That's the reason to not trust the polls here yet, at all -- plus that there has been little from the local pollsters who have been best in past.

"Arrogant, of course," quoth Ridley, "is a euphemism."

Not to defend the monstrous Rove, but does Ridley REALLY believe Rove meant, "How dare they think they can work jobs like ours or live in neighborhoods like ours or send their children to school with ours? Those people are just so damn arrogant."

And I have raised a couple of my own new voters, too, and know how seriously they took the task -- and how crushed one was whose first vote was in 2000, a vote for Nader.  Watching the 2000 debacle, it began to dawn on him just how used and abused voters can be in our process.  I barely could get him to vote again in 2004.  And this year, he engaged in much more information-seeking, with healthy skepticism.  That's the benefit of experience -- as a voter.

Look, I talked with a lot of the new voters this year, and I always have to help a lot of them even find out how to register and where the polls are.  Now I've heard from several in recent weeks who are confused and discouraged and frankly a bit embarrassed.  I do not want to see more of them so disheartened as my new voter was in 2000.

They need straight talk, whether in the classroom or in a campaign.  We all need it, but we've been through it.  New voters are too important for their potential as our future voters for decades to be given confusing info that can cause them to feel that they flunked the test in November -- if it really is their leaders who flunk the test.

It's like (Twain's) definition of a classic as a book everyone wants to have read.

Their spiel is all the same, and they almost seem possessed by him and his message, ideas etc. It's quite scary how they walk and talk like robots and when you say you're a Hillary supporter, they'll have this blank look.

But it's not a blank look. Their brains are actually looking for and loading the Hillary supporter script: first it starts with niceties, about how they are essentially one and the same, before they launch into a hate-filled tirade about her before lumping her with Bush & Co.

Here is CNN's exit poll for 2004 in Ohio--which also shows the comparison to 2000.

Also, African Americans tend to have lower rates of voter registration than whites; so, there is room to grow the African American vote....

Rasmussen tracks the numbers on what percentage of reg voters think McCain's age is a problem vs the number who think Obama's inexperience is a problem.  Not on each daily poll, but periodically.

Near the beginning of June, 30% of voters thought his age might be a problem.  In yesterday's polls, it was down to 22%.

I don't have a link because I can't seem to find the previous day's (or days') detailed polling results on Rasmussen -- I think you have to be a premium member to do that.

Obama has waffled on withdrawing from Iraq stating "there will be no timeline" so I think he's not going to be able to push that issue.

Running against congress, see Truman, Harry, can be an effective tool. Don't forget that. As far as self identifying as Democrats, you have to realize that just because they are identifying that way doesn't mean that they will vote for the Democratic candidate. I think those numbers are more indicative of how down ticket races will work.

Well, then if you think McCain's stuttering is going to hurt him then you have concede that Obama's deer in the headlights look and stammering about issues is going to hurt him too right?

In general polls, who makes up the percentage of people less likely or more likely to vote for BO if Clinton's on the ticket?  Republicans who weren't going to vote for him anyway?  Or Democrats who won't for him unless?

Also, the argument we're been hearing for months, "they always come back in the fall", cuts both ways.  

Which group is really likely to stay away -- the group made up largely of long time Dem voters who're considering (if not organizing) a no vote this year, or the Obama (new) core, which seems to jump to rationalize every thing he says and does, no matter how strongly it contradicts his previous statements?  If they can rationalize FISA, Clinton as vp should be a breeze.

And this year, that talking point is ignoring that the kind of solidarity for Obama exhibited by the netroots can also be leveraged by the people who want Clinton on the ticket.  The only place I've seen that talked about is the WaPo article referenced elsewhere on this thread.  It's a big unknown that's not addressed in the polling as far as I can see.

The closest I've seen in polls to addressing this question is all based on 'likely to vote for'.  That's not a very clear indication of the strength of those feelings.