Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Gallup Daily Tracking


National
Clinton 52, Obama 39... McCain 41, Romney 25, Huck 21

See Gallup's full daily tracking trends for both parties here.

 

Comments
FlyOnTheWall:

Eric or Mark:

I don't get it. Today's Gallup polling was done yesterday. It's of likely Democratic primary voters. And it attempts to show for whom they're going to vote. Today's snapshot shows a 13-point lead for Clinton.

Only we ran this experiment on a broader basis yesterday, and found (based on the tallies of the popular vote that I've seen) less than a point separating the two candidates. And it gets worse. Gallup broke out the February 5 states a few days ago, and found that voters there were more - not less - favorably disposed to Clinton than their entire sample. So, presumably, what Gallup is telling us is that voters in February 5 states favor Clinton by some 15 points - when the voters themselves turn out to be evenly divided.

That's as an egregious an error as Zogby, from a pollster who's supposed to be a whole lot more reputable. What gives?

____________________

jz:

FlyOnTheWall: Actually if you look at the large states holding primary elections (not caucus), Clinton's marging is pretty close to the Gallup poll, 17% NY, 10% CA, 15% MA, 10% NJ, etc...

The Caucus states that Obama won are not representative of the popular vote shares. Gallup polls track the large diverse primary states more closely. caucasus results overstate Obama strength.

____________________

G.G.:

Note: The voters were not evenly divided yesterday -- as there is about (still counting) a difference of as much as three-fourths of a million voters in Clinton's favor.

The delegates divided about evenly (again, still counting), because the Dem delegate formula is . . . well, about as smart as Howard Dean's 48-state strategy, since he dissed two states' Dems.

____________________

RS:

The Gallup data for Feb 5 states for Jan 30 - Feb 3 showed Clinton with 49% and Obama with 44%. That still leaves about 11% undecided, and it is possible a majority of that went to Obama.

Still, the 49 and 44 numbers are not exact - given the margin of error (+/- 4%) and undecideds, Gallup may not have been that far off.

We'll have to see where Clinton got her big numbers on Feb 4/5 to get to the 13% lead. I don't think Gallup has that out yet.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

To the points raised by j.z. G.G. and RS, let me add one more: The numbers that Gallup reports every day are based, not on "likely" nor registered voters but among all adults that identify as Democrats or as independents but say on a follow up question that they "lean" Democratic. That amounts to 45-50% of adults, a far greater percentage than turned out in the Democratic primaries.

CORRECTION - A reader who noticed the word "voters" in the Gallup methodological blurb suggested I check, and I was wrong. Gallup does apply a "likely voter" screen to these results. I will post more details later today on the main site.

I have blogged about this issue here and touched on it in the context of the Gallup Daily here.

____________________

Andrew:

Rasmussen's numbers, however, have Hillary up by 4% today, which is a smaller margin than Hillary has had in Rasmussen lately.

____________________

Phil:

And in any case, national polls don't matter - the remainder of February is tailor made for Obama, with Virginia and Hawaii being virtually the only two states he's even got a chance of losing. California may well be the last state Clinton has called for her in February. And four straight weeks of losses are not going to do good things to her numbers.

____________________

Jz:

Obama people should stop counting eggs before actual vote count. they thought they had Hillary on the rope in California on Tuesday! Hillary has broad and deep support, don't under estimate her. Obama may have the crowd chanting Teddy and Oprah, there is a silent majority within the Democratic party who won't be fooled by the media hypes.
Hard to see Obama wining the nominatioin with only those little caucus states.

____________________

Adam:

The Hillary people are getting pretty annoying. I don't know what numbers you have been looking at, but MSNBC's count:

Clinton 48.97% (6,967,302)
Obama 48.04% (6,835,447)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/06/643412.aspx

If Hillary wins by only about 160,000 votes and the states voting include NY, NJ, CA, MA, and CT, that's not a good sign for her....

____________________

tony:

My question: why aren't these polls being reported? Leading up to Super Tuesday, the media reported every poll that showed Obama "surging" -- whether accurate or not. As we saw, they concealed polls from SurveyUSA and ARG, which accurately showed her leading in California. I support Hillary, I am afraid she cannot beat the media. Just ask Howard Dean. I know the Clinton's are fighters, but at this point, she is cash-starved. That will be the message they print -- not her wide support. I am now detaching from the race -- but will certainly support the Democrat in the national election.

