Perhaps my subject is not exactly correct because they are talking about this but everyone is saying it is a trivial issue.

While at a holiday celebration I was having a discussion with someone who was very active in local politics and in the democratic party. Oh I live in PA so obviously my experience might not related directly to other states who were not overwhelmingly for Hillary.

He said that there was no way he could vote for Obama. As we talked he said that he has coffee with a pretty large group of people who all are very active in the democratic party. Everyone said that they could not vote for Obama and even though they have never pulled a republican lever before they are planning to vote for McCain.

There were a few people there who were for Obama but it was interesting that they were people who live in an area where the income level is higher and the ones who I knew well were also very liberal. I think I lean toward being a liberal but not to the extent that they are.

Most of these people are middle aged and older so I think it probably is fair to assume that when these polling companies call they do not answer or refuse to be polled. That of course in not true of everyone but I think it is fair to assume that a majority of them would never be polled. I think that all of them would vote as it seems to be a prevailing belief among people who actually vote in my area that you have to vote.

What also was said, was that the coffee group all agreed that it is not over till it is over and if Obama does something dumb and does not get the nomination they would all vote for Hillary. I know that sounds inconceivable to many of Obama supporters but I think she is perceived as being closer to the middle than Obama or McCain. I think that if she were the nominee she would be ahead by a large margin.

That matters little, but I think that Obama at this point has a bigger problem on his hands related to those who supported Hillary than anyone in the media, including FOX is talking about.

I think my observation is probably true in many other areas but I cannot say that it is. So save your keyboard if you want to say this is BS. For those that I talked to it is true, there intention to vote for McCain is not as a protest to what happened to Hillary, not based on a racist motivation. They and I just think that Obama's approach is wrong for our country. So they and I will hold our noses and vote for someone, anyone other than Obama. Many of these people have been registered Democrats for more years than many who post here have been alive so saying they are not real Democrats shows a closed mind just as judgmental as the most radical fundamentalists. They might not agree with you but to suggest that they are not Democrats shows that your political view is so totalitarian that it only shows how many of Obama supporters are no better than the most dedicated Marxist.

as a hillary supporter i found your post very interesting....no one realizes there are alot of us dems (me included) that dont like or want to vote for obama. it is really a story that is overlooked....so thanks for the update in penn.

the DNC is having ALL sorts of trouble raising money for the convention....seems as if they pissed off a bunch of the ones who actually sent money to them(ie hillary supporters)....NOW the young and new voters have no compunction to send money....hence with six weeks to go...the dnc doesnt have money to pay for the convention

after what the dnc did to USE the rules to get obama the nomination, they will NEVER see another dime of mine....thats all i know....screw em...they WANTED obama and now they have him....

leave it to the dems to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory !

Did you ever contribute to a convention in the past? The problem is that because Obama doesn't want to raise money from Pacs it has changed things a lot from the last convention.

Your attempt to say it means that fewer people are supporting Obama is funny. Notice that Obama is still kicking McCain's butt in the polls and at the bank.

What I am seeing in the polls is not exactly kicking butt. McCain is on vacation and not losing ground. I also think that reports I have seen lately show that Obama is doing better but when looking at all sources I think they are relatively close.

I am not sure I agree that the DNC conspired to insure Obama won. If you are talking about that meeting where they gave Hillary delegates to Obama, I find that to be incredibly stupid both on the DNC part and on Obama's part.

He could have taken a stand that even giving 100 percent of what Hillary won to Hillary was fine with him. He still would have enough to win and would have appeared to be fair minded willing to do what is right and taken away one line of criticism from Hillary backers.

To me it was one more example of how Obama is willing to win at any cost. Where then end justifies the means. When I read about how he eliminated competition to get his seat in IL I thought how wrong that was, even though it was legal and pointed out issues that were wrong. But to me he took away the voters chance to choose.

I think that many of those voting at the convention have to feel as if they have a gun to their head. With threats that there will be race riots is Obama is not selected they really cannot vote for someone who is more likely to win in Nov. I think they are just hoping he can pull it off.

I always wonder what is going through these old time politicians heads as they say we need Obama because he has no Washington experience, because that experience is not helpful. Are they not saying that they need to be changed too?

I think all this chest banging about how Obama is so far ahead when it is common knowledge that he over polls by as much as 7 percent and currently holds a 4 percent lead to be pretty silly. I think that at this point if one of them hits a winning issue or makes a mistake it is close enough that who wins will be altered by either one.

While money is important I think the primaries show that it is issues that win the day and not just money. Look at Romney, Obama in PA, Ohio, W Virginia, Kentucky.

I personally believe that Obama is moving away from those who support him toward people that are not going to support him no matter what he says.

1. The polls are going to be less accurate because too many people have cell phones and no land lines.

2. "Over polls"? What are you talking about?

3. There was no way to do any sort of fair distribution of the votes from Michigan. No matter how they did it, somebody would be pissed.

