How eye-opening.  It is just amazing how nuts some of these people are.  it's like they are from an alternative universe.

In the rest of the NPR interview, he spoke very favorably of Obama.  he endorsed him already.

He wants to be governor, not VP.  

I'm happy to have it on my sigs for several blogs.

I was an Edwards supporter.  When he withdrew, I found the choice between Obama and Clinton to be a tough one, as I liked many qualities in each of them.  In the end, I went for Obama.  

As an Obama supporter, let me thank you for an excellent diary.  Do hold your heads high.  When the Democratic party has several excellent candidates, they cannot all win.  Clinton should be a party leader for years to come.  

Remember too that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton agree on the vast majority of policy issues, and they disagree with McCain.  Please do not let 2008 become another 1968, 1972, or 1980, when we let the republicans win by not coming together.    

Supporting McCain would destroy everything Hillary has fought for her whole life.  An end to Roe v. wade.  No increase in minimum wage.  Opposition to unions.  Opposition to health insurance.  

Let's get real.  REAL Democrats unite.  

test

Amazing analysis.  Well done.  Recommended.

No wonder superdelegates are shifting to Obama, pareticularly elected ones in purple areas.  

It sure would be nice if the Dem Party site said where the returns are coming from.

16 of 1781 show Edwards 38; Clinton 35; Obama 24.  Keep in mind that this is 1% reporting.  

These have got to be smaller precincts.  

This is also the first day (at least in a very long time) that Clinton's number is lower than the combined Obama-Edwards numbers.  

Setting aside issues about the question asked, I think it is flatly dishonest to report any poll to the tenth of a percent when the MoE is 5.5%.  One of the key ways to mislead with numbers is to report with precision when there is none.  That's really an issue of the story about the poll, rather than about the poll itself, but it drives me crazy when I see this kind of stuff.  

Excellent and Timely Diary.  I had sort of gone to sleep on the 2007 state legislative races.  The diary woke me up and I just contributed from California to four of the state senate candidates through Act Blue.  

Best of luck to you Virginians.  

I could not believe that Udall said "no" so quickly.  What was the rush?  I would love to have him change his mind.  He would be the best candidate and the best senator.

Momentum.  The turning of the tide.  

How long since a sitting republican in congress changed to democratic?  As discussed by others above, recent history has had the switches the other way.  I well recall the switches to republican in the 1980's and 1990's.  It seemed like all of the momentum was with the R's.  

Now we have seen state-wide elected republicans switch to the democratic party and state legislators do the same.  It's time for it to happen in Congress.  So long as he votes right most of the time, and votes for Pelosi, I welcome him with open arms.  

Something like 30% of California votes are absentee on average.  Votes can be cast as early as 30 days in advance, but I doubt a huge number will be cast more than 10-15 days before 2/5.  I have read that Clinton is trying to "bank" a large number of early votes here in an attempt to minimize any momentum others might gain from Iowa and hew Hampshire.  

Here is the link and an excerpt.  It ran on 9/7/07:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2007/09/07/MNTQS0G42.DTL

"Such firepower has helped the New York senator amass a 30-point lead among California voters. She also has built a formidable ground game that includes a California team of 1,000 "Hill Stars" who each will manage hundreds of statewide volunteers, a network that insiders say will eventually involve 20,000 active supporters."