A poll of how the GENERAL population is going to vote does beat the results of how PRIMARY voters voted considering that we're talking about the general election.

Oh and the obvious fact that NO ONE has voted in a democrat versus republican match up yet, I'd consider this comprehensive data pretty important.

...it amazes me what i have to explain to some people sometimes

I think the commenter is referencing that the 26 million votes already cast are for the democratic nomination not the general election.

The different make up of the electorate and the different candidate matchups between the primary and the general election makes that the nomination results don't cross over as a prediction method for the general election.

The votes are extremely important. They just aren't suited to use a prediction method in the general.

Now these polls for the general still show wild swings and will probably differ a lot from what the final outcome will be but they are more suited to the actual subject of the diary.

please don't start arguments by misrepresenting positions just for the sake of fighting.

Do you not get the difference between primary and general election polling and/or results?

that you were being sarcastic. I thought you were, and I hoped that you were, but I have run across Obama supporters who really do believe that with all their heart.

Weren't there subsequent Democratic voters in later States that would be discouraged from voting for Hillary, on the basis of this Limbaugh scam?  Do you seriously believe that Limbaugh has had any other goal, than to discourage votes for Hillary, in telling some republicans to vote for her.  I'm flabbergasted at the abysmal ignorance of some democrats, that would allow themselves to  believe that Limbaugh is being "honest" with us.  This junkie is the incarnation of deceit and corruption.  If he told republicans to vote for Hillary, that's a sure sign, that democrats should vote for her; because his "intention" is to discourage democrats from voting for her, or is that not obvious?  If he wanted democrats to vote for Hillary, he would have allowed the process to take place, without injecting his polluted agenda into it.  "How can I reduce Hillary's votes?"  It's obvious.  All I need to do is appear to support her candidacy, make damn sure that media are fully aware that I'm pulling this scam, so that it will be widely publicized.  Mission accomplished.

What are you talking about it?  When the earlier  SUSA data came out it showed Hillary and Obama performing equally well against McCain (Obama with 4 EVs more than Hillary).  Why would anyone in their right mind think that that result would indicate that "that was it" for Hillary?

Now, with a little bit of time, things have moved decively in Hillary's favor to the point that she's doing over a 110EVs better vs McCain than Obama is.  That's significant.  

Very nice round-up of reasons for optimism in Florida.

Somebody else sure thinks there's change in the wind in Florida: That list of targeted races released by the DCCC the other day has eight, count 'em, 8, Repub-held House seats in Florida, more than Ohio or any other state.

Of course, three of those involve Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade districts. There's good evidence that younger voters in that community are more independent and even more Democratic, while their parent's and grandparent's generations were hard line Repubs.

The older refugees who had supported the Batista dictatorship are dying off as fast as those Dixiecrat Dems in the Panhandle who had left our party to vote for Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush. This year, if 5% or 10% of the Cubanos switch over to the Democrats, that will give us more House members and help us win the state's electoral votes as well.

I dont disagree with MA voting for a REPUB.  But - remember, the REPUB tangibles in this cycle favor the DEM candidate, regardless if it is Obama or Clinton.  Unpopular war, bad economy, a 'hawk' REPUB candidate ... the list goes on, and mostly favors the alternative candidate.  Just look at how many REPUBs are retiring, what over 30 this cycle? That is a huge number, and shows the public what REPUBs are thinking of their chances in November.  Mind you, I still dont think it is a slam dunk the DEMS win the WH, but - we certainly are favorites.  

200,000 showed up to caucus in a state of over 5 million.  Plus, MN, like many other places may now be having buyers remorse.

And they don't like Deval Patrick - Obama Jr.

Believe whatever you want to believe.  I just thought data would help better inform your assumptions.

Bill Clinton campaigned in Texas right up until Election Day '92.

I'm sure the campaign diverted funds to other states when the national race tightened up at the end (there was a Bush "surge" about a week before the election). Obama or any candidate would make the same decision. If you'd like to win TX, but you need to win PA, to which are you going to devote more resources? I think it's obvious. Remember, absent the butterfly ballot, Bush would've blown the 2000 election by taking a premature "victory lap" through California and New Jersey.

Again, I don't think either would be particularly competitive. But I think the candidate more likely to win is the one who has a large following among Hispanics (and can motivate them to vote, as seen in the primary) and doesn't completely alienate moderate-to-conservative yellow-dogs.

You are just wrong. Hillary is actually much more progressive than Bill -- look at her record and you can see it if you look past your prejudices. Her agenda has always been for economic equality and she's been accomplishing it bit by bit.

"She will govern in a center-right fashion, appeasing the right at every step by passing strict immigration limitations and backpeddling getting out of a Iraq. "

You are completely wrong, and have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Obama's advisors are center-right, in favor of market solutions to health care, credit, housing, and all other domestic issues. That is the basis of his "bipartisan - let's all get along" approach to governance.

Maybe he will be a little less in favor of "reaching out to the other side" now that they are unleashing their dogs on him to destroy him, as they have done to all Democrats, especially the Clintons, for so many years now.