If Hillary wins PA and Indiana then this race is going to the convention.

a swing of 15 among dems?

I'm happy for the turn around in the polls. But I'm not going to jump up and down unless Hillary really does win Indiana.

Wright... Bitter.... There's NO WAY he gets the Nomination.  

Over on The Economic Populist is a post covering today's Manufacturing forum put on by the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Links to the raw speeches, transcripts as well as other policy details are in the post.

Most amazing is this forum, on a critical area for American jobs and the U.S. economy wasn't even shown on CSPAN, never mind CNN.

Gee wiz does anyone care about real policy positions and digging the United States out of this economic hole we are in?

It's very important to analyze these position statements, as well as will they stick to them (I noticed Hillary said brazenly to hold her accountable to her campaign promises).

Anyone have more policy position papers please add them on trade, US manufacturing.

McCain of course did not even bother to show up.

Hey, I would take a 15-point win in PA and a 10-point win in IN. I will absolutely love that. These margins will not give her the delegate lead, but who are we kidding, Clinton will not have a pledged delegate lead at the end of this race, but she could definitely have the popular vote lead.

Whash, Gore and Kerry only managed to receive 42 % of the white vote in the general election.  You mean to tell me that Obama can win the general election with such distractions hovering around his candidacy?

So in the post immediately preceding this one, you cite lack of movement in a 4.8 MoE North Carolina poll as proof that Obama was not affected by "cling to guns and religion", yet a 7-point swing in a 4.2% MoE SUSA poll leads you to conclude that the movement is statistically insignificant.

Yeah.  OK.

In the new New York magazine issue, top Republican strategist Alex Castellanos is quoted as saying he believes the Clintons would win the 2008 election against McCain "The Clintons don't show up at a knife fight with a gun; they show up with a missile launcher".

The Democratic choice is clear; they can go with a winner in Clinton, or they can go with a candidate whose likelihood of success in November is a total crap-shoot.

No pollster has been more reliable all year than SUSA.  It has been right-on-the-money when most other pollsters were so far off the mark, merely eating crow could not salvage their tarred arithmetic.

Yes, indeed, Hillary will carry Pennsylvania quite easily--much as she did my native Ohio, and quite likely Indiana as well.  The demographics there far more favor bedrock Democrats and their values--meaning Senator Clinton, than would favor Senator Obama.

And just as likely she will do very well in Kentucky, West Virginia and still pro-Clinton Puerto Rico.

Most of us bedrock Democrats have never bought into Senator Obama.  Sadly, he will go to the convention having lost every major state save his native Illinois and that near-draw in Missouri.  

He would then be the nominee of Red State and Independent Swing State America.  Not a very comfortable position to be in if one is a Democrat and one absolutely must win blue state America and at least a couple of key bell-weathers.  

And regarding Florida and Ohio (notwithstanding any pollster saying otherwise; if one loses 83 of 88 Ohio counties in the primary, one hasn't a prayer in that state's fall campaign), Obama certainly cannot rely on either of those come the general.

I presume that in the convoluted understanding of the Obama crowd, Colorado and some other mountain states--with nowhere near the electorals of Florida and Ohio--will somehow compensate.

But the truth will out.  Howard Dean's reconstruction of the Democratic Party process--arguing for "proportionate" representation and many unrepresentative caucuses, which has nothing whatever to do with winner-take-all state electorals, will prove a disaster with Obama heading the ticket come the fall.

Those Democrats who, having endeared themselves to the long Clinton-hating media, have decided to trash the Clintons will get a much deserved lesson.  When a party distances itself from its own last successfully elected President and First Lady, in favor of an untested, unvetted Illinois freshman Senator, then that party is on a certain train wreck.

The Democrats were largely in the presidential wilderness (save for the accident of post-Watergate single-term-and single percent victory Jimmy Carter) for decades before the Clintons.

