The very large x-factor in Massachusetts is the student/"young people" which is very tough to poll and could boost Obama's performance. It's certainly not worth 37pts, but it could move him a few surprise points on election day. I don't have a good read on Boston itself, but I think that Clinton's strength would be in the mid-size-to-large towns outside of Boston like Worchester, Lowell, New Bedford, and Lawrence.

If she is comfortable with a lot of her positions in all the other states, she might let Mass go, and then chalk it up to ted and john

By demographics, does that mean the racial breakdown in the state? Hope not.

Iowa was able to circumvent race and look at substance. Massachusetts is capable of doing that as well.

Well, living in Massachusetts, we have the highest regard for Ted, BUT, if you remember 1972, he doesn't change any minds.  I'm still voting for Edwards for some very subtle reasons.  But you should be cautious as to what you infer in Ted's endorsement!

That Survey USA, must be an outlier. How can Obama be down an average of 9 points nationally and 37 down in MA. The Statehouse Poll showed Obama only down 39-26, that is far more on base.

I don't think Obama has much of a chance in Massachusetts, even with all his endorsements. 30 points is a rather large lead.

However I wouldn't be surprised to see the polls get closer in the next week. I think most of the 2/5 state polls now show Clinton's ceiling and we'll see Obama gain after his series of huge endorsements of key state figures and his 30 point SC victory.

Those poll numbers are going to move rather significantly, with Obama rising, in the days ahead.  

That has been Obama's story in every state...as the actual election has approached in each state...Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina (and yes, even New Hampshire 2 weeks prior to Iowa...then after Iowa...followed by that slight dip!)

Aside and apart from Teddy's and Kerry's endorsements (and the Boston Globe's) which are important, I would naturally expect the final results to be close to a tie in Massachussets between Obama and Clinton. Edwards might even get a few delegates from a few CD's!

I do live in Massachusetts.

There are two Democratic Parties in the state and they only barely tolerate each other and only then when they have some common purpose -- like raiding the federal coffers for The Big Dig. The limosine liberals (Haaavaaad liberals) and blue-collar lunch pail Democrats. The Democratic machine in the state is run by the lunch pail Dems.

Mayor "Mumbles" Menino (the definition of a blue-collar lunch-pail Ward Boss politician) sent 250 of his Boston Ward Bosses to NH to turn out the vote for Hillary. The Boston Ward Bosses know how to turn out the vote. Kennedy's an icon in Massachusetts, but his connection to the Democratic machine is tenuous and has been for decades.

Governor Deval Patrick is a walking talking billboard for voting against Obama. As another Axelrod client with no experience, he came to the Mass governors race with the same spiel of puppies, unicorns, and Kumbaya. Voters ate it up. Then, he was inaugurated and his first year in office was like an episode of the Three Stooges. He basically killed his reputation in six months with a succession of rookie mistakes. Massachusetts voters have already seen a test-drive of an Obama Presidency.

Massachussetts Democrats could care less about fancy speeches. They want results (jobs for Cousin Fitzy, funding the neighborhood, and so on and so forth). Delivering the goods counts for more than fancy talk from a Haaavaaad guy.

She's concerned, she just scheduled a campaign in Springfield, in the wrestern part of the state.  I think this will be a competitive state.  It's an open primary, which favors Obama.  Also, keep in mind that the people in Massachusetts just elected Deval Patrick govenor, so the race thing shouldn't be a big deal up here.  BTW, Deval Patrick is a strong Obama supporter and will be working hard on his behalf.  Plus, the endorsements or Kennedy, Kerry, Delahunt, the Boston Globe.  That's pretty good stuff.

Mayor Menino in Boston will have his very powerful political machine out behind Clinton, turning out the vote.  And Massachusetts is the bluest of blue, which tends to favor Clinton.

I could see this one going either way.

I don't know what it will do in MA but it will hurt him here in GA probably.

I don't think endorsements mean much of anything, unless it's Al Gore.

