And it's not on the websites of these WI papers:

Green Bay Press-Gazette

Madison Capital Times & Wisconsin State Journal

Kenosha News

And it may overestimate AAs, at 12% of PPP's sample -- again, the national norm -- since they're 6% of Wisconsin's population.  Most will vote Dem and for Obama, but at the rate of being 12% of Dem voters in Wisconsin?  I don't quite see how.  And again, they won't have as much impact on delegate counts, with almost all of the AAs in Wisconsin in one district.

I think this election season is one in which pollsters try to cherry pick their turnout and demographic models to effect the outcome.  I don't know how they could avoid their bias affecting which ones they choose.

Of course, it's entirely possible that they have objective methods of determining who is turning out.  But if they did, the methods haven't shown much magic until now, have they?  

I am still angry at DMR poll which had a turnout model and a percentage of new voters which didn't materialize.  But it got the margin right at the end, perhaps because it created a groundswell for Obama.  It started a huge Obama drumroll.  Perhaps, it became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wrote a diary after NH about how Rasmussen ignored its own data in the closing days, and decided to roll the average for an extra day, so that its final number was more in accordance with the general mentality.  Hillary's surge was hidden in their data.  However, they must have definitely known it, based on their daily data.

Polls have been all over the place this election cycle.  One reason, among others, is the quick turns and unpredictability of this race.  

You have, I think, seen my earlier replies to your similar analyses -- especially of my district, Gwen Moore's.  The AA turnout will be well above their 6 percent of the statewide population, since they're more than a third of Milwaukee's population.  But my district also has the UW campus with the most Wisconsinites, almost all of the 30,000 students (and far more AA students than at Madison) -- although it also is the campus where 10% of students take women's studies courses, and the district has strong women's groups.

Btw, some of us in the 4th also are very motivated to make it to the polls because of a significant local primary for our aldermanic seat in Milwaukee, and especially with the visits and endorsement of the grandfather -- Senator McGovern -- of the candidate most likely to take the primary (the current alderman's assistant).

And I can report that this message was brought to you amid more robocalls from:  Clinton, via my union (AFT); Obama; and two for other aldermanic candidates.  As many calls in minutes as I've had in the last couple of days, including two others for Clinton (one from a Minnesotan, and we had a great chat), and one for Obama (from Moore) . . . and one for McCain from Pro-Life Wisconsin, ugh.  

One of the co-hosts for the station's morning show said Moore stated on the air Thursday that some 17-year-olds could vote in the primary. . . .  repeated that on this morning's show, but corrected his statement by the end of the program after hearing from election officials.

Moore could not be immediately reached this afternoon. Her spokesman, Andrew Stevens, said she confused her facts because some other states allow such voting.  Reince Priebus, chairman of the state Republican Party, called the comments irresponsible.  "You've got respected members of Congress spouting out complete inaccuracies, which will encourage underage voters to go out and vote and that is illegal," he said.

As Bill Clinton said, it's like rolling the dice.  In a time of tremendous crisis for America and the world, you assume that he can govern effectively.  I remember Biden's words: the next President has no margin for error.

You also assume that his backers (and I mean the main ones, the ones who provided credibility, seed money, and leverage at the beginning), and the big corporate media expect very little for having supported him.

I think you are forgetting something.  You always think the media's atrocious attitude towards democratic candidates is due to peer pressure and laziness.  A lot of it is.  However, I think you are blind to the power of media owners and power brokers in driving the narrative.  Not everyone is as blatant about it as Murdoch.

I don't think the movers and shakers at the media would sacrifice their own interests so eaily.  

"Why won't he debate" spots don't cut it after umpteen debates.

So...a kid from Chicago with barely any experience in National Congressional matters pretty much starts campaigning as soon as he gets into the U.S. Senate is not in the least "power hungry"?  

"Dismissing states,voters and now certain superdelegates as not really counting after the fact, speak to me."