not made up their mind and appeared to be moved by the one show of human emotion Hillary has displayed. One wonders if they will still have this feeling for her following the Clinton's maneuvering to suppress voters in Nevada when the rules had been well known since March of last year.

Considering that Obama's result matched his forecast it does not lead to the conclusion that voters chose not to vote for a black man in the private confines of a voting booth. Of course South Carolina should shed more light on that debate.

I'm curious. In the not too hypothetical scenario that John Edwards does not win the Democratic Nomination for President, who is your second choice? Remember, no blinders.

Well you still never know what might happen. There is always that video that surfaces (Howard Dean) or errant remark made. Prior to Nevada it looked like Edwards might play a role in a situation where no one secured enough delegates for the nomination and it turned into a brokered convention. That was/is an interesting scenario to think about as it hasn't happened in many moons.

Our 1992 candidate won the popular vote, he didn't lose. However he didn't accomplish the slam dunk that should have been achievable. The nation did not receive the President it wanted. Even Kerry might have won if not for the wide spread shenanigans in Ohio (although I was not a fan of the 17 state strategy because...

Well you still never know what might happen. There is always that video that surfaces (Howard Dean) or errant remark made. Prior to Nevada it looked like Edwards might play a role in a situation where no one secured enough delegates for the nomination and it turned into a brokered convention. That was/is an interesting scenario to think about as it hasn't happened in many moons.

Our 1992 candidate won the popular vote, he didn't lose. However he didn't accomplish the slam dunk that should have been achievable. The nation did not receive the President it wanted. Even Kerry might have won if not for the wide spread shenanigans in Ohio (although I was not a fan of the 17 state strategy because it would appear as lacking a mandate).

Regardless of who wins the nomination I will be voting Democratic as the stakes (Supreme Court Judges) are just way too high.

I don't dislike Edwards but for some reason he isn't connecting this time around.

I wasn't sure about your Obama clip, whether it was cleverly worded sarcasm (down with dopes could have been interpreted as "he is down with dopes" reflecting his usage as a teenager).

I am sure the conservatives would try to make that an issue if Obama is the nominee. However considering the U.S. forgave Bush for being an alcoholic in his youth of 40 years of age I think they will forgive him for usage as a teenager and for being honest about it.

Geography? Yes he isn't the southern candidate (Carter, Clinton) but he could offset that with a VP. A lot of strategists believe the Southwest and the Mountain West are the ripe geographies for flipping from republican to Democrat. Perhaps Bill Richardson is the candidate for VP that shores up the experience concern and provides geographical and demographic benefit. There are also some Midwestern states that need shoring up. Iowa went into the R column. Wisconsin was barely a Blue State and we all know Ohio is crucial. Hopefully Virginia is in play this time around.