Oh gosh....now we have to deal with 2 more weeks of how "this endorsement is the biggest endorsement one can get and its going to change america and a new day is here" from the obama folks? Christ, i may have to just drink for the next two weeks to put up with all this hooplah....of course, when they hype of "how big this MA election is" and if Clinton wins, of course she mustve done something shady to win it, i may just have to drink untill a nominee is selected ;)

a lot of these polls are based only on name recognition.  many of the candidates haven't been able to get ads up yet, having to deal with each state one at a time.  that has helped hillary who many voters know, or think they know, with the primaries that count over, edwards and obama will move over to the states hey think they can win, as as people pay attention the leads will shrink, as they always do.  in regards to mass, two things.  one, obama now has the complete mass. political machine at his disposal, teddy kennedy, deval patrick and john kerry.  their get out the vote efforts will obviously help, to how much, who knows?  also, everyone keeps talking about how these endorsements won't change our minds, well, not to sound like a republican, but "well duh."  there are four basic layers of candidate support.  soft support, the average uninformed voter who votes based on name recognition, and believes everything the politicians say, base support, those who know more, support their candidate more, but could be swayed by a big endorsement, (kennedy, gore) or a big scandal, but probably not.  core support, like us, who have made up our minds and will not change them unles our candidate drops out, and then there's nucleus support.  these are the people who are either part of the campaign (staffers, family members) or are so devoted, they will vote for them even if they drop out.  those who voted for dodd, kucinich, and gravel in SC for example, (gravel has been limping along on core support since this started).  edwards is living on core support, and obama and hillary are trying to chip away at each others soft support, the only question is who has more soft support?

The states after Feb. 5th look very promising to Obama, if the momentum is neutral, or only slightly in favor of Clinton.  Feb. 9 LA, WA, NE.  Obama's done well in rural states, so I'd say he'd get Nebraska, Edwards (who'll still be in, I don't see how anything short of the convention will get him out) and Obama will play for LA, a WA is Clinton country.  Next is Maine.  I'm from New England, spent a year in rural Maine, and can say Obama will probably do well, especially if he uses one of his coolest endorsements: Stephen king.  King is beloved in the community and could help.  Edwards will not be a factor here.  It would be close, but I'd put it towards Obama, maybe the flip of New Hampshire.  Following that is Washington dc, Maryland and Virginia.  If Obama has gotten this far, it will be because he could win white and black states, proving he's not the "black candidate."  If he does well rurally, and does well/wins the cities with the help of the AA vote, these two states will go to him (dc is obviously his whether regardless.)  Next up is Wisconsin (I hear he's been doing well there, but who knows?) and Hawaii, his second home state.  Then finally, there's March 4th, what may be the REAL deciding day of the primary (as it should be).  If this scenario plays out, I believe it's quite likely he would win two of the 3 states voting (as a Vermonter, I can practically guarantee him Vermont, if this scenario works.  We love our independent, non-southern insurgents, it's the way we are) and either Texas, Ohio, or if he has a lot of momentum, both.  If he wins all three states, I think it would be over, that's why, if Hillary wants to win, she needs to sew it up on Feb. 5th.  The same for McCain, but for different reasons.  Romney is more able to compete in these states following February 5th due to his money from the ol' churn and burn days of being a CEO.  If neither nomination is sealed up (in terms of BIG momentum) on Feb. 5th, I'd guess Obama vs. r-money.  

The Latino vote is larger in Texas than the African American vote.

The battle in Texas will be among the white voters.

Reports indicate that Kennedy will indeed actually stump for Obama in MA, particularly among hispanic and union leaders.

here:

Kennedy plans to campaign actively for Obama, an aide said, and will focus particularly among Hispanics and labor union members, who are important voting blocks in several Feb. 5 states, including California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona and New Mexico.

When Ted Kennedy makes an endorsement, he goes to work.  He was crucial to getting Kerry the nomination in 2004, especially in Iowa.

All the Kennedy endorsement did was to prove what a relic Ted Kennedy has become.  

This betrayal of the Clintons after all that they have done for the Kennedys will never be forgiven.

From the moment of that endorsement, I, as a lifelong Democrat, spat upon everything Teddy and Caroline Kennedy.

Millions of Democrats like myself now not only loathe Obama and his pro-MSM forces, but we now also loathe what Ted Kennedy and Caroline have done.

From the very biginning, the only way Obama's forces could take over the Democratic Pary was by dynamiting it of its very core--the Clinton core.

For the Clinton-hating MSM and the GOP, this is their dream come true--destroy the Clintons, from within their own base.  And Obama, a Republican wrapped up as a Democratic candidate, was the Clinton-hating MSM's Trifecta--he would terar asunder the party by racial-baiting; excoriate all things Clinton; and if ever given a chance to govern, rule as a pro-Reagan, Clinton-hating "Democrat."

