Can anyone explain to me . . .

[EffieBlack]

Why some people (especially the media) are assessing "electability" of either of the Democratic candidates based upon polls showing head-to-head matchups with McCain?

While these numbers are interesting, they really mean very little to me since they represent the views of people today, not in November, in states where the general election campaigns have not yet been waged. In my view, the polls are really not much more than snapshots that help the respective campaigns determine how to campaign in those states. But they certainly aren't a very good indicator of how a candidate will do in those states once they begin campaigning there in the general election (and the fact that they may have campaigned there in the primaries doesn't mean much since primary and general election campaigns are night-and-day different).

I know they have a long seven months ahead and desperately need something to talk about, but this is ridiculous. If polls could predict outcomes six months in advance, why did we even bother with the primaries - since the polls back in October showed Hillary Clinton beating Barack Obama across the country by 20 points or so? But something happened between then and now - a campaign, just like there'll be a campaign between now and November.

So can we give the "Hillary or Obama can't beat McCain" or "Hillary or Obama is the only candidate who can beat McCain" claims a rest. No one knows at this point what the outcome will be in November and anyone who claims to know is a liar or a fool - or a bloviating pundit who gets paid big bucks to sit on their big butts telling the rest of us how we're going to vote this fall.

[Saturday]

1. I'm also tired of the polls posted here daily

that show a couple point lead by this candidate or that candidate. Usually it's in the margin of error and proves nothing.