Pollster.com

Ok, this is consistent with ARG, but I'm still skeptical that it's this close in Oregon. 24% of the Suffolk respondents are over 65 - that seems high to me. And only 3% are under 25 - that seems low. If Obama only wins this by 4% (or Clinton wins it), I would have to think the supers will be getting a bit more nervous about an Obama candidacy, although I don't think even a Clinton victory will really change the media narrative at this point.

75,000 people showed up to an Obama rally in Portland last night. (By contrast, a Hillary event at a Portland hospital last week drew only a couple dozen.) I think that pretty much says all that needs to be said about what the Oregon results will be tomorrow night.

dan:
of course obama will win oregon. but who shows up at rallies depends on what kind of base you have.
one has an activist loud rah rah base, the other doesn't.

shouting louder doesn't win arguments. it may sway people some of the time but it doesn't sway all people all of the time.

I would like to make an educated guess as well and say that Oregon is one of the highest newly registered young Democrat states that will most likely throw off old polling projections.

I agree with Boskop and Andrew_in_California - mass rallies have not always been reliable indicators of voter support. but I also have to believe that younger voters are participating in higher numbers than these polls are indicating.

I would love to see Obama and his creepy supporters with egg on their face, but couldn't the ARG and Suffolk poll reflect early voting? If Obama's support is more motivated, and his organization stronger, they would be more likely to have voted early - which I imagine is more common in Oregon, where they have an entrenched system of voting by mail.

As of 5-15 580K already voted in OR. See Sec. Of State.
At least 450K (dem turnout is most of the ballots) already voted by that date and suffolk poll was done 17th and 18th and they show only 32% already voted. I assume that is way off. also they do show an old electorate.
My projection Obama 58% - HRC 42%. Turnout likely of +800K in dem primary

I think that the Obama victory in Oregon is going to be at a much bigger margin (plus the bandwagon effect) but I'm not sure if the Rally is necessarily the indication.

My impression of Obama rallies is that they do not attract just the actual voters, but also a much greater crowd because of the "rock star" effect. HRC, on the other hand, does not have the same ability, and she seems to draw (at least in rallies I attended) an older base and a more blue-collar base that can seems to have problems attending her events, especially the daytime ones.

I'm surprised about the number of Kentucky undecideds.

Yes, of course, I realize that large rallies are not necessarily an indicator of ultimate voting results. But c'mon--we're talking about 75,000 here, which is an absolutely staggering number. And if you look at the photos of the Portland rally, what you see are not just "activist rah rah" types, but families, older voters, etc etc.

The Suffolk numbers do strike me as low; the Oregon Secretary of State reports that 29% of ballots were returned as of May 15 (compared to 20% returned on that date in the 2004 primary). That number was likely closer to 35-45% by the weekend, when the Suffolk poll was conducted. Remember that for those mailing (as opposed to dropping off) ballots, the deadline was Friday May 16 to ensure on-time delivery.

Oregon is a closed primary. If one is Independent they get a non-partisan ballot with no choice for Presidential Primary. I believe April 22 was the last day to change one's party affiliation to get a Democratic ballot. This may or may not be an issue with younger/inexperienced voters who often initially register as Independent.

Well... many think that an on-time vote is putting the ballot in the mail on Monday (today) for delivery tomorrow at the county. Since they have been voting by mail for such a long period of time, many may feel that the system can deliver their vote overnight... which is probably true.

the kentucky undecideds per the above poll is not a good sign for clinton. now we all know she cant win. i suspect there is a bit of altruism in her determination to fight on. as it is stands, obama would be the nominee of an il-legitimate party.

whatever anyone says, he will not have the votes but will win with 48 states. this in effect lays waste to the very premise of their moniker, 'democratic' and suggests that he cannot go forward as the leader of a sham party.

clinton is trying to rejoin the disparate elements by allowing the party to reform and regain its lustre as the the true champion of 'one man one vote'. listen to her reasoning.

enough people are willing to march with her and
re- anchor the party despite the inevitable. this is unheard of in politics for an enormous chink of the electorate to continue to vote despite the looming odds. it defies the momentumand lemming mentality of humans.

