SUSA: Obama has HUGE lead in VA

Not sure this has been diaried yet - I'm hitting SUSA, and their screaming headline is that "Exclusive Survey Shows Obama, McCain with Big Leads in Virginia Polls".

Clicky for more....

Obama 3:2 Atop Clinton in Virginia Democratic Primary: 4 days to the Virginia Democratic Primary, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 59% to 39%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WJLA-TV Washington DC, WDBJ-TV Roanoke, and WTVR-TV Richmond. Among white voters, the two are tied. Among black voters, Obama leads 7:1. Obama leads among both women and men.

See the full report hereSee the full report here

I can't find surevey dates on it, but I'm assuming that this was conducted before the results in WA, NE, LA were known. This lead is bound to expand in light of tonights results.

Now with compelling graphic:

•  tips, flames

  and whatnot

  still on my WA State caucus high!

  by el ganador on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:19:36 AM PDT

•  A few particularly striking sentences:

  Obama leads among both women and men.

  Clinton leads among seniors.

  Obama leads among those under age 65.

  Our guy is the future. Hopefully the lead will only continue to increase after NE, LA, USVI, WA, and ME.

  by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:21:21 AM PDT

  •  What about MARYLAND?

    by Patriot4peace on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:31:09 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, you guys too. :^)

      But as canoeist wisely said below, we've got to keep working like we're 10 points down in every state. Right now, every delegate we win in an "easy" state is one we can lose in an "impossible" state.

      And there are no impossible states, so we've got no excuses!

      by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM PDT

    •  Don't forget POLAND!! n/t

      by cartwrightdale on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:38:14 AM PDT

    •  I don't believe the polls... Obama's been burned

      by the polls in the past... I'll believe it when I see it.  (but I hope they're correct!)  I still think playing down expectations is important... because no one knows for sure until the day the public votes.)

      by bluecayuga on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:03:34 AM PDT

•  Terrible News!

  Bad for expectations.

  Keep your heads down, noses to the grindstone.

  Organize.

  No more New Hampshires (yes, I understand the finer points of what happened there - I mean only expectations).

  by canoeist on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:23:50 AM PDT

  •  I would recommend this five times . . .

    if I could.

    by NotGeorgeWill on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:25:00 AM PDT

    •  Get on the phone lists!! n/t

      by plum on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:09:59 AM PDT

      •  I'm back in the Virginia campaign . . .

        office tomorrow.  Today was operation "call all my friends in DC and Virginia".  I had one recalcitrant friend who was just planning to sit the whole thing out (his wife is voting Clinton).  My brother is in a similar situation -- he's on board, but his girlfriend is not.  A few of my other friends though are on board -- including one whose sympathies tended to tilt toward the GOP pre-George W.  How times have changed.

        by NotGeorgeWill on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:48:00 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, whatever.

    SUSA sucks. Anyone in the know realizes that Clinton is at least 20 points ahead in Virginia, and that she will cruise to a ~25 point victory there on Tuesday. I mean, her campaign headquarters are in Virginia, for chrissakes!

    Given her overwhelming advantages, anything less than a 20-point win for Clinton on Tuesday would be a severe wound to her campaign's momentum. Obama would be very lucky to come within fifteen points. If he pulled off the lottery-odds upset and actually won by the skin of his teeth, it would be like Christmas, New Year's Day, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one for his campaign. But we all know that's not going to happen.

    by Rieux on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:13:38 AM PDT

    •  Hate to burst your bubble

      But the poll results are even more impressive with Rasmussen.

      Rasmussen VA poll  has Obama winning by 55% and Clinton by 37% ,  Obama +18
      Rasmussen also has MD's poll, Obama winning by 57% vs Clinton at 31%, Obama +26

      SUSA also has a blowout by Obama in MD, Obama 52% and Clinton at 33% Obama +19

      Source is here.

      After tonight's results, the numbers are likely to be even larger.  Obama has momentum.

      nudge - your bias skirt is showing!

      Oh and what advantages are those that she has?  That she has her campaign headquarters in VA?  That doesn't mean anything!

      by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:02:59 AM PDT

      •  He's just trying not to jinx it

        should have put in a snark tag.

        by ParaHammer on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:10:46 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, it's tough

          This whole jinx, counter-jinx, counter-counter jinx to prevent jinxing because of jinxing, and then premptive-reverse-counter jinxing that.

          Tough to keep track of.

          by canoeist on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:32:33 AM PDT

•  yeah

  people should really stop posting polling number, save where Obama's behind

  by phukhotfashion on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:25:26 AM PDT

•  Yeah,

  on the FP earlier today.

  by MissLaura on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:26:42 AM PDT

  •  oh sorry - I looked back, but

    other stuff seems to have pushed this off FP. :)

    My excuse? I was caucusing in WA State earlier.