PS: I hope I'm wrong. What do people think?

____________________

RS:

@Jz: Good point about not counting your eggs before they hatch.

However, yesterday we saw a preview of Senator Obama's likely strategy - sweep the caucus states, and keep it close in the big states (I've written about this on my blog). That's why we are currently seeing a draw in the delegate race, rather than Senator Clinton clinching the nomination on Super Tuesday.

So you never can tell... By the way, if the exit polls are right (ha!), Senator Obama did win quite a few diverse constituencies, and if anything voters are evenly split, no evidence yet of a "silent majority" against Senator Obama.

@Tony - Pollster.com definitely did not hide SurveyUSA's or ARG's numbers, and included them in their trend estimates. Mark Blumenthal wrote at length about disparities in the CA polls, and criticized Zogby (which showed an Obama lead) for not divulging information like SurveyUSA. The LATimes also published a poll showing a 17% Clinton lead on Jan 29. So the information is definitely out there and getting play, IMHO.

____________________

Hanksf:

I don't believe that caucus voters are indicative of the general population. People voting in a private booth and people voting their opnion in public are two different animals. Therefore I find it easy to believe Gallup.

____________________

Tony :

RS --
Sorry. I was not referring to Pollster.com when I made the statement about concealing polls. I mean CNN, ABC, NBC, LA Times, etc. THIS WEBSITE ROCKS!!!! It is unbiased, intellectual, and very imformative.

____________________

Tony:

PS:

RS -- the "mo" shifted in Feb -- and I never saw any data in the LA Times during the Feb surge, which showed her blunting or reversing it. Instead, they talked about how Ted Kennedy was going to steal away Latino support.

____________________

jz:

Tony: Hillary is very clever, you see, the media have just printed /broadcasted free fund raising commercials all over the country for Hillary by reporting her cash problem! Millions of her supporters now will start donating $25 each! remember Her supporters are not as rich as Obama's, and are not on blog sites all day and night because they have to work. What a clever way to raise money!

____________________

Adam:

Better popular vote numbers:

Mrs. Clinton: 7,427,700, or 48.83 percent;
Mr. Obama: 7,369,798, or 48.45 percent;
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/the-results-its-all-in-the-details/

Seems to be more accurate than MSNBC in that they have tallied more of the vote count.

Wow, close race! It's gonna be fun (if not exhausting) watching the rest. Advantage Obama IMO...

____________________

Adam:

Regarding Obama's supporters, they're not rich either. In fact, most of the contributions he's received have been in small amounts ... 50, 100, or so. They just happen to be a lot more passionate about their candidate, and thus are more willing to support him (part of the reason why he wins the Caucuses so handily).

At any rate, I would agree that caucus votes aren't exactly indicative of the preference of the state, but I think that actually works against Obama rather than for him in terms of popular vote; caucuses are (compared to primaries) very low turnout affairs, and subsequently the gains he would have received from such states are mitigated.

____________________

tony:

hey jz. yeah, i donated today as a result of the articles.

____________________

Joey Jo Jo:

Clinton donors are much, much richer than Obama donors. This is why she is lagging far behind now--many of her exorbitantly wealthy donors have donated the legal $2300 primary max, whereas Obama's low-dollar donors can be resolicited and give more contributions.

In fact, Obama sent an email out in a campaign to match the Clintons' contribution of 5 million dollars in personal wealth in online donations, and he is on pace to raise that 5 million (including all day today), in about 36-48 hours. And this prompted me to re-up with Obama, so the Clintons spending their personal wealth to buy the nomination cuts both ways.

____________________

rowjimmy:

Hillary just needs to stay out of huge losses over the next month and know that:

1) She will likely win TX and OH

2) Florida will probably end up counting (fairly or not)

3) Superdelegates will be required for either candidate to get to 2025. The math does not work for either candidate to get to 2025 w/o superdelegates because of the proportional system.

4) because of (3), I think the "establishment" that the superdelegates represent would favor Clinton by approximately 60-40 split. That could be the difference.

