This is the percentage of voters that believes superdelegates should support a nominee based on the elected delegate count.

30 Percent believe that superdelegates should support a nominee based on which one has the best chance of winning.

While Obama followers would like "everybody else" to believe that HE has the best chance of winning, according to RCP's compilations, Clinton actually fares better than Obama against McCain. And Clinton now leads among Democrats: 47-42 as the preferred choice. Additionally, she holds a commanding lead in states with April and May primaries and caucuses.

Obama has won heavily-Black states (and anybody who denies this is living outside the bounds of reality). But his 20-year association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright (10 of which have been as a PUBLIC FIGURE), and Wright's "hate speech" have not and will not do Obama any favors among the traditional Democratic base: those who don't tolerate bigotry of any kind and who believe -- rightly or wrongly -- that America is the greatest country on Earth. His speech did nothing to answer the real question about his 20-year association with Wright and it once again pitted OLDER whites against Blacks. He dismisses and marginalizes OLDER white voters at his peril. And the polls now reflect this.

The only numbers that count are the final delegate count numbers. Yes, that includes the superdelegates.

Obama has only won in heavily black states? Tell that to the 1% black population in Iowa.

I am an old white male voter. Why don't I feel dismissed or marginalized?

Never mind. I already know the answer. I'm just too damn obtuse to figure it out, aren't I?

ONE white male voter.

I'm speaking generally, here, based on polls that show he is losing support among that "group." Additionally, he is losing support among Independents, according to Rasmussen Reports.

I am not saying these things to offend Blacks or whites; I am simply pointing out the overall numbers/polls. If you feel offended, I just ask that you look objectively at the overall picture and not take my posts as personal affronts.

Fair enough. I've gotten accustomed recently to being attacked by Clinton supporters for expressing my opinions.

By the way, I am also an Independent. I am not an "Obama supporter". I have been trying to look at this election objectively. I want Obama or Clinton to win the election.

Thanks for the response. I know that sometimes supporters in both camps get defensive and angry. It gets difficult, at times, to wade through the feelings and have a real discussion, so I'm grateful to hear more reasoned voices and opinions!

@ mabelle55:

At the beginning of the primary season Hillary Clinton led the other candidates in the national polls by 20 points. We could have said right then that the other candidates should drop out and let Clinton run unopposed.

The point is that polls are as meaningless now as they were then. NightSwimmer is correct. The only poll that counts is the "poll" of delegates taken on the convention floor.

Obama 08!

I'm a 47 year old, male, life long democrat Obama supporter. Many of my friends, male and female, are also Obama supporters. Maybe I don't qualify as an older white voter, but I thought Obama's speech was spot on and so did my 52 year old white pastor.

You need to check the latest tracking poll - Obama is back in front of Clinton.

As I indicated in my reply to "Nightswimmer", the numbers I cite are general polling numbers, not anecdotal accounts. I'm really not trying to start a numbers war here. I follow tracking polls from all the major polling firms. RCP "averages" the poll numbers, which is fine; CNN does the same thing. Even under the averaging, Obama's negatives are going up, not down, and he is losing support among white Democratic voters across the board in upcoming primary/caucus states.

Additionally, Obama has fallen behind Clinton in a national Rasmussen poll. The drop has been hovering at +/- 4 points over the past week. Today, he is -2 (43-45).

Polls certainly aren't the be-all, end-all. They are reflections of what is happening at any given moment in a campaign. They are indicators. It should be a concern for Obama that he is losing support among a key Democratic demographic: blue-collar, white, generally middle-class voters in states that have significant impact on a GE. He cannot win a GE with only Blacks and Hispanics.

Everyone here seems to be overlooking the fact that the majority of Obama's votes have come from whites, not blacks.

@entj4sure (Everyone here seems to be overlooking the fact that the majority of Obama's votes have come from whites, not blacks.)

Exactly. Hell, just look at the demographics of the mountain and northwest states. But, we are just latte drinking folks I guess.

@mabelle

A lot of this polling was done after the Wright episode, but does not inlcude the full impact of the Obama speech. We'll see what happens when the media starts in the Clinton Bosnia misstatements next week. (If the conditions were that bad, why did Clinton take her 16 year daughter into a war zone with her?)

Is it the same middle class that has fared so well under Bush? Which Bush achievement did they enjoy the most? The loss of Bankruptcy rights? Union quashing? Health and Education inflation? Maybe the cost of fuel? Capital gains tax reduction? The war?

If you follow the polls, you know they fluctuate. So they'll swing back in a few weeks. They'll be all over the place between now and Nov. If the Democrats are disciplined, stay on message, push the main issues, and neutralize the Republican attack machine with attacks of their own, they should win.

However, this is where it gets interesting and creates another trouble spot for Obama.

We have assumed that Clinton's support among Reagan Democrats doesn't outweight Obama's support among Independents and Republicans. However, if Independents are shifting now because of Wright's "hate speech", he probably won't draw the support from them that he needs in November.

Additionally, a new GE map with McCain-Obama match shows McCain winning most of the same Northwest and Southwest states that Obama won in (primarily) caucuses, giving him and Democrats 238 electoral votes.

A Clinton-McCain matchup, however, shows something I find intriguing: Clinton carries conservative Northwest and Southwest states like Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona (in addition to states in other parts of the country) and garners 288 electoral votes.

If I were an Obama follower, it would be worrisome to me that McCain wins Obama's "caucus-win" states in a GE McCain-Obama matchup, because many of these states are not "liberal" in ideology. Clinton could actually fare better in such states because she appeals to a more centrist electorate.

@ mabelle55:

Yikes! Are you an accountant? There are issues to be discussed! There is mud to be slung! There are grammas out there that haven't been thrown under buses!

Obama 08!

"We have assumed that Clinton's support among Reagan Democrats doesn't outweigh Obama's support among Independents and Republicans. However, if Independents are shifting now because of Wright's "hate speech", he probably won't draw the support from them that he needs in November."

Your mistake, in my opinion, is your attempt to view this contest through the lens of previous elections going back to the 1980's. Most of the Reagan Democrats can now be found in the same place as President Reagan.

You are witnessing a sea change in the American electorate and you can throw your conventional wisdom electoral maps out the window. One of the most exciting things about Obama's campaign is the number of new voters participating in the process for their first time. If voter turnout in the GE resembles what has been occurring in the primaries, then the old formulas for analyzing the poll numbers becomes irrelevant.

I don't buy your argument that Hillary does better among Independents. That doesn't hold true with the Independent voters that I know personally. She is symbolic of the divisive partisan politics of which most Independents are so weary.