You know that whole “change” message?

You are right Justin, and that is pretty much were it has stopped.

You know that whole “change” message? The one that Hillary eventually used and McCain has now claimed as his own? Do you remember who came up with that and ran on it from the very beginning?

True enough, but I believe that Obama stole it from the the Byrd’s 1965 albumn, “Turn, Turn, Turn,”. And in fact, the Byrd’s stole the “theme” from Pete Seger, who wrote the “theme” in the 1950’s, and who stole the “theme” from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3, 1-8). It is important to note that the “theme” was handwritten and donated to New York University by the Communist Party USA in March 2007.

So there you have it. Obama not only stole his “theme”, but he is a communist to boot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn!_Turn!_Turn!_(to_Everything_There_Is_a_Season)

The O campaign never developed any theme better than hatred of Bush.

Umm…

You know that whole “change” message? The one that Hillary eventually used and McCain has now claimed as his own? Do you remember who came up with that and ran on it from the very beginning?

Presumably the people who showed up for this year’s primaries have given pollsters some idea of who is and is not a likely voter for 2008. If pollsters want to be accurate, it seems to me they ought to be trying to forecast who they think is actually going to show up in 2 months.

That makes the answer to the question above pretty relevant. Because how one views these results really must depend on the extent to which pollsters are currently accounting for higher registration and turnout numbers among democrats during this particular election cycle.

It’s not in pollsters’ interests to appear incompetent by reporting inaccurate numbers using a historical model, and then later telling folks that they were way off because they failed to account for who actually showed up. It’s a recipe for disater to constantly do it wrong and then later say say here’s why. What you want to do to keep customers coming back is get it right.

So my guess is that the current “likely voter” models really should already be incorporating what the numbers so far have suggested about who’s going to show up.

But on the other hand, the gap you’re highlighting here could be accounted for by a failure to update the likely voter model for current trends. Maybe that’s why they report both. Maybe they include an advisory about what they think the gap represents.