4. Obama contested signatures on petitions to get other candidates on the ballot. They turned out to be invalid signatures or not legal voters. I see nothing wrong with that. The people collecting the signatures should have done a better job. The rules exist to attempt to insure legitimate elections.

5. As far as winning at any cost....think McCain and the agents of intolerance, or his flip flop on the Bush tax cuts.

I think the polls at this time are interesting but not very valid in terms of who is going to win in November.

By over poll I mean that the polls show a higher percent supporting Obama than is reflected in the actual vote.

I agree that someone would have been pissed but Obama supporters angry that Hillary got more votes than they feel she should have would not make an Obama supporter abandon him. I think it would have shown him to be willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. It would have made him look gracious, overly gracious to those who support him. He still gets the nomination. What would be lost if he said he agreed to what ever was decided including using the approach presented by Hillary's people.

I understand what he did was according to the rules and why such rules exist. However, I see this as using a technicality to insure he was elected. If they could not even get enough signatures what was their threat. Would you be for eliminating McCain because technically he was not born in the US? Lastly he did it at the last minute so his opponents had no time to correct the situation. That is not insuring a fair race it is a tactical strike that he knew was decisive. How often do you hear about this strategy being used? I find it hard to believe that you think that he did this out of reverence for our political process and not as a means to insure his own success.

I can think of nothing that Obama has done that would have obviously hurt his chances of being elected. McCain supporting the surge clearly was a huge risk at that time. I think it is unfair to say he was against them and now he is for them. I am sure you know this is only partially true. He was originally against them because the tax cuts were not offset by cuts in government spending. Under his policy the tax cuts would be offset by changes in government spending. No matter I think that McCain's support of this cut is misguided.

I think they are both scrambling toward the middle. I am not sure how you put McCain into the class of Agents of intolerance. I know that I have been repeatedly told that I am a republican plant and that there is no way i am a Democrat by many of Obama supporters. I find them to be very intolerant of those who do not view Obama as the second coming.

The truth is that they both are acting as politicians do. The problem is that Obama presented himself as running on a higher standard. McCain said he is running because he wants to serve the country.

In my mind to run while adhering to this higher standard means doing what is philosophically right which might not be in agreement with what is technically right. I think eliminating competition and not being gracious to Hillary are two very clear actions that are in opposition to running at this so called higher standard.

I never bought into what he was selling so these changes are not very surprising to me. What is a problem for me is deciding if these changes are movement toward what his philosophy really is and his earlier statement were merely pandering to the Dem voters. Or is he now pandering to the middle and the earlier statements reflect his true beliefs. I think with McCain there are enough actions to decide on who he really is. Words are important but it is only in their actions that you learn what they really are.

I think I have said before that my support of Hillary was in part because i believe that her words did not truly reflect what she would actually do as president. In contrast I would not vote for Obama because I think that the plans he talked about were actually what he planned to do. Where he stands now is to the right of Hillary and in my mind he is not very far from the positions of McCain.

The polls are becoming increasingly irrelevant for a couple of reasons.

1. Cell phones are increasingly becoming the only phone for some families. None of those people are polled.

2. College students are almost exclusively leaning to Obama. The cell phone to land line ratio means that practically none of their opinions are polled.

3. The recent surge in voter registrations will count mostly to democrats. None of these people would be considered "likely" voters, because one of the criteria is "Did you vote last time".

The "Agents of Intolerance" phrase was what McCain used to describe Dobson, Robertson and Fallwell (and presumably Hagee) as being people who worked to divide us. Now he works to get their endorsement. Clearly a sign of how McCain has flipped.

I'm not sure on the timing of Obama's efforts to get signatures thrown out. Remember that those were other democrats running in the primary. I was part of the Perot campaign in 1992 and we had the same problem with republicans trying to throw out our petitions to put Perot on the ballot here. Luckily we used volunteers to gather signatures. In the case in Illinois, they used paid individuals and that has proven to be a problem in many different political campaigns. Frequently those guys are paid based on the number of signatures they get. When they forge them, they get paid, but may become a disaster later. In 2004 a group called Acorn ran into this with voter registrations.

McCain's view of the tax cuts and gov. spending don't pass the math test. Yes, we need to cut spending. His original complaint that the cuts were slanted to the rich is still true. Obama has said he would roll back the cuts for folks in the upper brackets (which would include me, by the way). I, personally, would prefer dumping Bush's tax cuts entirely. I would even add a "national debt" surtax, with a goal of returning the nation to doing business in the black. When we get to $0 national debt then everybody gets to share in a massive tax cut that equals how much we currently spend on interest for the debt.

I think there is a small group of Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain, but compared to the whole, they aren't significant. Furthermore, I suspect that most aren't true Democrats, they are Reagan Democrats that will vote on the person and not the party platform. It appears that this small group wants to believe themselves as more powerful than they are. No, there aren't so many as to sway the election because most people, in the end, vote on the issues...and they are vastly different between McCain and Obama. To even suggest that Hillary is closer to McCain on the issues is a lie, perhaps told to make her supporters feel better. For so called Democrats that oppose Obama, you will have to look deeper than the issues argument...that doesn't fly.

