Note that Obama’s advisers expected to be 10 points HIGHER than they were BEFORE Hillary suspended.

That hasn’t happened.

And note his paragraph from your link:

Most other national polls have shown Obama with a 4 to 5 point lead over McCain so far. Random statistical error can explain some of the difference in poll results. The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points.

Perhaps Bbartlog needs to read that as well considering that he said that “Aggregates of polls (generally considered more reliable than an individual poll) linked by others seem to show a bounce “

I don’t know what poll aggregate you are looking at Bbart, but I don’t see a 10 point bounce in this one:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/charts.html

Seems that every post on Obama has attracted the type of responses we used to see from the the Paulbots. Is there a correlation?

You may or may not be versed in statistics but the internals of this “poll” are laughable.

The total sample: 896 registered voters

Distribution of the sample:

231 – Identified Republican
324 – Identified Democrat
307 – Supposed Independents

Hence the result you are so gleeful over.

RCP has a composite of all of the current polls. It shows that this release from Newsweek is a definite anomaly.

I guess Hillary leaving the race did help.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss

1) No Bounce for Obama! (headline)

True in one chosen poll. Aggregates of polls (generally considered more reliable than an individual poll) linked by others seem to show a bounce (see also pollster.com…). And in fact most of the news and opinion articles on this acknowledge the existence of a bump – they just comment on it being smaller than Kerry’s or smaller than expected.

2) Obama’s advisers expected that [...] Obama would get a 10 point bounce

The link you have here is to an article that you also wrote, as far as I can tell. It’s not unreasonable to suppose that they hoped this, since Kerry *did* get a ten point bounce, but as far as actual substantiation there is no evidence that you didn’t just make this up. Google turns up nothing.

3) If anything, his lead over McCain shrank in most polls.

Pollster.com… and every other aggregator I’ve checked show otherwise. This looks like pure wishful thinking on your part.

The rest of the post is color and speculation about Hillary supporters which may be right but can’t really be shown to be true or false (trivially true for *some* supporters, trivially false for all).

Of three claims you made, two are false and one is unverifiable. Getting huffy with Fit fit and proclaiming things like ‘If you are going to play games, be prepared to lose. You lost. doesn’t change that. Nota bene, people who offer convincing arguments don’t have to proclaim that their adversaries lost, because it’s already obvious.

As Obama often says, we aren’t going to tolerate these “distractions.”

I guess that falls into the “less” part.

Again, neither of us get to decide where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable because our names are not above the door.

There is a certain level of decorum by which we should all govern ourselves.

Do those lines get blurred or nudged at times? Yes, I’ve done it myself but I can guarantee that if I ever get edited or dressed down for being over the line you won’t hear me complaining.

Let me help you:

While I may have been mistaken about the Obama advisers, the conventional wisdom was ten points. The bottom line, and something that Fit Fit fails to grasp, is that every candidate typically gets a bounce when he secures the nomination.

Obama has not.

I probably overstated myself on the decline of Obama’s lead overall, however there is an obvious trend in the Gallup poll.

Fit Fit can throw all the temper tantrums he wants but he can’t change reality.

Hardly offensive or beyond the pall.

I didn’t get to read the comment to which you are referring unless it was the one where you accused Mike of being a liar and a drunk. Other than that dose of bile I missed the rest.

If you will go to the top of the screen and click on the “Authors” button your computer will display a list of names and bios for you.

The people listed are essentially the owners and/or key holders of this site. They, and they alone, get to decide what stays and what goes.

Their names are essentially above the door and they hold the keys here. They draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable.

Quite simply, and perhaps a bit more directly, if you don’t like the standards set by the Authors here then don’t post.

If you find that this is not a place which allows you free expression go and set up a place of your very own. There’s a great big Internet out there and someplace there’s a spot where you can do whatever you please.

This, however, is not it.

This is one of the most tolerant and flexible sites that I have ever had the good fortune to be a part of. Just in my short time here I have seen Sky55110, Philly Steve, Steve (the other one), Savage, and most recently, Juanita/Jaz/Tia/Theresa/newnew/Q (a sock-puppet quintet), among others.

So, if this isn’t for you, if the expectations are not achievable, then feel free to pursue other options because the persecution complex is getting tiresome.

…
That is almost exactly where we have Barack Obama’s numbers after a series of new polls from Quinnipiac. In Pennsylvania, Obama leads by 12 points — up from 6 last month. His Ohio lead is 6 points — he had trailed McCain by 4 points before. And then there is Florida, where Quinnipiac has Obama ahead by 4 points. Barack Obama has never before led a Florida poll — not against John McCain, nor against Hillary Clinton — so this is something of a watershed moment.
…

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/06/todays-polls-618.html

Yes, it is; thus it definitely appears that, one, Obama’s newly registering ‘army’ is strong in swing states and, two, Hillary’s support is strongly building behind O. in swing states.