New polls in the coming days will show if Gallup is an anomaly or indicative of a slow momentum bounce back to Hillary.

____________________

Joey Jo Jo:

Scratch that--he raised 5 mil already, in 24 hours since polls closed.

____________________

FlyOnTheWall:

Mark;

I take your point about the difference between the pool of genuinely likely voters, and those who self-identify as leaning Democratic. But here's my gripe with that explanation - it seems to require believing one of three things. Either (a) Democrats who are voting in these elections are very different than those who aren't or (b) Caucus states overwhelmingly support Hillary, but her supporters there don't go to caucuses or (c) Virtually all the undecided voters broke for Hillary. I'm not really comfortable with any of those propositions, because the state-level polling, the exit polls, and historical precedent militate against them. Am I missing something? Is there some other explanation for a poll of half the population tilting to one candidate by double digits, while the unprecedented precentage of eligible adults going to the polls is evenly split?

jz:

But what about Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Connecticut and Georgia, primary states all? I'm talking about the difference in the popular vote - that is, the number of ballots cast. The caucus states, as you point out, were mostly insignificant contributors to that tally. In the populous primary states, the actual votes that were cast were split about as evenly as they conceivably could have been.

____________________

Adam:

Obama's name will be in the headlines as winning states ... about 8 times before TX and OH even show up.

Louisiana is about 32% black. To put that into context, SC is 29%.

Hillary is going to have some fairly huge losses between now and March...

____________________

jz, Tony - I'm going to contribute today also (to Hillary) because I saw the news stories about her putting in her own cash. Even though its the last thing I should be spending money on. Actually, my heart jumped a bit when I saw it, because the Clintons do not have the kind of personal money candidates who self-finance usually do (meaning, they don't have Romney or Bloomberg money).

Good catch with that - it didn't cross my mind that the timing of the story made it a good fundraising appeal (even though it worked on me). I am so totally one of their targeted demographics, it spoke right to me. It really struck an "economic anxiety" chord.

CNN just reported Clinton ahead in both delegates and actual vote count. I don't know what numbers to believe. To quote my beloved sicilian grandma, this system is for the birds.

____________________

krassen:

rowjimmy:
Dean will not let superdelegates and inclusion/non-inclusion of FLA delegates to decide the nominee. That's too controversial and dividing to the party.
If they continue neck-and-neck DNC will make everything possible to get a deal done between the two for a "dream ticket". The argumet will be "look, you both ran great campaigns, let's not spoil everything by a bitter, divisive convention". Here are the possible arguments in the negotiation of who will be on top of the ticket:
seniority (advantage: Hillary)
popular vote (advantage: unknown, but likely Hilary, based on Gallup)
lead in delegates at the time (advantage: unknown)
electability based on polls against McCain (advantage: unknown, but likely Obama)

____________________

:

Caucus state could very well be
Clinton states. You usually have to
get out of work and/or be willing
to devote a lot of time and effort
to participate. Working people find
it much more difficult to do that
than they do simply casting a vote
at a polling station in a primary.

____________________

rowjimmy:

She will have some pretty big losses, but this is not a Republican style system that gives the winner all the delegates. Plus, no one seems to realize that Florida's votes will end up counting, and any lead Obama gets in the next month will be offset by the superdelegates which figure to go to Clinton in better numbers. Do the math. You simply cannot get the 2025 with even 60-65% of the vote up to Mar 4. It's a big assumption to say that she will win in TX and OH, but it's one that I'd bet on if I had to...even with huge loses looming.

Just do the math. How does he get to 2025 without superdelegates even with huge victories between now and mar 4?

____________________

rowjimmy:

I've read about a possible deal being brokered to avoid the inevitable "scorched earth" that will result from this going to PA and beyond. As a loyal Democrat, I fear that the scorched earth result could have long lasting effects for the party.

Just a quick calculation I did. There are ten contests between now and Feb 19, with a total of 447 pledged delegates. I believe Obama will win every contest, and get approximately 300-320 of those delegates compared to her 127-147.

Even at the larger split, she is "only" down 200 for those ten contests, but is currently up by about 80 with superdelegates. That would leave her -120 in the delegate race heading into Mar 4. Not a great situation for her by any means, but she could make up about 75% of the potential deficit on that day with a 60-40 delegate split.

