National polls on Obama vs Clinton are meaningless...

[SnoopDog]

In this presidential primary, Obama is leading Clinton in delegates, states, and popular vote. Mathematically, Clinton cannot win the majority of delegates.

The honorable course of action would have been for Clinton to bow out gracefully a long time ago.

When you see articles on the 'national poll' on Obama and Clinton - you know that the Media is fighting like mad to put Clinton ahead even though it is impossible. You see, they want to run against Clinton because she CANNOT win.

This national poll is like asking voters to compare McCain vs Mittens. Why bother... unless there is a motive.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I agree--most states voted already. There is no point to a national poll

now between Hillary and Obama.

[BigDDem]

2. The national polls are "meaningless" when Clinton is ahead

when BO is ahead, they're all over here.

[LakeSamish706]

5. Well Clinton is not ahead, and cannot get ahead ... It's mathematically impossible...n/t

[LakeSamish706]

3. I agree with your post totally... And as several posters said on DU last nite...

They think that there are allot of Repugs posting here in favor of Hillary... hmmm One has to wonder!

[BigDDem]

12. "allot of Repugs posting here in favor of Hillary"

Right, and did you hear the government invented AIDS to take out
the black man?

[JuniperLea]

4. I agree... the polls are useless...

So how can you possibly say one candidate is ahead of another?

[SnoopDog]

7. Not sure what you mean, however,

I look at the current delegate count and Obama is winning and seems to have clinched the primary..

[JuniperLea]

10. Which delegate count?

I see several every day, and depending on what media source is showing it, they all say something different... Obama up by 100... Obama up by 10... Hillary is promised X number... it's all a bunch of bullshit.

What I'm saying is, if everyone is going to poo poo the polls, they need to leave them all alone. Obama people cite polls that favor Obama, and Hillary folk do the same for Hillary... and it's only those of us who don't care a flying rat's ass about either of them who see how stupid all y'all are looking!

[LulaMay]

when they begin to show your candidate tanking.

[David Dunham]

6. Rev Wright's outrageous statements will swing superdelegates to Clinton

[jerryster]

9. You may be right

I just now read that McCain is slightly ahead of BOTH our candidates. Considering how much of a lead Obama had not too long ago I have to think it has a lot to do with Wright's remarks.

I continue to be dumbfounded that candidates for President don't seem to realize that everything they've ever said, everywhere they've ever been, anyone they've ever associated with will be scrutinized.

To be fair, Wright's remarks have nothing to do with Obama. He wasn't and isn't the one saying those things. While that should be the point, it of course has not been thru this whole mess.

There is a lifetime of politics left until the election. Still, I remain worried that this thing could be slipping away. I will support whoever the nominee is. That, for me, means I've gotten to the point where I may have to believe that the super delegates know better than we do which candidate can win. Given the latest poll I just read that may mean Hillary. If the super delegates truly believe it at the time of nomination, so be it. I will accept their decision and vote for their choice.

[BzaDem]

8. They are not meaningless.

If polls show that by the time the convention (or even June) rolls around, that the polls have shifted so that Clinton has a 20% lead, the superdelegates can and probably will take that into account. Completely within the rules, whether or not some of those polled have already voted. Obama simply has not received enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination for sure, so he has to get some superdelegates to win (fewer than Clinton needs). Polls will be especially relevant if there is a huge shift. That is one of the main reasons superdelegates were created -- to take into account new information after the elections that might have affected the outcome.

I agree that if the polls show a small lead for Clinton or show a dead heat, they probably won't matter much.

[gcomeau]

11. I think you have that wrong.

"When you see articles on the 'national poll' on Obama and Clinton - you know that the Media is fighting like mad to put Clinton ahead even though it is impossible. You see, they want to run against Clinton because she CANNOT win."

It has nothing to do with the media thinking she can't win and trying to manipulate the election to give us another Republican president. I am so incredibly tired of this conspiracy theory crap when the real answer is so painfully obvious. The media lives on ratings. A tight race is exciting. Exciting gives ratings.

If they just come out and tell people Obama already has it in the bag barring a miracle people realize it's over. There's no reason to watch the coverage like hawks seeing who's going to pull ahead if it's already done. This is not some vast and diabolical right wing conspiracy, it's greed. The simplest damn thing in the world. Everything the media does centers around viewership. It's what they're about. They pretend like this is still a neck and neck race with no way to call it and they get viewers, so that's what they do.