I agree that exit polls should be taken with a grain of salt, if not an entire pile. But still, they consist of real data gathered from the field. Any theory or opinion that flies in the face of those polls without showing why those polls are incorrect or incomplete has issues.

I also have to wonder about the Reagan Democrats. That was a long time ago, over twenty years, and many of those folks are no longer with us. I wonder what were the driving factors about their defection. Was it really affirmative action, or was it military failure, stagflation, long gas lines and the arrival of an ultra-charismatic media figure well known and liked for decades with his old-west can do attitude and optimism? Were those the reasons for vast numbers of democrats voting for the Ronald?

Given the state of the economy and the war in 2008, how many Reagan Democrats or their contemporaries will still feel that voting Republican is in their best financial interests?

I don't think most in the Obama camp are looking for transcendence in politics. A mere redefinition would suffice. A certain exaggeration of expectations by the competition is ocurring so that legitimate goals can mocked as the stuff of fantasy.

I would imagine that game changing moments in politics happen more frequently then we suspect. After 9/11, George Bush had a such an opportuntity. We came together as a country and could have done anything. He told most of us to stay home and spend money. Then he invaded Iraq.

Thanks for the exit polling link. I took a brief look but haven't combed through the data. I would take all polling data at this stage with a grain of salt. Also, it's tough to view any data with an objective lens when our hopes and dreams are tied to the outcomes.

I think the issue of the Reagan Democrats might again be applicable in the 2008 general election in a manner that could influence the outcome. McCain, despite his Iraq war position, could be perceived as best representing this same constituency when compared to Obama. I believe a large portion of those voting for Hillary in the primary will vote for McCain, but not so many of those voting for Huckabee will vote for Obama. McCain will probably pick a running mate to help to secure the conservative base. Maybe Romney, maybe not. And I don't think many Republicans will vote for Obama. Therefore, by my judgment, it's winning the independents that will determine the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Democrat

The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, the unemployed, African Americans, and other political pressure groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of alleged economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the "malaise" of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan's strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and taxes.[1]

A bit off topic - from a pragmatic perspective, it seems to be a bit of false hope to expect a politician to transcend political behavior as many in the Obama camp expect. Idealism of this sort almost always fails when an objective reality is applied. Issues like health care need to be resolved. Hillary has tried once and has the war wounds so she might be more effective when taking a second shot at it. Idealism won't solve the problem but rather it will take political skill. LBJ got civil rights through the legislature (and the dixie democrats) and not the Kennedy's.

With that said, it's always tough to beat a message of hope (particularly hope applied to a constituency experiencing extreme frustration.) Hope is the driving force for many human endeavors. Obama's message is pretty good here. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be enough to secure the position of leading the entire country, for better of for worse.

When Hillary wins PA by double-digits, we'll see the real repercussions of the Wright impact and she'll have the mo' again. And Casey will have to switch his superdelegate allegiance because that's what his people want.

Considering how things are going for Hillary these days, I guess I'm not surprised that her supporters choose to take refuge a hypothetical future that can't be disproved, only argued against. So you have fun with that. Me, I'll continue enjoying supporting a candidate who's got plenty of real-world reasons to feel optimistic about his campaign.

It's great that Senator Casey has joined a great cause, but where the heck is John Edwards?

I have hung out and read many posts on these boards prior to posting. I'm offering another perspective that contradicts what many of you perceive.

Yes, that describes much of my daily life. But I've perceived a lot of exit polls that showed Obama attracting a larger percentage of the republican and independent vote prior to OH, TX, and our favorite bellweather state, Mississippi, than Hillary. I haven't done every state, but it looks like Obama gets more independents and republicans than Hillary, except in MS.

If Democrats want to win the independent voters they'd put up Hillary as the candidate.

In fact we've spent much time arguing over this, with some posters such as billcap pointing out that Hillary has won more Democratic and less non-Democratic votes.

I'd be interesting in hearing why you think Hillary will attract more independent voters.

Some exit poll numbers: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/

My thoughts exactly. I must say I'm a little disappointed in John, my original first choice. What the hell is he waiting for?

When are John Edwards and Al Gore going to endorse Obama? Clock is ticking, guys.