To make this diary as honest as possible, I will admit straight off the bat that I voted for Obama in the Illinois primary. I originally supported John Edwards, and was disappointed that he could not get any traction.
That being said, I am very impressed with how well Obama has outperformed expectations in the primaries that have followed Super Tuesday. In states where it was thought that Clinton would keep things fairly close, like Maryland, he has beaten her soundly, and he has absolutely crushed her in other states such as Virginia, where he had big leads going in. And I anticipate a larger than expected victory tomorrow for Obama in Wisconsin, although I think that Hiwai'i is a bit of a crapshoot.
These leads me to wonder whether the current methodology used by the pollsters is fatally flawed. I ask this not in an effort to gin up a controversy or to encourage fellow Obama supporters to believe that the polls showing Obama behind in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania should be ignored, but rather in an effort to really understand what is going on.
Much has been made of the incredible increase in Democratic turnout in this primary cycle, and also of the huge rallies that have been part of the Obama campaign. Is it possible that there are so many new voters, and that such a large percentage of those new voters support Obama, that the standard methodology being used by pollsters is incorrect to a degree that it consistently misrepresents the statistical universe that is the Democratic primary voting block? That what they think of as a "likely voter" does not adequately represent the likely voters in this cycle?
If this has been addressed before I apologize. I do not remember this being addressed in any diary that I have seen recently.
I welcome your thoughts, opinions and comments.