It's all speculation of course. But, I am not sure why some think the race is now "over," because they are neck and neck.

Kind of hard to imagine their two giant egos accepting a deal though. Thoughts?

____________________

tony:

i would not want to negotiate that deal, rowjimmy. in many ways i believe dean is inept as dnc chair. they should have avoided the mich/fl debacle in the first place. but they were bullied by iowa and nh. poodles.

____________________

Progny:

The idea that Florida and Michigan delegates are going to be counted is wishful thinking on the part of HRC supporters. Could happen, but if that's what they're counting on I think they'll be sorely disappointed.

____________________

emcee fleshy (sd/atl):

Waiting on Ohio and Texas to bail the candidate out after a month of bad finishes?

Didn't that strategy destroy Guiliani?

____________________

Anonymous:

progny - howard dean has already stated that he might have to do something about this. this week, former civil rights commission chair and lonterm democrat, mary frances berry, and roger wilkins, a civil rights scholar and history professor, urged Dean to work out a deal for including Mich and FL. By the way, Berry is a Clinton supporter.....Wilkins is an Obama supporter. Both are black! [and so am i, and i hope that florida voters are not deprived of their voice again]

____________________

Anonymous:

Emcee Fleshy -- that is not her strategy -- and Clinton is not Guiliani. I imagine if he wins the nomination Obama will not spend most of his time in the deep south or in utah seeking white republican voters in the general election. there is nothing wrong with figuring out which states have the biggest payoff for you and concentrating on them. Clinton can and will try to take solid percentages of those states, but she has to be realistic: the demographics of those states do not favor her. Naturally, part of her strategy must involve a deep focus on Texas and the remaining New England States, along with Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico. any smart political strategist would say this. the problem for guiliani and his "wait" is that he did not really campaign at all until florida AND the republican winner-take-all formula meant that his lower-place finishes kept him from getting any delegates at all.

____________________

rowjimmy:

No one has shown us the math that gets Obama or Hillary to 2025 without superdelegates.

Can someone think outside of their candidate bias and offer an analysis of the math behind getting to 2025 without superdelegates?

____________________

Adam:

We'll have to wait and see how the momentum Obama will inevitably have pans out. That said, I really like his chances.

Also, earlier I posted NY Times popular vote estimates from 2/5. Hillary was up by about 60,000 votes a few tenths of a percent. That said, this count actually did not count Alaska. There are about 670,000 people in Alaska, 490,000 of them of voting eligible age, and likely 1/3 of that Democrats. This is just one example of a caucus state. It's likely Obama won the popular vote.

____________________

rowjimmy:

Adam,

I can tell that you are confident for your candidate, but considering the superdelegates and the pledged delegates, can you tell me how either of them gets to 2025 delegates...without the superdelegates?

____________________

richard Pollara:

I am sure there is someone out there with a better grasp of the numbers than me, but when I look at the Obama "surge" a couple of things occur to me. First, looking at the South Carolina numbers, I compared the demographic (SurveyUSA) breakdown from mid-December to January 5 (day after Iowa). In December the polls showed a toss-up. On January 5, Obama was up by 20 points. Most of the gain (from what I can see) comes from a shift in African-American support from an approximately 60-40 split to an 70-30 split. When the final numbers in SC were tabulated the split was 80-20 and almost 80% of Obama's total votes came from African-Americans. I am guessing that this is a trend that happened across the country. My point is, that what has been viewed by the media as a broad based surge (not to say that Obama has not seen increased support from other demographics) can mainly be traced to his virtually unanimous support in the African-American community. Surely the Clintons (and the media) should have seen this coming. It was extreme arrogance on their part to think that they would be able get an even split (with black voters) with the first viable African American Presidential prospect in our history. The "Bill Clinton as the first Black President" myth blew up in their face. But I think the media has been remiss in their portrayal as well. In an atmosphere where calling someone "articulate" brands you as a racist, they were just too reluctant to dig into the numbers.

____________________

Brian:

I suspect that the superdelegates will break for the candidate that is winning the popular vote. Can you imagine how poorly it would go over if one candidate won the popular vote and then the party decided to go with the other candidate. As for MI and FL, I wonder if they will revote. There is no possible way that the democratic party can count their votes as they stand b/c next year, every state would break the rules. But if they allow them to revote, they could avoid validating misbehavior while at the same time, avoiding disenfranchising millions of voters.