    Should I delete?

    by el ganador on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:29:01 AM PDT

    •  not because

      it was front paged, I'd be more worried about the rabid HRC supporters that might take offense to her slice of the pie chart being red.

      [duck, cover]

      by Patriot4peace on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:33:46 AM PDT

      •  no, don't delete

        You might update though and indicate it's an update in numbers in your title.

        Rasmussen has Obama winning VA by +18 in VA, and in MD, by +26 (look at the link), SUSA by +19 in MD.

        I wish we could poll caucuses!

        by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:06:31 AM PDT

    •  I don't think you should delete. There are many

      times when a diary is recommended here and then the FP
      story happens a little later.

      The more the merrier, for both sides of the screen. Some
      folks favor one side over the other.

      by begone on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:36:11 AM PDT

•  The only poll that matters is Tuesday nt

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:27:43 AM PDT

•  Doesn't really matter--winning states isn't impt

  What's important at this juncture is getting as many delegates as possible, which means losing by as little as possible when you lose and winning by as much as possible when you win.

  The way Obama people need to be looking at this is that if Obama is in position to get 59% now, they need to be pushing as hard as possible to make that 69%.

  by pointsoflight on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:28:14 AM PDT

  •  without looking like a rout

    nobody likes watching a team run up the score board.

    Well, not most people.

    I think however the first few internals the Clinton's see going south in TX and OH she will gracefully drop out.

    by Number5 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:59:12 AM PDT

    •  Let's not get ahead of ourselves

      When the O campaign gets cocky, it just sets itself up for a fall.

      by plum on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:11:12 AM PDT

    •  I hope so.

      the other option is that she goes really negative.

      One thing I really wonder - the people who actually decided to buck the DNC and move up Florida and Michign's primaries.. did they ever envision the Primaries would be as "interesting" as they have been?

      There is no way to know how things would have differed had Florida and Mich counted, but I do wonder what those people who changed it are thinking these days. Especially the Republican Lawmakers in Florida.

      by Yoshi En Son on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:15:51 AM PDT

      •  Florida's decision was made by Republicans

        who wanted to hurt the Florida D party with the DNC.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:54:19 AM PDT

•  SUSA had a great Super Tuesday and

  I have little reason to doubt the poll.  It is very difficult for Clinton to win in that state and other deep south states when the black vote is essentially locked up by Obama.

  I think, however, there is a very disturbing race gap emerging as white voters are beginning to coalesce more sharply around Clinton in states with large black populations, as there appears to be a realization that black voters are voting for Obama in such dramatic numbers because he is black and not because he is necessarily the better candidate. There is no reason why someone like Clinton shouldn't get at least 25% of the black vote.  She ain't George W. Bush.  

  This race is going to be decided by the Ohio primary.  It is a true test for both candidates.  African american voters represent approximately 20% of the Ohio electorate.  Yet, Ohio is a very large state with significant numbers working class white americans.  May the best candidate win, but more importantly, may all voters keep an open mind and choose the person who would make the best president.  

  by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:32:34 AM PDT

  •  Can you give an example of the coalescence?

    AFAICS, Obama is every bit as competitive as Clinton is for the "white" vote in the states we've seen lately, regardless of their percentages of black or white voters.

    by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:35:23 AM PDT

    •  I don't see it either

      I think LA was a bit of an outlier.

      The exit polls seemed to indicate that a large majority of the whites that voted for Hillary weren't very enthused about Obama (65%).

      We haven't seen that elsewhere.

      I don't want to accuse LA whites of anything but you can draw your own conclusions. I will say, though, that the poll asked whether voters would be "satisfied" if their second choice was the nominee. Not sure what "satisfied" means...

      Generally, I don't see a white revolt. Obama won the white vote in CA or Pete Wilson's sake.

      by samlang on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:42:10 AM PDT

    •  In LA, Clinton won 70% of the white vote.

      In MO, CA, AZ, MA, NJ, NY, AK, TN, OK all medium to big delegate states that held primaries, Clinton won the white vote by a signficant margin.

      The reason there was variance in the polling in many of these states is because of the variance among white voters.  It turns out when push came to shove, many people had second thoughts about voting for Obama and went with Clinton.  Most of those late deciders were white voters.  They weren't just working class white voters either.  They were from all ranks of the socioeconomic, age and gender categories.