that the dnc and others cannot see this for what it is just plan ludicrous. ideals trump rules. rules are adjusted to accomodate principles. howard dean....ugh. he's hurting obama heading into the GE as much if not more than anyone. mccain can drive a mack truck through the hole that's been made in a so called 'obama mandate' that is so out of kilter in these last moments of the game and with 2 states muzzled.

obama more than anyone would serve his candidacy well if he is a real 'change' man and
principled leader, to win the right way. either he wants the nomination at any price in which case he's the same ol same old or he really is a new politician willing to play it right and take the gamble that he could lose.

i doubt he is. i remember before he was winning the delegate count he wanted them to fall in line with the popular vote only.

this will come back to haunt him like nobody's business and worse than any reverend or silly comment would. as a matter of fact, it is enough to drive many of us over to the other side because the party has lost its bearings.
and the lofty principles of obama are nothing more than expedient terms of differentiation.

The Kentucky undecideds and no responses is interesting... the latter indicating that many do not want to answer potential questions why they are not voting for Obama. Both indicating a possibly larger margin for Hillary.

Hi guys! Well, here we are again. Doesn't this look a lot like North Carolina? You bet. No way Hillary is in single digits behind Obama, let alone less than 5%.

Again, I blame the Obama campaign for not taking advantage of this sort of polls and raise expectations for her in Oregon. You remember that I told you all along that dispite the polls in North Carolina Obama will win the state by double-digits. Did that happen? Yes. My gut feeling, again, tells me the same thing about Oregon. It's Obama by double-digits.

The part that disappoints me about the Obama campaign is that they don't make proper use of the media. During the days leading to North Carolina I told you over and over that if I were the Obama campaign I would have been all over the news networks "horrified" about the campaign's prospects in those states, making people believe that in fact Hillary was about to pull an upset on us. And you know the night comes, the votes are counted, and bingo "WE WON" thanks to the good people of North Carolina.

They should do in with Oregon.

that's an interesting take. but indiana undecideds broke late for obama despite the previous trend. at any rate, she'll beat him in kentucky by around 30% which is not a happy defeat for obama. then puerto rico.

if he does not win huge in the latte states then even i'd have to rethink this guy's ability to win. btw: how come it's racist if people call attention to the white vote breaking against obama but it's not racist if 9 out of ten blacks vote for obama because he's black?

i really resent someone writing the book and preaching to me and the world on all kinds of etiquette, ie political, world stage, personal.
again, if he keeps this double standard affectation up, that republican mack trucks carrying a load of newly minted independents will run him down. and he'll deserve it.

btw:what ever happened to rezko?

Who wants to bet whether the superdelegates are going to take this away from Obama?

I bet the whole farm that they won't. They rather lose an election than to slap in the face African Americans.

The guy won it and there is nothing Hillary can do, besides praying for ligthing to strike the guy.

@boskop: I fully agree. Obama's been getting close to 95% of the male AA vote, which is almost banana-republic style. On election nights the pundits simply count the AA proportion to guess who will win (e.g., the last county in Indiana and trying to guess things), but HRC got punished for her advisors even mentioning this fact. HRC did not do anywhere close to that with white women or even with older female white Reagan democrats. Any way we look at it, Ferraro was right, unfortunately.

For all of WV's supposed racism (what about misogyny) Obama still scored 33% of the White vote. HRC's lead there can be attributed to class. Working class people need concrete things like insurance and economy rather than change.

By the way, I'm surprised to see that the Kentucky numbers haven't moved to Obama because of the Edwards endorsement and his supposed popularity with blue collar workers (I attended one of his rallies in '04, guy is as slick as a used car salesmen). At the least, I'd expect to see Edward's numbers dropping from their current 6% in the poll and going to Obama. What gives?

Poblano has now posted his "demographic" projection of Obama +13 in Oregon (at http:///www.fivethirtyeight.com). We'll see how well he does against ARG and actual facts again.

BTW/ I recall that Obama did some serious groundwork in Oregon two months ago (during "PA primary runup), and played to very large audiences and good media coverage at that time, which may have laid a good foundation for his more recent visits.