At this point, I think demographics for the remaining races support Obama. Even in Ohio, I think Obama is likely to win by a small margin b/c I suspect it is similar to Missouri, except less southern, and thus, white voters will be more likely to vote for Obama. TX and PA are likely to go for clinton, but I doubt her margins in those states will be sufficient to give her victory.

____________________

SN:

Assuming neither candidate drops out, it is virtually impossible that either can get to 2025 pledged delegates.

The point to bear in mind, however, is that if either candidate has a significant advantage in pledged delegates, that candidate is very likely to end up as the nominee. Politically, it will be extremely difficult for the super delegates -- i.e., the nominal leadership of the Democratic Party -- to deny the Party's nomination to the clear choice of the voters (indeed, it would be a political fiasco that would do grave damage to the Party, something that will be obvious to all concerned when the moment arrives). This is a delegate fight, but the goal at this point is not to amass 2025 delegates. The goal is to win a clear advantage among pledged delegates and thereby create a fait accompli. The super delegates and/or a "brokered" process will only come into play if the candidates remain in a virtual tie at the end of the primaries.

The main question at this point is whether the momentum Obama will generate from his likely wins during the remainder of February, his burgeoning cash advantage, and the additioanl time he will have to introduce himself to voters, will combine to overcome, or at least substantially diminish, the lead HRC now presumably has in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If so, Obama wins. If, on the other hand, HRC ends up with numbers in those states like she had in Massachusetts and Tennessee, she might end up with a modest but adequate advantage.

Looking at the map, and at Obama's superior financial resources and intense grass-roots energy, I'd place the odds at this point at roughly 50% Obama, 25% HRC, and 25% a virtual tie among pledged delegates -- meaning that the super delegates or a brokered process would determine the nominee.

____________________

RS:

@The person who said Giuliani didn't campaign until Florida:
Actually, Mayor Giuliani campaigned in New Hampshire, but finally switched to Florida-only when NH went south (!) He also campaigned in Florida for almost all January, with no other candidates to compete with him. But he eventually lost - because he had 4th-place finishes elsewhere and the "mo" was with McCain/Romney.

But one point is correct - it doesn't make sense for Senator Clinton to completely give up on the contests before TX/OH, because she will get delegates, which will be crucial.

Rumor: MI and FL are being asked to hold caucuses again between Feb and June...
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8UL2C384

____________________

ca-ind:

No matter how u Obama junkies spin it, u are not going to get enough total delegates which also inclides Sup. Delegates.
Becasue remaining Dem primaries are going to split approx 50-50 in total. That is NOT going to put BHO over the top.
BUT When ur brain is on dope, u can't do Math!

____________________

Johnny5:

One of the more troubling things with this site becoming more popular is the drivel of extreme partisanship that has been growing in the comments section. I know that it is not really preventable on the web, but perhaps we can try to ostracize idiocy and blindness to fair discussion.

I'm an Obama supporter, so apparently I smoke dope. I probably sling it also right? and I listen to rap and don't want to work or be responsible.

Its ok ca-ind, the rest of us are working hard to create a society where your prejudices will no longer be tolerated. Perhaps you'd like to move to a country more in line with your intellectual and prejudicial philosophy...maybe you can sign up to be an oppressive military police-person in a dictatorship or something. Regardless, we look forward to you leaving us - you are fighting a losing cultural battle I'm happy to report. Your kids won't agree with you.

Thanks everyone above for the interesting dialog and questions! This site is phenomenal. Thanks ca-ind for showing us whom we don't want to hear from. In the future I'll just ignore comments like that as I gather that might be the better tactic.

____________________

Tony:

Yo exhibit the prejudice that you condemn. I am an African-American supporting Clinton, and I have to tell you that Obama and his supporters do not have a monopoly on "fighting a cultural battle." In fact, I have heard all types of prejudice coming from his camp, particularly subtle age discrimination, blatant sexism, and unfair labeling of Latinos as racists. The Obama generation is not inevitably progressive; nor are Clinton's supporters. So I encourage you and Ca-Ind not to make such generalizations.