      In Alameda County, CA, for example, Oakland voted heavily for Obama, but all the other towns around Oakland voted for Clinton, thereby limiting his expected margin in that important county.  Her performance there was better than expected, and her increased support came from white voters.

      Caucus states are different:  they favor liberal activists who clearly support Obama because of his opposition to the war and because they see Obama's 'change' as not only a change in policy but a widespread change in culture, a tipping point to a post-racial society.  In that sense, Obama to such voters is bigger than replacing the Bush Administration, but a fundamental change in how American defines itself.  Turnout is lower in caucuses, and is not reflective of the full electorate comprising today's Democratic primary voters.

       

      by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:56:40 AM PDT

      •  All of the states you listed--besides MO and AK--

        are states Clinton won, often by significant margins.

        Could you show me the high percentages of white voters Clinton won over Obama in the states where Obama won the majority of delegates?

        by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:01:15 AM PDT

        •  Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, South Carolina

          are all examples.  You can tell who won where by looking at the counties.  In MO, Clinton won all but 4 counties, all of which were majority white counties.  Same is true in Connecticut, where nearly half of Obama's 15,000 vote margin of victory came from New Haven County (though the margin of Clinton's vote among whites was narrower).  

          by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:19:16 AM PDT

          •  So you're basically saying we should be wary

            of his victories when African Americans play a significant role in the voting base?

            by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:54 AM PDT

            •  No.

              What I'm saying is that 85% of the black vote and getting beat by double digits or worse among white voters is not a prescription for a general election victory.  Results like Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, South Carolina, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts concern me in that respect.  

              by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:25:12 AM PDT

              •  Are you also concerned about his victories

                in states with predominantly white populations?

                by haruki on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:26:21 AM PDT

                •  Yes. A. They're caucuses. Caucuses don't mean

                  jack in terms of predicting a general election because the rules are different and many likely voters do not participate in caucuses.

                  B.  Most of the caucus states Obama won are states that we have no chance of carrying in November:  AK, ID, KS, NE to name a few.  

                  Obama has shown impressive campaign organization skills, but we need to see how he does over a number of key primaries.  If he can win the Ohio primary against Clinton, then I'll say that he should be the nominee.  If he can't then I don't think he will get the nomination, nor should he.

                  by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:26:25 AM PDT

              •  all of those "white voters"

                are democrats are they not.

                Somehow I dont think they are voting for Hillary because they can't vote for a black man.

                So your concern seems a wee bit silly.

                by qazplm on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:38:43 AM PDT

              •  Idaho?

                Was that a caucus state?  I can't remember.

                by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:10:56 AM PDT

      •  It's hard to know what votes came when

        (in CA) Hillary did better than exit polls indicated. If this was due to early absentee votes and the exit polls were acurate for election day than Barack and Hillary evenly split White votes in CA cast on election day. Barack did substantially better among white independents and white men. It's not just 'liberal activists' that are supportting Obama's Iraq war sstance.

        by Sacramento Dem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:39:48 AM PDT

  •  Oh yes there is!

    There is no reason why someone like Clinton shouldn't get at least 25% of the black vote.

    Blacks can smell it. She has thrown us under the bus....

    Consider the latest example

    Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have "not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was "making a historical statement."

    It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to "undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types."

    What I said here is a very real thing....

    by red 83 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:40:30 AM PDT

  •  Not sure I agree

    First of all, 90%+ of AAs are Democrats.  So if Ohio is 20% AA, that means the Democratic primaries will be around 40-45% AA.

    Secondly, Hillary and Barack have very, very similar positions and principles on nearly every issue.  What's wrong with someone comparing the two candidates and sayin' "ya know, either would be okay, but as an African American, all things being equal, I'd kinda like to see the first Black President in my lifetime"?

    by cartwrightdale on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:42:08 AM PDT

  •  NoLa land

    clearly needs a few more years of Reconstruction.

    by Kab ibn al Ashraf on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:55:49 AM PDT

  •  I disagree: VA poll indicates DIVERSITY

    In this Poll, Obama and Hillary split the votes from whites EVENLY, plus he wins among black and Asian voters. Not only that, he wins in voters below the age of 65, and in all regions except for the Shenendoah valley. He is further ahead in central Va than in Northern Va., when many thought that he would get more support in Northern Va. than in the rest of the state, Richmond excepted. In SE Va, he is ahead in this poll by 73 to 27 !!! That would seem to indicate that not only is he predicted to carry Richmond, but he is also doing very well in Norfolk and Va. Beach. HE IS AHEAD in military votes!!!! (as he is in fundraising from military). He has more support from women in this poll than Hillary. And in the poll he is reducing Hillary's advantage among Latinos. Conclusión: he has the MOST diverse and widest base of supporters in the race. And, as many of us thought, among military families Hillary's Iraq and Iran vote are coming back to haunt her.

    by Virginian in Spain on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:06:12 AM PDT

    •  The actual results from other states

      do not suggest that the candidates will split white votes evenly when the votes are counted.  

