Personally, I find the first figure much more revealing. We still don't know the breakdown of those numbers, though. It would, for example, be rather meaningless if strong Republicsns were even less likely to vote for Obama with Clinton on the ticket.

Obama on the bottom!

Apparently, they have learned no lessons from a primary season where, despite their concerted efforts to make it happen, Clinton would not leave the race.

Whatever.  They will do what they will do, and consequences will follow.  Maybe a couple more weeks of increased - negative - media attention will remind them of the good ol' days when Clinton took all the heat, allowing Obama to be above the fray.  I guess it all depends on how much he misses his media darling status.

I think she should have top billing.
I don't want her to be on a losing ticket.
I don't know if I would vote for her in second spot since I think she deserves top billing.  

I would be very torn with a ticket with Clinton as VP.  

And you?  Are you a Democrat too?  

Is there a law that says all Democrats must believe the same things?  

Or can we kind of believe what we want?  Do you think?

I'm a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton?  Did you support Hillary Clinton?  If not, what are you doing here?  The rest of us supported Hillary Clinton!!!!!!  

Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by 47% to 41%, a spread that is twice the edge he had in the previous poll, in late April. Still, that lead is significantly smaller than the Democratic Party's 16-point advantage, 51% to 35%, when voters are asked, without candidates' names, which party they want to win the White House.

The record unpopularity of President Bush and the Republican Party, combined with economic worries among voters and a broad desire for change, would normally make this "the single best year for an Obama-type candidacy, and the single worst year for a McCain-type candidacy," says Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Republican Neil Newhouse.

But Sen. Obama continues to do poorly among white male voters, according to the poll. More ominous is his weakness among white suburban women, who generally are open to Democratic candidates and whose votes could be decisive. While Sen. Obama has a slight lead among white women generally, a plurality of suburbanites prefer Sen. McCain.

This portends the sort of damage that Obama will wreak on the Democratic brand, depressing its appeal greatly.

I have very little doubt but that Republicans will, quite successfully, be able to beat back massive losses downticket by tying other Democrats to Obama.

I don't know if he's racist or not.

For all we know, choosing someone else, like Mark Warner, of Bill Richardson, might push him up to an even bigger lead.

What bothered me last night was wondering why Gallup had done such an odd (to me) thing - pooling all their results for the month. The object of tracking polls as I understand it is to follow trends or to see if there are any, so aggregating the results would hide any trends that showed up.

A big problem with election polling in general is that you're always taking a "snapshot" of the evolving opinions of the voters. (I always tell my statistics classes that the only poll that matters is the one that takes place in the voting booths on election day.) Here it's like we've been given a blurry time-lapse photo - do you see what I mean?

The benefit they get from aggregating is that they end up with a huge sample, 25000 people, which means very small (mathematical) margin of error and that may make the margins of errors in the subgroups tolerably small as well.

But dang, I would have liked to see the trends...