Today, CNN posted an article online summarizing the Tax Policy center's report comparing John McCain and Barack Obama's proposed tax plans.  It is available here.  The numbers are remarkable, but CNN failes to notice the obvious punchline: more than 85% of Americans will pay less in taxes under Obama than McCain.

Data tables below the fold.

Now, both Rasmussen and Gallup are showing post-primary bounces for Barack Obama. In the latest Gallup daily tracking poll, Obama now leads by 6 points:

Obama: 48 (46)
McCain: 42 (44)

That's a 4-point bounce in just one day. (Edit- I should note that Gallup switched to 3-day averaging from 5-day averaging, but Gallup says that his lead would still be significant even with 5-day averaging)

In Rasmussen's poll, Obama has an 8-point lead without leaners and a 6-point lead when leaners are included:

Without leaners:
Obama: 48
McCain: 40

With Leaners:
Obama: 50
McCain: 44

This is a quick hit-and-run diary, but A new poll by Rasmussen shows Obama only down by 3 points in PA:

Clinton 47 (50)
Obama 44 (41)

Numbers in parentheses are from 4/14; today's results are from 4/17.

This is statistically significant movement.  My guess is that the people of PA were turned off by Clinton's unbelievable and unprecedented negativity at the ABC presidential debate.

Despite 2 days of blathering on every news network, there does not yet appear to be a downward shift for Obama in the national tracking polls.

Today, Gallup showed Obama +2 from yesterday, while Rasmussen showed him -3 from yesterday, a complete wash.

Gallup:
Obama 50 (49)
Clinton 41 (42)

Rasmussen:
Obama 45 (46)
Clinton 46 (44)

Note that for the last 21 days, Obama has lead by an average of 4.8 points, which is outside the margin of error.

First, today's National Trackers:

Rasmussen
Obama 51  Clinton 40

Gallup
Obama 51  Clinton 43

And the graph of the combined national trackers over the past 3 weeks:

A new dynamic in the national polling for the Democratic nomination has emerged.  For weeks, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been roughly tied in the aggregate of both the Rasmussan and Gallup tracking polls, oscillating between 44 and 46%. Over the last 9 days, Obama has clearly begun to break away from the national stalemate, and he now polls between 46 and 49.5%, while Clinton is polling between 42 and 45.5%.

There is now serious and sustained national momentum for Barack Obama. In the Gallup daily tracking poll, he is now at 52% vs 42% for HRC. This is the highest he has ever been in this poll and the 3rd consecutive day that he has polled at 50% or higher.

Update- Thanks to Al Rodgers for posting the image. Please give him mojo.

Rasmussen's daily tracker shows him ahead by 5 points, 47% to 42%.

Rasmussen's tracker also shows Obama surging nationally against McCain in the general election match up.  While HRC is down by 10%, 50% to 40%,  Obama only trails by 3%, 47% to 44%.  Just 3 days ago, Obama was down 10%, 51% to 41%.

On March 18, Barack Obama delivered his speech on race and politics in the United States.  CNN breathlessly reported that major damage had been done to Sen. Obama's candidacy, as the daily Gallup tracker showed him 7 points behind Clinton.  The key question posed by every pundit was whether the speech would be enough to staunch the bleeding.  From today's Gallup result, we now know the answer is a resounding yes. Follow below the fold for analysis.

The newest CNN poll from Texas shows a net shift of +6 for Obama over the last poll.

Obama 50 (48)
Clinton 46 (50)

The numbers in parentheses are from 2/15-17

If Clinton loses TX and only wins OH by a small margain (<10) it will be hard for her to argue that she should stay in the race.</p>

While I'm still waiting to see if Gallup's daily tracker can confirm,  it looks like another good day for Barack Obama according to Rasmussen's daily tracker.  For two days straight Obama has maintained a statistical tie in the Rassmussen national daily tracking poll.

For once, I agree with Mitt:

"I don't want the people who ran the Katrina cleanup to manage our health care system."

The GOP was in charge of the Katrina recovery effort. As expected, they did a horrible job: when someone openly claims they don't trust the government to work, it makes little sense to put them in charge of running it.

I just happened across this article on slashdot: Start-Up  Drills Oil in Algae which describes a company coupling algae cultivation to CO2 waste from power plants. This is a really neat idea which provides an economic incentive for power plants to produce more energy and less pollution. I think this is arguably a better way to protect the environment than through law making, since profits are the only  guiding principle for most energy companies. Of course, increased use of biodiesel also means less money for Osama and other terrorists funded by foreign oil. I think that is a good thing too.

Already just 30 minutes after the announcement of the  "compromise" over the nuclear option I've seen bitching and moaning of how Democrats have "abandoned us" are "spineless", etc. etc. etc. What were these people expecting? A complete victory over the Rethugs even though they hold a 10 seat majority?  The mere fact that the GOP couldn't launch the nuclear option is a huge loss for them. How can I tell? Look at the reaction of their base (from the FreeRepublic.com):

I know it may seem silly to many of you Kossacks, but I write for a conservative publication called the Yale Free Press. I have my reasons and this may not be the appropriate time to delve into them, but one clear advantage is that I get quite a bit of insight into how the right wing is mobilizing campus conservatives. Below the fold is an email I got from the editor of the publication, which is essentially orders coming straight from FOX news.

To see why, read this term paper that my sister, a Republican sophomore at Dartmouth, wrote for a class in math in social science taught by Robert Norman. It is well written and addresses a very important issue that we as progressives share with the reasonable Right: fundamental voting reform. In the paper, she critically analyzes many voting methods, including pluarlity, IRV, coombs, condorcet, borda, and approval voting and concludes with an endorsement of approval voting.

After reading the paper, I am pretty much sold on approval voting and find myself strongly opposed to switching to IRV or other types of STV voting.

On a side note, my sister wanted me to note that she has not completely cited the paper (so please do not accuse her of plagerism just yet). If you would like a fully cited copy, I will post a link to the paper when it is finished.

Hey Kossacks,

      Remember when Hillary recently said we should work to make abortion rare, but keep it legal? If you don't, let this thread jog your memory.

Yeah, some of you lashed out when Hillary said it, calling her a "concession Dem." Well, what are you going to say now that Howard Dean has publically agreed with her?

I've seen a lot of very misinformed bitching and moaning about Hillary's comments in the diaries today, and to all of you I have just one thing to say: tough shit.

Hillary's proposal- that we seek common ground on abortion by targeting "unwanted pregnancies" is refreshing and common sense. But most importantly, it is simply progressive.

It's official: we've lost the war for control over the mainstream media. While we wanted a honest news service (after all, the best news for liberalism is truth), the right wing has beat us into subduing the largest source of public information in history. Case in point, the newest AP article claiming the Army Reserve is "broken:"