      I do agree that her IWR vote and Kyl-Lieberman votes have hurt her among the anti-war left.  She would have a higher percentage in caucuses had she at least voted no on Kyl-Lieberman.

      by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:20:57 AM PDT

    •  Spot on! eom

      by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:14:13 AM PDT

    •  Caution

      As you slice and dice the sample the margin of error goes up, especially in undersampled areas.  (That said, I was curious as to how Richmond would break, and if he really does win SEVA by that kind of margin it will really destroy a lot of memes the Clinton campaign is pushing.)

      Be encouraged by this, but take it all with a grain of salt.  Remember, anything below 86% gives Clinton delegates.  Keep her number as low as possible across the state.

      by DelRPCV on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:08:40 AM PDT

  •  You realize that Clinton did get lots of AA vote

    ...till they started all that coordinated crap after Iowa, right? She was in fact polling better than Obama in SC and though he may have eventually passed her in terms of AA vote, I don't think it would have been this drastic if they hadn't pulled that racial crap.

    Right now the risk is much bigger than just the racial polarization. I wonder how much of the AA vote will turn out in November if Clinton ends up winning the nomination.

    by bmozaffari on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:24:55 AM PDT

    •  That isn't true.

      The reason why Clinton initially had a slight lead among african american voters is because many were skeptical that Obama could win.  After Iowa, he surged among black voters because he proved he could win in a white state.  However, after Obama's loss in NH, the Obama camp played the race card hard in order to sharply increase his support in the black community in order to gain a foothold in the race.  They're the ones that spread the garbage about the bradley effect in NH, and falsely accused Hillary and Bill of racism with respect to the MLK and fairy tale comments.  The Clintons were swiftboated and every time they raised questions about Obama's tacitcs or his record, the media shot them down, and Obama's supporters turned a blind eye to their own candidate's tactics.  

      by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:28:59 AM PDT

      •  Do you really believe that?

        Sometimes you have to just separate your belief and passion for a candidate from objective analysis of the politics at play. Politics is a dirty thing and no politician is a saint.

        The problem with your theory is that the associated risks for Obama by far outweigh the benefits. As a result of all the racial talk, Obama did go down among whites in the polls, specially in the South, just not enough to destroy his candidacy. Too many political analysts have written objective articles and speculated whether the racial polarization would end Obama's campaign or not. Some have implied or expressed that it was the result of a very calculated and smart move by the Clinton campaign, while others have said that it was an inevitable occurrence and that a few sloppy comments got misconstrued and even the more negative comments were not coordinated by the campaign.

        No serious political analyst thinks that the Obama campaign tried to racially polarize the electorate. Have you looked at the racial makeup of the country recently? It would be a very stupid idea.

        by bmozaffari on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:45:29 AM PDT

        •  Oh it's definitely true.

          They released a memo to thepress indicating that they wanted to keep racial controversies alive to help their campaign.  They played politics of the most cynical kind and got away with it.  

          No intellectually honest person can claim that the MLK comment or the fairy tale comment were racist, but it was certainly trumpeted that way by the Obama camp and the media.  He got what he wanted, and that's why he's in a position to win.  Like Bush in 2000, when things got desperate, he got dirty, and he had a large group of blind faithful ready to lift him on his shoulders without scrutinizing the implications of having one candidate make such an overt appeal to a group of voters on race and claiming that someone who had been a friend of the community for so many years was race baiting.  It is sad.  

          by khyber900 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 08:13:32 AM PDT

      •  ala Mark Penn

        And I am to trust a political strategist that worked for Blackwater?  What on earth was she thinking???

        It was the Clinton's who played the race card, through their surrogates, especially Bennet.  Don't rewrite history.

        And they weren't swiftboated by Obama, if anything it was by the media misconstruing Bill's remarks, but I didn't need to listen to their spin or the Clinton's spin to understand what Bill was talking about, as I was able to watch it myself, and it didn't impress me in the least. Bill came off as hysterical, to be honest.

        by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:20:02 AM PDT

      •  ABSOLUTE LIE

        You should be fucking embarrassed... everyone knows who played the race card.. .and it wasn't obama

        Don't try and project the dishonesty and lack of ethics of HRC onto Obama... it's disgusting

        by Capt Morgan on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:41:35 AM PDT

  •  Breaking: Earth is Round!

