Obama loses in the groups you mention only if you exclude every state he won in.

if obama was only winning black people who would not have won in Iowa, Maine and bunch of other states.

The poll did not only focus on the small group of people who want a join ticket. It asked all 3 questions to the same group of 1041 people. This question was purely hypothetical, which makes it fairly meaningless, similar to polls of hypothetical GE match-ups.

6% of the electorate in the super tuesday caucuses; the primaries for that day had a participation rate of 29%.  50,000 people participated in the state of Washington caucus.  Washington state has 6.4 million people.  Democratic caucuses attract the most liberal voters disproportionately.  Is this what you base a national candidate on?

if he does win the popular vote , i don't see how the superdelegates overturn that.

i couldn't read the whole diary , but i still believe she would end up with the popular vote when it is all over.

of course nothing is certain.

If you look at the tracking poll over the last month, who's on top depends on who won the most recent contest.  When Obama had his long 11 contest winning streak he was on top.  Then as we  headed into March 4, Hillary move back up.  Now, with Obama's win in WY and soon to be Mississippi, Obama's back on top.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democratic electorate is split down the middle. 50-50.

Yes, 67% say run separately.

But the question was not should they eventually run together in the general. The question is framed in a way asking should they run as a joint ticket now or continue to fight it out until the convention. Ask voters if Clinton and Obama should run together in the general and you would find most will like that.

The point she is trying to make i suspect is that Clinton's base is the traditional base of the democratic party , Blue collar votes , Women , latinos , seniors and to put the icing on the cake she is bringing back the Reagan democrats into the fold.

She has a coalition that wins the big industrial states and the battleground states like Ohio , Flo , Penn , NJ.

There is no doubt that if you check exit polls from state to state , she wins self identified democrats , so she has the capacity to bring out the base of the democratic party to win in the general.

The states he has won: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho? He won't win those states in the general election. He didn't win Tennessee or Oklahoma; he barely eaked out a 500 vote victory in Missouri, even though Clinton won the vast majority of precincts in the state, just like in TX and OH.

Take a look at these maps--a precinct by precinct picture of "who won what where" and you'll see Obama's weakness.

He only wins in urban areas where upper-income white voters and 85% of black voters support him. When you look at the portions of TX and OH which voted for Clinton, you see a vast stretch of most of both states. The pockets of support for Obama are the black voters, and the  voters 30 and below. In Ohio, Clinton won the demographic over age 30, and Obama won the 18-29 demographic.  

Map of TX

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Map of OH

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Clinton consistently wins up to 20% of the black voters in every state. She has worked hard to keep the faith with black voters, too: She went to State of the Black Union and was well-received. The Clinton's have a long history of support from the black community, and long-standing ties to many black leaders. Most black voters will come back to the Clintons in the general election; particularly if she is the nominee and offers Obama the VP slot [whether or not he takes it]. Those latino voters, working class voters, elderly voters and asian voters--not to mention the majority of women voters who support Clinton--won't vote for Obama.

Obama's black support shows its limits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_o n_el_pr/democrats_blacks;_ylt=AuTjTMZn9T BXUhFjTLcH02es0NUE

By CHARLES BABINGTON,
Associated Press

Barack Obama would not be leading the Democratic presidential race without the enthusiasm and high turnout of black voters.

They spearheaded his comeback win in South Carolina, where Obama trounced Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards with the backing of four out of every five black voters. They provided his margin of victory in many other states, and will play a key role in Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, where Clinton is the underdog.

But Obama's campaign saw the limits of black support in last week's losses in Ohio and Texas, which kept Clinton's campaign alive. And the role black voters will play in the next big contest, Pennsylvania's April 22 primary, is unclear.

Moreover, some analysts think it's possible Obama's heavy black support is nudging some working-class white Democrats into Clinton's camp. If true, it could be an important factor in a contest that remains remarkably tight after a year of campaigning.

[...]

Meanwhile, Clinton continues to draw about 10 percent to 20 percent of black voters, who sometimes have to defend their choice.

"She has the most experience," said Elexis Griffin, a black worker at a law office who attended a Clinton fundraiser in Canton, Ohio. "Obama has only been in the Senate three years. I'm not anti-Barack. I'm just pro-Hillary."

Griffin, who is 25 and considering law school, said, "I sit here almost every single day and hear debating: Hillary or Obama? My closest friends, I have very much influenced their vote for Hillary. They accuse me of being against the social movement. And I accuse them of voting with their emotions and not looking at the facts."

People would read into the survey usa poll whatever interpretation they want too.