I am extremely impressed by the amount of misinformation going around. It only takes the "talking heads" to repeat something enough times for people to buy it. Well, the reality is that John Edwards never won the blue collar vote. Actually, Obama did better than him. I know that there are no that many contest in which Edwards was a part, but the ones that we had, think of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida*, Edwards was always at the end of the line.

I remember the media laughing about the fact that in New Hampshire primary Edwards was the last choice of every income level except those making $150,000 or more. Imagine the poor guy in a crusade against poverty and the few people voting for him were the richest ones.

Kentucky is not Indiana (except for southern Indiana)... so the undecideds would more likely go with the trend in West Virginia.

By the way... I found it humorous that Obama said that Hillary was doing well in Kentucky because it was close to Arkansas. Well, kind of... except Obama's own state borders Kentucky and Arkansas is separated from Kentucky by Tennessee and Missouri. Maybe this goes along with Obama's 57+ state strategy.

Once again these polls have under-estimated Obama numbers just like NC and IN. Obama will win OR by double digits.

Well, thank God that I'm not the only saying it. It is now Poblano and SurveyUsa too. Take a look at Real Clear Politics.

According to SurveyUSA "Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton by 9 points among the 77% of likely voters who have already returned a ballot." A different and earlier pollster had them tied.

To folks who say African-Americans voting 9:1 for Senator Obama are racist:
Racism means discriminating against someone for being of a different race.

You folks forget that African-Americans have been very reliably voting Democratic - more so than White "Reagan Democrats" - for ages. And what race were these Democratic candidates? That's right, they were all White (Al Sharpton wasn't particularly successful in his Presidential runs, neither was Carol Moseley Braun).

Heck, till Iowa, Blacks actually backed Senator Clinton 2:1. I suppose a combination of "Clinton"; "Whites won't vote for a Black candidate" (see Jackson, Jesse); "if a Black candidate runs successfully, s/he will be shot"; "is he Black enough?"; and "will he end up like Sharpton or Jackson?"

Iowa changed that, proving Whites could vote for a Black candidate, and making Senator Obama a viable candidate, unlike Jackson or Sharpton.

Blacks are now voting FOR Senator Obama, rather than AGAINST Senator Clinton. Come November, if Senator Clinton had won the race fair-and-square, I am sure the African-American support for the Democrat would have continued unchanged.

To look at another similar issue - I do not call White Women voting for Senator Clinton by a 2:1 margin a case of reverse sexism. The same reasoning applies.

"To folks who say African-Americans voting 9:1 for Senator Obama are racist:
Racism means discriminating against someone for being of a different race."

so then, they are just bigoted and biased?
93%
it's the kind of vote you'd see in the old USSR, and pretty funny given Obama has no blood ties to the African American community.
It's a vote made on skin color, not common historical ties or stories or background.

Hey... RS... quit dismissing Jesse Jackson (which by the way seems kind of bigoted to me).... TWENTY years ago Jesse Jackson came in 2ND to Dukakis... And Jackson won Michigan!!!! White people voted for Jackson TWO DECADES ago!!! A New York journalist stated that 1988 was the "Year of Jackson."

Jackson went all the way to the convention and got his issues included in the Democratic platform. He also was instrumental in getting the rules changed for selecting delegates based on proportion of votes in states and congressional districts. These rules changes benefitted Obama delegate count in 2008.

I am so sick and tired of so many (including the Obama campaign) dismissing Jackson's achievements in order to anoint Obama as the FIRST viable black candidate. If it was not for Jackson, Obama would not be where he is today.

@RS: Nobody, no matter how popular, gets 90% of the vote anywhere for actual qualities. MCCain doesn't get that even today. Edwards who's not on the ballot does better than HRC among AAs.

AAs could be considered racist for voting against HRC. Or, we can abandoned the term "racist" and say "voting based on race".

2:1 vote is reasonable (McCain vs. Romney or Huck in most states). A 9:1 and above (e.g., AA men) shows this is primarily race based.

And as for support before Iowa: Big *** deal. At the time there were no other substantial candidates. Obama became viable in Iowa.

Thanks, folks, for piling on ;-)

@Uri: Thanks for confirming my point that Senator Obama became viable after Iowa. Though, between 2:1 and 9:1, are you saying that just because 20% more people vote for one candidate, the entire 100% are racists? Besides, there's a world of difference between Whites who have never, and never would, support a Black candidate, and Blacks(*).