    Your observation essentially boils down to noting that there is more of a racial division in southern states, the same states that betrayed their country to preserve slavery, than in northern states.  Not much of a surprise there.  The real surprise is that so many southern whites have embraced Obama despite the past history of racial antipathy.  Obama is cleaning up in the south only partly because so many black voters have lined up behind him.  The other reason is that he has consistently won a substantial minority of white voters over to his side, something that Clinton has been unale to do with black voters.

    by journeyman on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:30:10 AM PDT

  •  ridiculous

    Obama has done fine amoung white voters most places...

    Must be all those black people in nebraska, washington, idaho, kansas, etc

    He even got 43% in GA.

    LA is one of the few outliers

    by Capt Morgan on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 07:38:05 AM PDT

•  SUSA actually underestimated Obama in WA

  by RandySF on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:36:06 AM PDT

  •  It was a caucus

    Polls really can't predict a lot more than a victory.

    by samlang on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:43:08 AM PDT

  •  Actually

    Internals for likely caucus voters showed Obama 66 Clinton 33.   Very close to actual results.

    by John R on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:53:56 AM PDT

•  When do we get baselines for Texas and Ohio?

  Seems like something soon would be worth polling.

  by Fishgrease on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:36:17 AM PDT

  •  Let's try for 100%

    though if you feel that is too optimistic, I'll settle for 89% -- wouldn't want the Virgin Islands to lose their status.

    by Yoshi En Son on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM PDT

•  oh boy.

  Counting chickens yet again.

  by taylormattd on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:47:47 AM PDT

•  Dont get overconfident

  We saw what happened in NH.  

  by UpstateDem on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 12:51:50 AM PDT

•  Obama will win VA. Big.

  Anyone that lives in the capital region will tell you the chesapeake region will go big for Obama.

  He's just that much better organized here.

  VA sets up well demographically for him on so many levels.

  The White Dems are highly educated, mostly metro DC area dwellers, who skew younger.

  The non-white Dems are most of the rest of the state -- Tidewater-to-Richmond (where Rep. Bobby Scott has endorsed Barack), and VA Beach.

  Then you've got the one area where Hill may pull votes -- Southwest. Well, there's just not that many democratic voters there, but the congresmen is Dem, and he's endorsed Obama.

  Hillary just has no beachhead here. She has no base to lean on and turnout. You could argue that Arlington/Alexandria is high in female voters, and it is... but they also skew younger. And there's just not enough to counter the advantages Obama has. Essentially, with blacks making up about 40% of the primary, he needs to win maybe 35% of the white vote to have a pretty decent victory. And because VA white Dems are not Louisiana white Dems, this should be easy for him.

  by CPDem81 on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:23:18 AM PDT

  •  what's the difference between LA white dems and

    VA white dems?

    by FLS on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:51:10 AM PDT

    •  Two things, for starters...

      1. Less well-educated, in general

      2. More Catholic than VA Dems (Catholics have been going to HRC)

      by Universal on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:52:42 AM PDT

  •  the SW corner of VA

    not only has few Dem voters, they have few people period.  Heart of Apalachia there...

    Rasmussen polls show Obama winning VA by a stunning +18%.

    I think SUSA is probably accurate.  But we should never assume!  Get on those phonebanks, people!

    by Hummingbird on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 02:24:53 AM PDT

•  BHO will roll in VA...

  ...that was never in doubt.

  The demographics are very good for him there, much too strong for HRC to seriously challenge, IMO.

  Same with MD, DC.

  Anybody -- including HRC supporters -- who think she is going to win any of these 3 states/districts is delusional, IMO.

  by Universal on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 01:51:22 AM PDT

  •  Must be a new memo out

    lowering expectations big time.

    by ParaHammer on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 03:15:53 AM PDT

  •  Never in doubt?

    Then why did she campaign there?

    I'm sick of these stupid excuses about caucuses and demographics not being favorable to your candidate. If that's the case you campaign and change those demographics like Obama is doing. (Remember when African Americans used to support Clinton before she wrote them off and her surrogates started race baiting?)

    Did it occur to you that perhaps the demographics of America don't favor Hillary?

    by walter mitty on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 05:40:51 AM PDT

•  Let's not get over-confident

  Let's win VA, MD, DC, OH, TX and put this thing away!

  by noofsh on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 04:46:19 AM PDT

•  IGNORE ALL POLLS--WORK LIKE THE RACE IS TIED

  remember New Hampshire!

  by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 06:53:02 AM PDT