Well lets look at pollster.com which groups all major polls and leaves outliers to the side. This is Wisconsin.

On the matter of national polls, explaining Obama's early need to be become known keeping his first numbers in National polling low. That doesn't mean that there is no effect from, or importance in, national polling.

So if 75% of a lot of states and 60% in many other primaries produced polling numbers nationally for Obama around 38 to 40 % then where do the new numbers come from? This national polling showing the fall of Clinton, and the continuous strong climb of Obama, across the nation, is still about people, people who have made up their minds.

It doesnt force a superdelegate to choose either candidate, not does it force any specific Texan or Wisconsin, but you can be damn sure it represents what the numbers will be for voters and what SD's will be thinking about when they walk down to the floor at the convention.

"Obama beats McCain" = "Dukakis beats Bush"

That is a misplaced syllogism. We have no evidence that Obama will run the shoddy campaign  Dukakis did. On the other hand, we have ample evidence that Hillary will continue to run an incompetent campaign. Keep in mind that Hillary had EVERY advantage going into this. But somehow she blew through $120 million by the time of the Iowa caucus, in which she placed 3rd despite having 1,000 paid staff there. And God knows what their campign did with that money. They certainly didn't spend it establising a national ground game. The result has been that she has been bested in caucus after caucus. In contrast, Obama has run a near perfect campaign. Look for him continue to do so in the general.