And the Democrats will be in that same presidential wilderness for several more decades if they foolishly turn away from the Clintons now.

The Clintons will survive.  The Democratic Party, as a presidential contender, will not.

All day today, Americablog has been posting one attack after another on Hillary. Now this is supposed to be a "progressive" blog and you know what their main sources on these attacks have been: Matt Drudge and Politico (which Aravosis linked to multiple times). WTF?!!!

They began early voting in Indiana on April 7th.  Why doesn't anyone mention that?

Please join C&L and the ACLU to tell your members of Congress: Don't Look the Other Way on Torture:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/14 please-join-cl-and-the-aclu-to-tell-you r-members-of-congress-dont-look-the-othe r-way-on-torture

That argument is inane.  Either one will win in November unless they run the worst campaign in history.  The current GOP president is at 29% popularity and McCain has been his water boy for years.  McCain is old and crotchety and wants us to fight a neverending war that everyone hates.  

McCain is essentially tied in the polls with Clinton and Obama even while they spend 95% of their time campaigning against each other.  Wait and see, as soon as we have a nominee (I would imagine early June) his or her poll numbers against McCain will immediately jump 10%, and they will never look back.

The idea that losing one or another state in the democratic primary implies that our candidate will lose to a different candidate with a different electorate is statistically flawed at such a basic level, get over it!  Is McCain going to lose Alabama this fall because he lost to Huckabee?  Come on now people, we are going to be fine.

As a resident of Indiana and Indianapolis, specifically, I am amazed at Hillary erasing the lead in the capital city.  The 7th District, which comprises most of Indianapolis, has a very large African American population and those "latte" (their words, not mine) sippers who should be knocking down Obama's door.  In fact, the 7th went for John Kerry in 2004.  So, it shouldn't be this close.  Indeed, if Hillary wins the state, I figured Obama would make up some of the delegates with a big win in the 7th.  For her to be ahead just amazes me...

This is totally anecdotal by me, but Obama has been blanketing the airwaves with commercials for over two weeks now.  Literally, every commercial break during the news and popular shows, and I think that my be having an adverse effect.  Hoosier's get annoyed easily, especially with repetition, and we're not used to getting this kind of stuff thrown at us.  I think it could be some Obama fatigue.

Jonathan wrote: "The SUSA poll was in the field Friday through Sunday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. As a result, the movement in the poll was not statistically significant."

While this is technically true, I will ask several questions and make several comments.

1.  The previous poll from IN (SUSA) was Clinton +9.  What would you be writing (and what would the Obamacrats) be saying if it went 7 points the other way to Clinton +2?

2.  I submit that all the Obamacrats here would be all over the "movement" in the polls.  Just recently, Liberal Avenger was talking* about "movement" within the Quinnipiac poll from PA which went from Clinton +9 to Clinton +6  *http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/8/12533 5/4902 Even though there was no movement in the poll, everyone was writing Clinton's obituary because the polls were "tightening" based off Quinnipiac, according to Liberal Avenger anyway.

3.  Since the movement is not "statistically significant," what does it matter if Clinton is now up 16 or 2 in Indiana?  It's all the same, right?  In your words Jonathan and those of statistical significance, they are both the same.  Yet, experience in the real world tells us they are not the same.  If you think they are, would you rather be up +16 from +9 or up +2 from +9?

In the future, I urge you to post with the same skepticism of the MOE as you did here and for Clinton and Obama supporters to stop talking about movement unless the movement is 2x MOE, since that's the standard that was established with your diary.  

Accordingly, if in SUSA's weekly release on PA, Clinton is "down" to a 13 point lead from an 18 point lead a week ago, or something to that effect, I'd like it reported that there was no movement.  Because under the guidelines established in this diary, there would be none.

Wow.  Interesting numbers.  Thank you, Jonathan.

he sure did!  the loser of IN should drop out!

"Now it's time to start female rule" -Dalai Lama http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/3587 30_dalai12.html