Joan Baez has endorsed Barack Obama:

I have attempted throughout my life to give a voice to the voiceless, hope to the hopeless, encouragement to the discouraged, and options to the cynical and complacent. From Northern Ireland to Sarajevo to Latin America, I have sung and marched, engaged in civil disobedience, visited war zones, and broken bread with those who had little bread to break.

Through all those years, I chose not to engage in party politics. Though I was asked many times to endorse candidates at every level, I was never comfortable doing so. At this time, however, changing that posture feels like the responsible thing to do. If anyone can navigate the contaminated waters of Washington, lift up the poor, and appeal to the rich to share their wealth, it is Sen. Barack Obama. If anyone can bring light to the darkened corners of this nation and restore our positive influence in world affairs, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can begin the process of healing and bring unity to a country that has been divided for too long, it is Barack Obama. It is time to begin a new journey.

See here.

I hadn't heard about Keiler before!  That's a bigger endorsement in Minnesota than Maria Shriver is in California.  Maria Shriver's, like, a pleasant surprise.  Garrison Keiler is an Institution-with-a-capital-I in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

And to think a few months ago, I was resigned to a Clinton-Giuliani race.

Just going to direct to this post at TPM, which explains it. Short version: data may not be as bad for Hillary as it seems, but the sample sizes in these polls may to too small for them to mean much of anything.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

(Note: Link is just to TalkingPointsMemo main page, so you may have to scroll down to item entitles "That NYT/CBS Poll."

Actually, polling data has been showing a consistent story for days now, both nationally and state-by-state, and that's a huge surge for Obama.  There are always going to be outliers and weird #s floating around, but there are now dozens and dozens of polls which indicate the same trendlines -- UP for Obama, DOWN for HIllary.

I've said numerous times the trends are clear.

What I think is unclear is exactly how far they are going, and how, apart from the delegate count, the results will affect the media narrative coming out of tomorrow.

it would take Obama winning by 15-20% on tue to beat Billary's early vote buffer

I haven't heard anything even close to that. I'd say more like 2-3 points.

It honestly depends on how many people vote.  If only a million or so vote, Obama is in trouble.  But if that number goes much higher (and I expect it will, judging by the other states and the fact that Independents will only vote in the Dem race), like to maybe 3 or 4 million, thenmaybe not.

Clintons early voter lead gave her a bigger "victory." Obama won the day but lost big because of early voting while she had a big lead.

Nobody campaigned (or advertised) in Florida because there were no delegates at stake.  Where Obama campaigns, he does very well.  And now, he's campaigning (and advertising) pretty much everywhere.

It's important to debunk this -- because NLS (which I've stopped going to now, it's become to vitriolic) has been pushing this as a way to spin away Obama's momentum in the polls.

Pollsters, in states like Florida and California where early voting is prevalent, are asking some form of who will you vote for or who did you vote for if you've already voted.

The idea that these polls don't reflect early voting is factually incorrect.

Not to mention that if you're undecided, chances are you're not going to vote early.  The Obama and Clinton partisans are primarily the ones casting their votes early.

How did I spell "vitriolic" correctly but misspell "too" right before it???

the early voting happend while billary had a big lead. that gives her a built in buffer against Obama's resent momentum. So, to make up the early vote lead Clinton most certainly has he will need to get a lot more votes than her tomorrow.  

don't think it's going to be as big as you're implying.  In California, for instance, I think that Obama might have to "win" on election day by 3 or 4 points in order to actually "win."  We'll see soon enough.

...the more I think Obama will have to win bigger than 3-4 points tomorrow to actually "win."  I'd say closer to 6 or 7 points tomorrow.

I have been trying to figure out if the polls being released include early voters.  If the Field polling is any indication, the answer is yes.  I would think the pollsters would be smart enough to factor this into their results.  That would mean if you see a poll that says Obama is up by six that would include both precinct voters and early voters.  I think the Florida polling is also evidence that they take those voters into consideration.  

The Field poll results also seem to buck the conventional wisdom that Clinton has a large lead among early voters.  According to their poll, Obama leads within this group by one point (32-31).  

1) I'm not sure Hillary does have a big advantage in early voting. I'd venture a guess that Hillary's advantage in the polls was due to lukewarm supporters who are now undecided -- voters who probably wouldn't have voted early.