@Nickberry: In the words of all Clintonites/istas - in 1988, Michigan was a caucus (so it doesn't count!) It might be interesting to see the racial demographics of the 1988 MI caucus, where Blacks are 15% of the population (besides, there's always the reverse-Bradley effect). The primaries the Rev. won in 1988 were AL, LA, GA, MS, PR, VA, DC. See a pattern?
I would never discount Rev. Jackson's contributions - but the facts speak for themselves.

(*)Besides, as I pointed out, Blacks have always voted for the White candidate - so why should they be biased against the White candidate now? None of you has answered that point.

Hey, RS....You are missing the point... You are still dismissing Jesse Jackson's achievements... just like those who accused Bill Clinton of dismissing Obama's South Carolina win.

Give Jackson credit where credit is due with 13 wins in 1988: Alabama, Washington D.C., Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, Virginia, Delaware, Michigan, South Carolina, Vermont, Alaska, Texas caucus (but lost the Texas primary).

After he won 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the frontrunner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates. (Wikipedia).

READ this from the Washington Post:
"Jackson's first campaign (1984), often viewed as largely symbolic, exceeded expectations -- he won five Democratic primaries and caucuses -- and set the stage for a more ambitious campaign in 1988.

On his second attempt, Jackson won 13 primaries and caucuses, doubled his total votes to 7 million and took 29 percent of the total primary vote. He finished a strong runner-up to Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, who reeled in campaign contributions at four times the rate of Jackson." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601888_3.html)

Quit dismissing Jesse Jackson as an inconsequential black candidate.

"....You are missing the point... You are still dismissing Jesse Jackson's achievements"

maybe for obamasupporters dismissing JJ is necessary because JJ was actually an African-American man, unlike Obama.

Maybe it's racism of Obama supporters who are only comfortable with a half white, raised white, sounds white "black" candidate.

True racism..

@Nickberry:
No, my point was that the *primaries* the Rev. Jackson won were all southern, African-American-dominated states (except PR).

The fact remains that the Rev. Jackson was limited to Black-dominated primaries; and since you say he had a fourth the $$$ as Dukakis, that further goes to show that not many people considered him widely-viable. I would not say he was inconsequential - the inconsequential Black candidates, using your terminology, would be Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun. But the Rev. Jackson *was* a Black candidate.

On the other hand, Senator Obama has managed to out-raise the establishment candidate (which speaks to his perceived viability), and has won in White-dominated primaries like WI, CT, DE (now a primary), IL, UT, VT (now a primary), likely OR while remaining competitive in other primaries (except OH, PA, WV, KY), *and* soundly defeating Senator Clinton in the caucus states.

I do not diss the Rev. Jackson's accomplishments - but they are what they are.

Senator Obama must be the only person accused of being non-Black/a Muslim, while simultaneously being binned as a radical Christian/Black Panther!

Senator Obama's father is African; his mother is "American" - and together they make Senator Obama African-American. End of story.

Like I said... RS... Your take on Jesse Jackson is the "racism" of which Bill Clinton was accused. You cannot have it both ways.

As already shown by the FACTS... your take on Jackson's wins are WRONG. You stated "No, my point was that the *primaries* the Rev. Jackson won were all southern, African-American-dominated states (except PR)."

That does not explain the following: So white voters in Alaska choose Obama, and it means something, but nothing if Alaska white voters chose Jackson. Same in Michigan, Delaware, Vermont, and Virginia. Also Jackson wins the caucus in Texas and loses the primary... whereas Obama wins the caucus in Texas and loses the primary.... and for some reason Jackson's wins are not legitimate... yet Obama's wins are?

Regarding the Suffolk and ARG Oregon polls-
Yes Obama drew in 75,000 in Portland, Oregon and yes he drew record crowds in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And Obama lost in Pennsylvania. Hum----

I bet half of those people were there for a picnic and Obama showed up. It wouldn't surprise me if the Barack Camp rented a helicopter, found an area with the most people already there, and held their rally there.

Sort of the way the caucuses were run.