____________________

Matthew W:

@rowjimmy - I believe there are 589 delegates in play up until March 4 if you include the superdelegates for each state, and I think there is a good argument that superdelegates will go with whoever wins their state.

Also, those superdelegates who have already committed to a candidate can change their mind, and may well do if one candidate has say a 300+ lead in pledged delegates at the end of the day. At the moment it is looking more likely that Obama will be able to build up such a lead, but Clinton could do it as well if she can build up some momentum (no sign of that at the moment though).

____________________

Mark Lindeman:

Tony, reread all of what Johnny5 wrote. I don't think he singled out one side; I think he flagged a particular post as an egregious example of a behavior we've sometimes seen from various points of view.

"When ur brain is on dope, u can't do Math!" is a troll post IMO. Maybe it should be disemvowelled. It doesn't reflect on Clinton supporters or any other group in general. (For what it's worth, most Democrats continue to like both Clinton and Obama.)

FOTW, I have no basis to accuse Gallup of "an egregious error," but I don't "get it" either. I think these three days of strong Clinton numbers probably mean something, but I don't know what!

____________________

Johnny5:

Tony. As Mark says, I don't see where I have singled out Clinton's camp (or any other). I'm sorry if you took my comments personally or as an attack on your candidate. Perhaps when I mentioned I was an Obama supporter and then said 'the rest of us' it sounded like I was only talking about youth, or Obama's camp. By 'rest of us' I meant civilized and respectful society in general, of any political belief system.

Unfortunately on the internet (and perhaps communication in general, particularly when its in text and political instead of eye to eye) people tend to react defensively and assume the worst in other people's words. I feel that you have joined their camp in this instance - I harbor no claim of perfection from every Obama supporter...nor even myself.

____________________

Jeff Winchell:

Using the state by state numbers on the Washington Post website (and verifying they were actual votes for the caucus states ... in Alaska's case I had to go to their link to the Democratic Party there to get the actual votes), I came up with
Clinton 8.1 million
Obama 7.9 million

Which ever website numbers you use, it's clear that actual voters were much more evenly split than the Gallup poll. I know the polls have to deal with undecided voters, but this result does call into question the quality of this particular Gallup poll.

____________________

Brian:

Also, does anybody know how the caucuses are factored into vote totals. That could skew this alot b/c cauces tend to recieve much lower turn out than primaries. So somebody who wins a caucus would appear to have won many fewer total votes, unless this is somehow adjusted for.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

An update for those following the comments here who may not notice the correction above. I was wrong about the Gallup screen. They do apparently apply a limited screen for those who say they will vote in their state's primary or caucus. I will post more details on the main site later this morning. Apologies for the error.

____________________

VADem:

"So somebody who wins a caucus would appear to have won many fewer total votes, unless this is somehow adjusted for."

Why would you adjust? It's not that winners in caucus states would "appear" to have won many fewer votes than those in primary states. It's that they actually would have won fewer votes. This year, the Democrats could find themselves giving their nomination to a candidate who failed to win a single primary in any mega-state except his home state, thanks to proportional representation and caucuses in smaller states. That's a sobering thought.

____________________

s.b.:

Gallup is a three day rolling poll. Obama had a very good day on Saturday Feb 2nd for some reason and polled 53%. He had polled 38% the day before and 38%^ the day after Superbowl sunday. I commented on that thread about this. His 53% was a onoe day blip and has not been sustained. he has polled 38% and 35% since then. Gallup is three days average, so 38% plus 53% plus 38% divided by three is his Monday's 43%

Clinton had polled 50% went down to 41% and then up again to 50% consistently after this. This one day blip in polling is reflected in all the polls going into super tuesday and therefor skewed the results.

____________________

Andrew:

Where is the email address that I can submit for a poll? The Washington State ones are supremely out of date.

____________________

eRIC:

The very confident Obama campaign put out a memo yesterday saying which states they will win between now and March and how many delegates they will have and how many Hillary will have once all the primaries and caucuses are over. They have set the bar and now they better reach it.

____________________

rowjimmy:

What I kept saying last night, confirmed by the WP. Superdelegates will decide the race. Get ready for 1968 all over...

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/02/07/the_democratic_math.html

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR