I believe the opposite is true.  In NY state polls for Hillary Clinton routinely understated her true support.  She then generally ended up with more support when all votes were tallied.  
I think we are seeing that phenomenon once again.  A long-time NY based pollster discovered the phenomenon and surmised that for some it had to do with being surrounded by rabid Hillary-haters, so their true leanings would not show until the person stepped into the voting booth.

We'll know in a bit over 3 months, but in my opinion, she'll end up with a bit more than her actual poll numbers state on primary/caucus day.

In the state of NY, Clinton's actual numbers were higher than all pre-election polls due to the higher voter support by women voters on election day.

Secondly, its Obama who should be more concerned with that phenomenon. There's a history of "White voters" who play that game.

Again, Edwards & Obama would love to be in Hillary's shoes right now. Not the other way around. People keep trying to spin it.

When will die hard Edwards & Obama supporters REALIZE that Clinton's strength is REAL!

That's the real question.

I believe the opposite is true and here's why. The Clinton campaign has spent the last four years building the kind of high-tech micro-targeted get out the vote operation that the Republicans have used since 2000 to kill the Democrats within 72 hours of the election.

The major push of the Clinton operation is speaking to and turning out womem and, specifically, single women. In their 16 test market states in 2004, they reached over 2.5 million women with get out the vote messages and increased the turnout of single women by five to sixteen percent, proportional to the intensity of the test market efforts. This has been a dry run in preparation for 2008.

I'm not sure that Democrats truly understand the scale of the Clinton campaign. Thomas Schaller, the author of "Whistling Past Dixie" is a Democratic pundit and political science professor who specializes in demographic targeting. He has not endorsed a candidate, but the campaigns have clearly shared some of their behind the scenes planning. On C-SPAN Sunday, he said that the Clinton campaign has built a general election infrastructure that dwarfs any other Presidential campaign in history. He echoed what he wrote in a recent Salon.com article:

...she is building a campaign organization so complete it will effectively serve as a shadow Democratic National Committee. She will not need so much as a dollar, voter targeting list, volunteer hour, press release, focus group result or research memo from DNC chair Howard Dean.

He contrasts her position to Bill Clinton, who wrapped up the nominating process in July 1992 completely broke with a DNC that was also broke. Not Hillary Clinton. She is going into the general election needing nothing from the DNC (which currently has just $2.6 million in the bank after debt).

Schaller said on C-SPAN that the conventional wisdom is completely backwards. That Clinton is most vulnerable in the primary race, but that the awe-inspiring campaign infrastructure she has built will make her formidable in the general election. Again, Schaller is coming at it as an expert in demographics, targeting, where Democratic votes come from, etc. The Clinton campaign is built to identify Democratic voters and get them to the polls with 21st century marketing techniques.

This shock n' awe campaign is targeted at women voters.

Oh, and BTW. I know that you are a big "downticket" races person. Do you want downticket candidates to piggy back on the Clinton's $100+ million microtargeted get-out-the-vote machine? Or make do with the $2.6 million the DNC has in the kitty for get out the vote operations? Remember, every voter Clinton's machine drives to the polls is a voter who will almost certainly vote for Democrats in local races -- single women, African Americans, Latinos, gay voters, etc.

One of the reasons I like coming to this site is to see the latest straws that anti-Hillary people are clinging to.

No, Hillary obloquy or rejection as a women in public is socially acceptable, and has been since the early Nineties and Rush Limbaugh.  If your reason is bigotry and you're ashamed, there's a widely acceptable dodge in scorning her for not ditching Bill due to the Monica thing, blaming her for NAFTA or the rejection of healthcare reform in 1993, saying that Bill will run the show if she's elected, or any number of other mostly imaginary offenses.

What I read a few weeks ago in the WaPo is that Republicans think there are eight strong Democratic challenges for state Senate seats and twelve or so for Assembly seats.  Democrats need a gain of four to get majority in the state Senate, but a gain of eleven for majority in the Assembly.

The article was a lot about Republican gloom- an undertone of being fairly sure that Virginia voters had concluded their Party no longer useful for much of anything constructive in state government.

That being said, there's something of a pattern of states taking three elections to go from one party control by the one Party to one party control by the other, at a rate of one chamber or the governor office per election.