Whereas the rest of the world pines for the return of Bill and Hillary Clinton, leave it to some demented forces within the Democratic Party itself to annihilate the only twice successful Democratic candidate since FDR in favor of an unknown, untested, three-year novice who adores Ronald Reagan, and like that senile movie star himself in his own day, hasn't got a clue.

Now, the MSM has succeeded in creating a racial split in the party (many African-Americans can follow Obama off a cliff, the rest of us don't follow that blindly), and all that the MSM and their anti-Clinton gang have left are relics like Teddy Kennedy (another Democratic loser, like every Democrat of the past forty years, unless one consider's Jimmy Carter's single term a "winner") and limousine liberal Caroline to try to infiltrate non-African American voters--who honestly cannot stomach Barack and his minions.

In 1988, Jesse Jackson had some 64% of the vote in South Carolina--far more so than did Obama--and the media could have cared less.  Because then, as now, South Carolina was a "racial" primary.

And except for this, and that bizarre thrust of outsiders into Iowa, Obama has thus far won nowhere else.

And he will lose Florida by a very large margin come Tuesday.

So, the rest of us Democrats are supposed to ignore New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan and Florida in favor of an Iowa caucus and a racial primary, and follow the Kennedy jackass turncoats and the MSM Clinton-haters over the cliff with certain November loser Barack.

Nope.  Isn't going to happen.  Other New England voters--like their sister state New Hampshire--are just too intelligent.

Let the three-year novice get some training.

Sorry, Teddy and Caroline, you have only forever sullied your own name in Democratic circles with your betrayal of the Clintons.

And the rest of us bedrock Democrats are taking back our party on February 5.

Let the Clinton-hating, Reagan-loving Obama brats find themselves a party of their own!

What I find ironic is that Obama has said that Hillary is what is wrong with Washington - she's been there too long, she is an old, stale Washington pol, politics of the past, blah, blah, blah.  Well, geez, who is more old Washington pol than Ted Kennedy?  I guess those things are only negative if someone doesn't support Barack Obama.

The Kennedy endorsement will help Clinton in Texas as I suspect it will at a lot of other border states... Kennedy's stand on illegal immigration is a loser and Kennedy was never popular here anyway... Democrats here don't have much say after the primary, we are ruled by bumper stickers... I am beginning to see less and less Bush bumper stickers and more Democrat, but we have a long way to go... If we could get a lot of really good bumper stickers that might put Hillary over the top...

Bush learned everything he knows from bumper stickers, that's the reason he talks the way he does.. Sometimes two bumper stickers shouldn't be used in the same sentence...

This survey poll probably overstates her lead a bit but believe me as someone who lived there a long time the idea that Ted Kennedy's endorsement is going to cause all these folks to turn on a dime does rather challenge commonsense doesn't it. She's going to win MA by over 15%.  

Dag, there's some haters on this site.

Anyway, here's a point no one's made. MONEY.

The Kennedy endorsements help Obama in a big way, if only for one reason: fundraising. Donors get tapped out. But Kennedy has a big, big network of new donors that any Democratic nominee will need.

By the way, Kennedy is no relic. Anyone who thinks so fails to understand how Washington policymaking works. He may be politically moribund, and may no longer command the following he once did, but his top-notch staff and Senate seniority ensures that he remains a leading institution in the world of Washington policy making.

No major policy gets through Congress without his fingerprints. Remember that for when the next president wants to do health care and social security reform.

Anecdotal, but almost everyone I know is under 30 and will be voting in their first Democratic primary this year.  They all own cell phones (IE: haven't been polled) and are ALL voting for Obama.  My sense is that there's a HUGE age gap here, and that turnout is going to be through the roof.

I don't think he'll win the state, but I'm pretty damn sure it'll be closer than those polls!

ottovbs-

I doubt any candidate emerges from Super Tuesday with a commanding lead or clear path to the nomination. The race will continue, and money will be even more important.

This is why I think a Ted Kennedy endorsement (among others lately) is important to Obama. He brings fresh money and a vast network to the table. I haven't seen anything recently on the money race, but from what I recall from early on, Clinton's donors were generally maxed out relative to Obama's.

And I agree that Ted Kennedy's legislative clout is not a factor in the presidential primaries. I was pointing it out to those who forget that he still matters in the legislative and policymaking arena.