Those 35% are like the stubborn 28% of Republicans who still think Bush is A-OK

This poll seems kind of silly. What is the significance of a national poll in a contest that is purely state-based? What does it mean for Obama to "lead" Clinton nationally in a contest that is purely state-based? The majority of people responding to this poll already had their state vote, no?

It's just a touchy-feely poll.

Correction: the Democratic-oriented parts seem silly. They polled all voters, though, so there's actually some good stuff in there.

over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent)

I don't see McCain's number there doing anything but going down once the "McCain = Bush" campaign gets into full swing.

Along those same lines:

While Obama has a 57 percent favorable rating among all voters in the latest survey, that represents a 4 percent drop from March, and his unfavorable rating has jumped from 28 percent to 36 percent. Clinton is viewed favorably by just 49 percent, compared to 56 percent in March, while 47 percent view her as unfavorable, compared to 40 percent in the previous poll.

Ok, it's been a bitter few weeks with some campaign-related "gaffes". Look at what happened to McCain, though, unopposed:

McCain has also suffered a setback: his favorable rating has dipped to 52 percent from 55 percent, while his unfavorable rating has increased to 42 percent from 35 percent.

Could it be his attacks on Obama? His continuing habit of showing his ignorance on important issues? McCain is looking more and more like a lame duck and an easy target.

@2 "What does it mean for Obama to "lead" Clinton nationally in a contest that is purely state-based?"

It means that more Dem voters like Obama than Clinton, and thus the will of the people, properly expressed, would give Obmam the nomination.

This has been your latest installment of "Easy answers to deliberately obtuse questions by Clinton supporters."

and let's not even mention the fact that if Obama and HRC went head-to-head in states that had primaries back when there were more than 2 candidates, Obama would destroy her.

Have to agree with @2, since only the Electoral College (aka Revenge of the Red Sith) matters.

Thanks Brett. Good Answer!

As an unpaid intern, you must really have a pair because I'm sure you know that Erica Barnett will get you axed for insubordination like this.

Clinton supporter? Hilarious. Because everyone that questions the meaningfulness of a poll that makes Clinton look bad must be a Clinton supporter, right? Objectivity is *so* passe.

the will of the people, properly expressed, would give Obmam the nomination

That was cute, throwing in that "properly expressed" bit, as if our age-old method of choosing a candidate isn't "proper" expression. You remind me of those people that decided we should obviously abolish the electoral college, retroactively, once Gore had won the popular vote but had lost the real vote, oblivious to the damage this would actually cause.

I realize this poll reflects the popular sentiment. I mean, no shit. It's a poll. That doesn't make it any less of a feel-good poll, which was really my only point. It serves to make Obama supporters "feel good" about their choice, and it serves to make some undecided morons "feel good" about the pack-mentality voting strategy they are about to engage in. It only serves to tell us something we should already know. Saying that this is "very bad for Clinton" is frankly a non-analysis, unless we're talking about Clinton's self-esteem, which we're not. We're talking about the primary, and we already know Clinton was not the top choice of voters.

What would you think if Clinton had come out on top in this poll? That it would be the "properly expressed" will of the people?

(This has been another edition of unnecessary rebuttals to people that missed the point of the original post)

I think the race among the Dems is much tighter. This poll is wrong. FWIW, I'm an Obama supporter.

Dear Obama lovers:

this is a big yawn...been saying for weeks....Obama's going to win nomination.
So why such interest in these polls against HRC?

To live in De Nile that Obama now really, really sucks as a general election candidate.

His much vaunted Vastly Superior Electability has gone "poof"! just as foretold. As foretold, he's a big Icarus.

See D. Brooks at the NY Times today: "It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania."

So hoo-fucking-ray, woo-hoo, woo-hoo, about a poll showing he beats HRC. D'oh!!!! He ain't running against HRC in November.

Being far behind in OH and FL means we lose....you need to win 2 of 3 in FL OH and PA to win.
Being tied in MN MI NJ PA....man we not only lose with Obama, he really sucks as a candidate, doesn't he?

Tied in NY and MN?

Pa?

Ouch.