That's certainly the way I read it. The question wasn't do you think there ever should be an Clinton-Obama, or Obama-Clinton ticket. Right now I'm definetly with the two-thirds who think it would be silly for either to just cede as VP right now. Of course they shouldn't give up on getting the top spot now, that doesn't mean I think Clinton-Obama or vice versa should never happen. I think Clinton-Obama in particular could be an excellent ticket.

I did misread the poll, my bad.  Still, the poll does not support the author's argument.  When forced to choose between Clinton/Obama and Obama/Clinton, a plurality choose the former.  But the high number of undecideds (especially for a SUSA poll), and the fact that 2/3rds reject the option of having them join forces at this time, suggests that the majority of Democrats have no resigned themselves to this option.  

Take a look at the trends with multiple polls

Clinton-McCain  http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv C.php

Obama-McCain
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-Mv O.php

I'll take Rasmussen with a grain of salt, but only 41% of Clinton supporters having a favorable opinion of Obama should be particularly concerning. The arguement that Obama is going to have such an easier time getting Clinton supporters than Clinton is getting Obama supporters is basically destroyed by this poll. Clinton isn't that much better with 56% of Obama supporters favorable to her, but none-the-less it is better, if you believe the poll to be credible.

As if Obama will deliver on his populist rhetoric? Ask Golsbee and Samantha Power. Please go ask them, those who are close to him.

"You have been fooled by one of the most deceptive political propaganda machines in the ever"

And I am a Kucinich Democrat who will say unequivocally that progressives have been fooled by Obama, who is running "one of the most deceptive political propaganda machines ever." He will sell out all the progressive, core Democratic principles we have been fighting for for generations. The advisors and policies he has chosen he has chosen will opt for "bipartisan" solutions that swing this country far to the right at the very moment that we could otherwise be fulfilling a mandate for change with true Democratic principles. Clinton may not be perfect, but she is our last best hope for universal health care, alleviation of poverty, and a host of other issues.

Yeah, Hillary's good week and Obama's bad week surely had no impact on the polls.  

Vice presidents aren't expected to have the same credentials as the President.  Most Americans don't expect them to have to take over immediately.  He could do the presidency if he had to, but the 4 to 8 years of extra experience in the job as vice president would build his experience to the point where he could offer that in the next election.  Look at the various presidential picks in the past.  They are always a little less on experience because they don't have the same responsibility as the president does.  

Yes, I can see how you would get that by adding about 20 words to what I said.  That's obviously exactly what I was saying!

Sure, she could potentially net 300k in PA, but that's not what I asked.  I asked how she's going to net a gain of  300k on all the remaining contests.  MS and NC are likely to wipe out the vast majority of the gains that Clinton will make in PA.  

And of the other states that remain, it's more or less a wash (though more favor Obama than they do Clinton).

So yeah....where's an overall net gain of 300 come from?  I just don't see a scenario where that's even remotely likely.

You followed the link, but apparently didn't read it very carefully.  The same 1041 voters asked the first question were also asked the second.   The joint ticket question was not a poll of just those who said they should announce a joint ticket now.  Because of your error there,  your second point is completely invalidated.

No, it clearly says that they want them to continue campaigning separately right now.  Why on earth should one of them quit when the race is so tantalizingly close?  The longer it stays close, the more sense it makes to have every state chime in.  At this point, that's what should and probably will happen.   Unless Hillary loses Pennsylvania, which seems highly improbable, this will go through June.

And that's a good thing.   Keeps people excited and gets Democrats normally irrelevant to this process feel justifiably important when voting.  

A small percent said they should announce a joint ticket RIGHT NOW, and most said they should keep campaigning for now.

ALL AMERICANS were polled about the joint ticket, and nearly half (48%) said she should be at the top; 36% said it should be Obama.  

That 12-point margin is significant. But far more telling is that among DEMOCRATS, the margin was much wider - more than twice as large:  58% said Hillary should top the ticket, versus 33% for Obama.

he's being puffed up by Republicans gaming our system, is it?

Nooooo, doofus, read #1 again.

People want the two to run for the NOM separately.

Once the nom is done, read question 2.

I honestly can't see why Obama supporters are seen as so well-educated.  The reality is, they can't EVEN READ.

Agree - Superdelegates are delegates, and can make their decision based on anything they want to, popular vote, states won, number of latte drinkers, what their fortune cookie said, whatever.

I would personally argue against a superdelegate supporting one candidate or the other based on popular vote, since that's not what the candidates are going after, as I described above.

If one of the candidates has a pledged delegate lead, but is short of the 2025 (which is almost certainly what will happen), I would not call that a "stalemate", I'd say that one did better than the other in winning delegates, but not well enough to cross the line with pledged delegates alone. If I supported the person with fewer pledged delegates I'd call it a stalemate too