2) Even if Hillary does have an advantage, the way the polling is set up, the current polls that show Obama ahead take that into consideration.  They don't just ask "who will you vote for?" they also ask "if you voted, who did you vote for?"

The WEST, the DNC 2008 Convention Site, will open up for Democrats in 2008 with Barack Obama.

CO, a "Bush" state in 2004 is favoring Obama for the Democratic Nominee.

Will take all of these polls with a major grain of salt, but the general trend seems to be correct: Obama is surging.

Also, "redstate" Governors, Janet Napolitana, Kathleen Sebelius,and Claire McCaskill have an editorial in today's WSJ: www.wsj.com

Americans are responding to Mr. Obama for more than his personality; they know we need a new kind of leadership in Washington to make progress. Not only does Mr. Obama have a plan to make health care affordable for every American, he'll be able to bring Democrats, Republicans and independents together to actually get it done.

Not only does Mr. Obama have a plan to give all of our children a world-class education from early childhood through college, he'll be able to work with governors in all 50 states to make it happen.

Not only is Mr. Obama committed to capping emissions and developing new sources of energy, he'll be honest and open about what we have to do, and take on the special interests to end our addiction to oil.

 

See the editorial in the Wall Street Journal by JANET NAPOLITANO , KATHLEEN SEBELIUS and CLAIRE MCCASKILL.

For the sake of our party and our country, we cannot let this opportunity pass. Now is the time to build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans that finally stretches across Red States and Blue States. Now is the time for us to have the courage to choose to change. Now is the time for Barack Obama.

Yes, we can!

She is thanking her lucky stars that the super duper day is tomorrow.
if she slips further, she will be  marginalized

But unless Obama comes up with a massive overwhelming win across the board, this thing will drag out for a while.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

It's enough to make a Obama supporter... HOPE!

I think the answer to your question on that front is largely "yes."  Hillary tended to have wider margins in the states that are more reliably Democratic--New York, New Jersey, California.  Obama's closer in swing-states and red states where local Democrats have much deeper concerns about whether the nominee can win in their state or not.  New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and California are all going to go for the Democrat no matter who is nominated, but Democrats in red states may have deeper misgivings about who can win a general election in their state and who can't.

I happen to think that if Virginia hadn't voted against against Bill Clinton twice, for instance, we wouldn't be quite as critical of her ability to win an election here.  I expect this sentiment is reflected in other emerging swing states, as evidenced by some similar trending patterns.

That I intentionally said 'tended to have' and not 'tends to have' because I'm not discounting some apparent momentum in a few of the more liberal-leaning states, though I don't necessarily believe the polling sample is going to predict accurately who will turn out to participate and who won't in any given state--primary participation continues to exceed expectations, so anyone putting together a sample of who they think will participate is basically guessing.  Still, the fact that the guessed-at sample is moving in positive directions is undoubtedly a good sign.

This is becoming a common polling result:

In the head to head match ups, McCain leads Clinton 45 percent to 41 percent.  But, Obama bests McCain by two points, 45 percent to 43 percent.  In addition, Clinton leads Romney 48 percent to 42 percent and Obama bests Romney, 50 percent to 41 percent.

Obama seems to be consistently polling 6 points better than Clinton against John McCain.  That, in and of itself, should be enough reason for Democrats to support Obama, aside from the many other reasons we talk about every day on RK.

Do you really believe that Obama polling ahead of Clinton at this point in a head-to-head matchup "in and of itself" is enough reason to support Obama?

I think it is a minor consideration. I mean, polls were badly off in N.H. Polls were badly off in S.C.  Can you seriously be arguing that polls ought to form a basis upon which to cast a vote?

Anyway, as I have been arguing, "electability" is a red herring in this election. All else being equal, either Clinton or Obama beat McCain. At best, you could argue Obama has a little more wiggle room at this point, but remember, and this is important -- Obama's numbers will come down once the RSM (Republican Slime Machine) gets a hold of him. Clinton's won't -- she's been fully slimed already.

who is our strongest candidate against the Republicans this November.  And it's not just a few polls; I strongly believe that Barack Obama has much more "upside potential" than Hillary Clinton, mainly because people know her and either love her or hater her.  But no, "electability" is certainly not a "red herring" in this election, I think it's a very important consideration.

