Conclusion 3, he's captured a larger percentage of the bitter voters.

Impossible, John Judis assured us that "Bittergate" - sigh - was an enormous blunder for Obama. Except it hasn't been. You boys need a vacation and some perspective away from NY. Frankly, nobody gives a rats ass about these pointless micro-scandals that the lazy and vapid 24-hour media dreams up.

Don't stock prices behave in just the way (#2) you describe? Good news, a stock goes down; conversely,  bad news, up.

This is also the second day running that Clinton has been at 40% in the Gallup three-day polls - the first time she has been that low since early January when John Edwards was still in the race.

I find it hard to believe that Clinton could really survive the optics of being in the 30s in the national poll while Obama is in the 50s - so she needs some upward movement. Perhaps it is finally sinking in with the public that her campaign is doomed.

"There are two possible conclusions: The first is that polls are meaningless"

Stop there.

Remember, Dukakis was up by 18 points in June.

jmkerr,

Your analogy doesn't work.  The Dukakis poll was taken 5 months before the election it was supposed to gauge.  These polls are being taken *during* the contest they are supposed to gauge (i.e. the contest for the Democratic nomination).  This has nothing to do with predicting the future (especially since the vast majority of the states have already voted); it's simply supposed to provide a snapshot of current levels of support.

jmkerr:

June is five months before November.

April 15 is seven days before the Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary's campaign has -- for the umpteenth time -- claimed is a "must win" contest. If she only eeks out a small win or even loses, it's going to be even harder for her to concoct a rationale for continuing. The fact that the manufactured media frenzy over Bittergate hasn't sunk his poll numbers is dismal news for her campaign.

A year ago Hillary was at 40% in the national polls. Today, she is still at 40% in the polls. After 20 years in the spotlight, and inheriting Bill's political connections, fundraising and stockpiled political favors, she can only gather 40% of Democratic voters. To think, she is losing to a guy who is 3 years removed from the Illinois legislature - what does that say about her?

Has no one mentioned one obvious conclusion, which is that Hillary overplayed her reaction to "bittergate" and suffered a backlash for it? This doesn't explain Obama's post-Wright bump, but it seems reasonable this time.

william-g,

Please convey your thoughts to:  pccostello, jacobt1, esmense, schungu, and the rest of the "Hillary is starting to win now" crowd.

My hunch is that these polls reflect that fact that Democrats have made up their minds that they are nominating Obama and are no longer tolerant of anything that tears down their candidate.  This is the beginning of the party rallying to Obama -- aided and abetted by Hillary grossly overplaying her hand.  Maybe if McCain hadn't joined in with the same line she was taking she might have made a small gain, but it was far too obvious, because of McCain's echo, that she was, yet again, doing the Republicans' work for them.  In a year when the Democrats are absolutely determined to win, it is a gross mistake for Hillary to stand in the way.  

The end really is nigh for Hillary.  The party getting ready to roll over her.  A sort of public opinion tsunami.  Out in the middle of the ocean, it may be a barely discernible bump.  But it is building and it is coming.  Hillary was (past tense intended) the wrong person at the wrong time in history.  Get out of the way, Hillary.  History is coming, with you or without you on board.  

I hope that Mr. Judis has learned a lesson about declaring what the public reaction to something is going to be.

I think people may be reacting to the silly season of "gotcha" politics. Hillary seems to be best a playing that game, but it may be coming back to bite her.

Backlash?

Well, I've obviously been unhappy with Clinton for a few months now . . . but this week, I vowed to donate, monthly, to the campaign of whichever Republican is nominated to run against her in her next Senate race. (And I'm the sort of crackpot who actually sticks to those kinds of vows.)

I want this woman out of Democratic politics. Achieving that would be worth a Senate seat.

Bela,

Let's find a great Democrat to give her a primary challenge.  Too hard for a Republican to win a Senate seat in NY these days.  But the right Dem could topple her.  

roid,

I hear Spitzer's available.

All joking aside, I don't think there's really that much to worry about re Hillary in the Senate.  If Obama wins the election this fall (a somewhat big IF), then there is no chance she will run for reelection in 2012.  Why not?  Because there would be no point.  With Obama as the incumbent, there is no way she could be the presidential nominee in 2012.   And since she would (probably) be too old to run in 2016, she would have no reason to stay in the Senate.  Let's be honest, Hillary's interest in her Senate seat was always as a mere stepping-stone to get to the White House, she has had no real desire to actually be a Senator.  If the road to the other end of Pennsylvania Ave is foreclosed, she would see no need to remain in the Senate and run "retire" in 2012.

You're probably right mundye, but the prospect of disappearing altogether from the public eye -- no one is going to be paying Hillary to make speeches -- may be more than she can bear.  Jacob Javits wouldn't get off stage gracefully when the time came and the result was the election of Al D'amato in a three-way race.  I wouldn't count on Hillary going without a push, although you are surely correct that she never had any interest in serving in the Senate as such -- and the meager results show it.