walfredo
NewRes- I guess I’m not saying it that clearly. There are two points- polls are generally regarded as indicators, not decision points. Especially for elections that are very far off.
I pointed to the fact that you can find widely varied polling data, usually around a 20 point swing for the same upcoming event just by looking at different polls. This to me, makes using polling as the decision of who a candidate instead of actual election results extremely flawed.
My second point, is that inherent in what is being said by the Clintons and to some extent the media, which you repeated- that she is doing better in the critical states and is a better general election candidate is flawed. Now, I’m not saying we use these polls to choose Obama- use the election to choose him. I’m just pointing out that he is doing substantially better in the same polls in a number of critical swing states- Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington State, Oregon, Georgia… To say that it is all about Ohio and Florida and they are the only states that count (as the Clinton camp routinely does) to me seems insincere, as they are not the only states in play.
I’m not saying one polls are valid, and some aren’t. I’m saying that the argument is very flawed that Clinton leads in the states that “matter” in the general election over Obama according to current polling data. And then more to the point, the argument that because of this inherent polling advantage the party leaders should coup together to overthrow the election and make her the nominee is extremely flawed.