I heard someone today talk about early voting.  This was not dealt with much in Florida coverage, but my understanding is that Obama *beat* Clinton among people who voted on election day in Florida.  I understand further that many in California have already cast ballots.  I know there is no-questions-asked early voting in Illinois, at least in Chicago.  (There's also often-voting in Chicago, but that's another topic.)  Is there early voting in all of these states?  How big a factor is this?  Will this lessen the effect of an Obama bounce?  If so, by how much?  Will the media be tracking this?

Attn: Rasmussen just put out a new poll conducted on January 29th

Clinton 43

Obama 40

Edwards 9

Then again, Rasmussen's last poll had Obama down 5 when most had him down about 15. Whatever.

No doubt it will tighten, but these leads are going to be tough to overcome.  I think only the 1-2 punch of an Edwards-Gore endorsement can win this for Obama.  Otherwise, look for something close to a Hillary sweep next Tuesday.

While I still adhere to the CW that she'd be a weaker general election candidate against McCain, we really don't know.  We may not like it when Billary tunrs on the heat against one of our own - especially someone like Obama - but that will change when they're playing rough with the Republican.  They don't like to lose and will fight back and go on the offensive.  You can decry negative campaigning and other nastiness all you want.  Generally, it works.

Hillary actually won in Florida 34% to 30% among those who decided on election day itself. She did doworse than Obama by about the same percentage among those who decided in the period from 3 weeks to 3 days before election day. So, apparent shifts and drifts in momentum.

I guess I find all of this talk of Florida Dem primary just bizarre - no else campaigned there on mutual agreement (oops, I did it again).

If Hillary hadn't come out ahead, it would have been pathetic.

Lets take a pill here. These are proportional primaries. 43 to 40 = the same number of delegates.  If Obama wins big in the South and in IL (and he will) and racks up margins that small everywhere else. He wins.

O and bhunziker you're over-thinking a Hillary vs. McCain. The more charismatic/likable candidate ALWAYS wins the general election.  

I mean, I could get technical and point out that Hillary can't win because South Carolina will in suppress  African American turnout and in states like Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania the difference will be a Clinton Killer but why bother.  

Wandrey

There's not a lot of talk of the Florida primary, except among folks who are firmly in the Clinton camp. Thankfully, Edwards dropping out (and even snubgate) have largely buried that false lead.

Arsonplus, I said that I generally agree with the CW on this.  But I wouldn't discount negativity in evening things out.  South Carolina, of course, will never be in the Democratic column, but there's nothing to say that the other states (with the possible exception of Florida) won't be, even with Hillary as the nominee.

Also, let's remember that the structural advantages of any Democratic candidate this year are enormous.  If the economy tips into a recession (officially), unemployment climbs, gas stays above $3/gallon, even an unlikable Hillary can beat a likable McCain. This is especially the case as economic issues rise become more prominent.  McCain just doesn't talk that talk as well (by his own admission).

Obama surging, according to a lame-sounding tracking poll in California:

(from www.sfgate.com/.../article.cgi)

=============

California's twin presidential primaries may be much tighter than polls have suggested, with both Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama making late surges, according to new tracking data.

The numbers are part of a nightly tracking poll being done by the anti-Indian-gaming initiative campaign, which has included a question on the presidential primaries.

On the Democratic side, the combined results of three nightly samplings of 400 different voters - for Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday - found Hillary Rodham Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 31 percent and John Edwards at 12 percent.

But when taken alone, Sunday's tracking - just a day after Obama's big win in the South Carolina primary - had Obama leading Clinton, 35 percent to 32 percent, with Edwards' share growing to 16 percent. And pretty much the same numbers came up Monday.

One caveat: A prominent political consultant following the numbers emphasizes that while a single night's tracking isn't considered statistically reliable, it does show movement and direction.

"Obama surging over Hillary," is what I should have said.

Can anyone address how much of this tightening up in these various polls is more or less an inevitable result of the good voters of these states finally waking up to the fact that for the first time in ages they actually have a competitive presidential campaign in which to vote, and all of a sudden it's less than a week away?