If Romney were their frontrunner, I wouldn't really think electability would be an issue.  But against John McCain, it should be at the forefront of your mind.  That is, if you care about the Supreme Court, the Iraq War, and National Healthcare.

and workers' rights, and womens' rights, and just about everything else you can think of.

I give credit where credit is due, and McCain is one of the few on the GOP side who at least is conscious of our problems in this area.

Project Vote Smart, McCain received a 29% rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2006.  Not very good at all in my book, although certainly better than James Inhofe and other global warming deniers!

but remember, and this is important -- Obama's numbers will come down once the RSM (Republican Slime Machine) gets a hold of him. Clinton's won't -- she's been fully slimed already.

Talk about a red herring!

What is the basis for this assinine assumption?  What exactly have the Clintons NOT said in the last dozen years in response to the GOP onslaught that they will now be able to say?  She is still immediately opposed by 49% of the electorate!

Barack Obama is a completely different take on the GOP onslaught, and because of his current trajectory, he will actually be much harder to attack without serious blowback and outrage, unlike with the Clintons.

This line of reasoning, aside from being completely wicked, is simply wrong.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_a...

Not so much of Clinton.

Some info and trends regarding early voting in CA:

Half of all votes are expectd to be cast via absentte ballot in the CA primary tomorrow.  

CA has a state law which allows you to sign up as a "permanent" absentee voter.  As a permanent absentee voter, the state automatically sends you a ballot 3-4 weeks out from the primary or general election.  In addition, any voter can apply for an absentee ballot by completing their asbsentee ballot application contained in their voter guide mailed to them from the state.

Historically, a large portion of the vote is cast by absentee ballot in CA.  However, a large number of these voters receive their ballot but hold it for weeks before completing thier ballot and mailing it.  And a large number of voters actually hold their ballot until election day and they drop it off at their voting location, which is allowed under CA state law.  I have seem some reports and articles indicating that only 30% of absentees ballots send out had actually been returned by voters across various precincts in CA.

And declined to state voters are more apt to cast absentee ballots, which you would think would be a big boost to Obama.  However, it has been estimated by several political scientist across the state that about 60% of all declined to state voters are actually in the closet and are liberal democrats, but they do not want to declare for a party because they consider themselves to be fiercely independet.  And these same delined to state voters are usually very reluctant to vote in primaries - usually they only make up 15% of voters in a given parties primary.

So, based on all of the nuances, Clinton's lead among voters who have cast ballots via absentee may or may not be that great.  But regardless of that, the key to winning for Obama may be his ability to drive independents to the polls in bigger numbers than they usually appear.  And Obama has clearly dominated the news cycle in CA over the weekend.  And one big sign of hope for Obama in CA is the most recent Zogby poll, which shows Clinton's lead among hispanic voters down to 55% to 36% down from 69% to 25%.

It should be interesting tomorrow!

Thanks!

Honestly, I never expected to see this.

A new poll out this afternoon shows that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are statistically tied among likely Democratic voters heading into Tuesday's primary in Massachusetts.

[...]

The endorsement last week by Senator Edward M. Kennedy for Obama is a key factor. Asked to size up the impact of three endorsements for Obama and Clinton, 43 percent of Democratic respondents cited Kennedy's endorsement as the most influential, followed by Bill Clinton's of his wife (23 percent) and Oprah Winfrey's of Obama (9 percent).

"The Bay State's senior senator Ted Kennedy clearly has more clout in Massachusetts than the popular former president, Bill Clinton," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University. "Add to that the backing of Senator Kerry and Governor Patrick, with the resonant message of change as well as the Kennedy call for 'a new generation of leadership' and you have the reason why what was once Clinton country has become an Obama opportunity - and a political choice between the nostalgic and the new."

The last polls I saw from Massachusetts had Clinton up anywhere from 6 to 28 points.  

By the way, could polls like be why Clinton keeps getting emotional?  

I believed her in New Hamphsire when she cried.  I really did.  She was under a lot of pressure and scrutiny, and nothing looked like it was going her way.  Even her own internals showed her down 11.  But to cry again?  Now I'm getting suspicious.  If anybody buys the act this time, they are fooling themselves.

By the way, Lowell, you should include the MA results in the post up top.  It's worth noting.

Massachusetts numbers.

There's no crying in baseball!