You'll notice, Sandy, that none of these types (raptor, dems, etc.) will quote any NEW polling....which shows that the majority of the Hillary supporters ARE going for Obama, not turning to McCain or saying they're "staying home".

It's all b.s. now. Partly from that tiny handful of Hillary cultists who think they can "get McCain elected and HRC will come roaring back in 2012"...partly from a slightly larger, but still small contingent of racist Dems....but MOSTLY from Republican operatives either openly or as "posers" trying to stir up trouble to save a troubled McCain candidacy.

But no evidence or facts will be offered....bet on it.

so YOU think a FIVE point spread is kicking butt???

i dont think so

a 5-7 point spread may not be much, but it is remarkable given that you have a well-recognized war hero who is a name-brand politician, and he is being bested by a relatively unknown junior senator. McCain should have polled 20 points ahead after Obama secured the nomination, but he didn't. Now THAT is remarkable. Obviously people who know and respect McCain's history of service aren't voting for him. Instead, they are willing to vote for an unknown. I guess the prevailing mood is anyone is better than another Republican.

I was not talking about polls nor about the whole country. The group of people that I was talking about consorts of about 30 people. Of that number about 5 were for Obama 5 were Republicans, 5 stayed out the discussion and the rest were for McCain.

You can claim all of these are not true Democrats but 10 of them are deeply involved in democratic politics. This includes people who held political positions, were deeply involved in running campaigns or worked for the democratic party. All of them hate the thought of voting for a Republican. All of them have been Democrats for more than a few years like these newly registered voters who are enthused because Obama says he does not represent the democratic party but politics that have not been seen before. Sounds like true party people to me.

What these mean to the election I do not know nor do know if what I saw has been reflected in the polls. But the primary reason was that they did not think Obama had what it takes to be president.

I am not saying this type of majority is reflected in every area of the country as i think that a lot of Democrats will ask no questions, watch the news and believe it and think that McCain is the Republican devil. But these people all are very involved in politics and pay close attention to what is going on and what has been said and done.

How so many of you are pushing this stand with the party is beyond me. Obama says he is something new (i.e something that does not already exist), that people with DC experience are harmful to this country (i.e existing politicians need to go for this country to work right) and he represents everyone Dem, rep and independent (i.e he has ideas that do not follow party lines). So this idea that he represents the democratic party except in terms of the nomination is ridiculous.

As far as cell phones and polls go, the difference in how he polled and what he got in the election was what happened in the primary so I am not sure how much that changed now. If the youth vote and new voters were not reflected in the primaries in significant numbers as you say, I think that would suggest that if that is true and they were included his poll numbers would be even better so the difference would have been even larger. So in essence those who are polled in even greater numbers are saying they will vote for Obama but when they actually vote do not vote for him.

The truth is polls do not matter and my observation is just that. It is not scientific, the people all are from a small region in PA that vote at a high percentage for Hillary, and all of them are older than 45. So I am not claiming this is a representative sample. But to say it is not the truth proves you are willing to speak on things which you have zero information. I guess it is possible that these people represent the only Dem's who will vote for McCain in the country but I believe that what I observed is not unique.

obama is outspending mccain two to one at LEAST

i wouldnt be quite SO proud if i were you sandy

Sandyb I think the prevailing belief is that Obama should have gotten a big bump in the polls when he wrapped up the nomination. That bump occurred but not to the extent that history would have projected.

The Dem party is larger than the Rep party so a small lead shows that many Dem's have not gotten on board with Obama.

I agree that Obama is new, untested and lacking any experience that would be useful in being president.

Given what a screw up that W is, and the mess that the country is in, this race should be over. I think that a Rep should have no chance but clearly McCain still has a chance to win. The current poll numbers speak more to the concerns felt by many about Obama than about the weakness of McCain. I believe that a good number of those voting for McCain will do so because they are afraid of what Obama would do as president.

Not that Hillary is all that much better than Obama but I think that if she had the nomination wrapped up, the polls would reflect a landslide was in the making. If you look at the state by state polls of a few months back my belief is backed up at least at that point.

I think that common wisdom is that the Dem's should win and win big. I find it hard to believe that Obama will lose as the resistance to anything Rep is pretty great and to a large extent very justified. The more that McCain embraces anything Rep the worse his chances become. But, I think that you are completely wrong in your interpretation of what the current polls mean.

You may vote for whomever you choose. It is not useful to keep pretending that Hillary will somehow become the Democratic nominee. There are two choices. I know some people that consider themselves Democratic leaning voters, but they will choose McCain over Obama simply because he is white. Nothing can be done about that. We'll count the votes when the election is over. If Obama loses, the Democratic Party loses. Even John McCain will be an improvement over our current President.