SurveyUSA OH: Clinton 56, Obama 39

By big Tent Democrat

SurveyUSA has Clinton ahead in Ohio 56-39. The poll was taken 2/11. It seems that Obama's Big Mo has not yet worked there. But after the Wisconsin primary on 2/19, he'll have two weeks to campaign there. We'll see what happens.

Via Partially Impartial, Clinton wins women 62-33. Wow!

< Potomac Primaries Open Thread I | Senate Passes FISA Bill With Telecom Immunity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kangeroo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    I love you.  Seriously, you rock.

    It bears noting (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    that SurveyUSA has been the best major pollster this cycle, most notably in California where their turnout model was ridiculed until it came true.

    yup it has (none / 0) (#12)
    by thereyougo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    Caucuses have psychological effect as we are seeing here. Clearly her strategy was to win the big primaries, but like chinese water torture, Obama is winning the psych war drop by drop.

    People don't even understand that most of the caucuses are proportionally awarded and eve if she "loses " a contest she doesn't lose delegates she just gets less.


    Has he? Which states? (Missed that. . . .) (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST
    Ah. Well . . . (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    that's different from what I thought you meant.



    Calm down (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    No need to get all worked up over one poll result 3 weeks out.

    You sound nervous. No need for that . . . yet.


    Obama isn't tired? at that grueling pace? (none / 0) (#48)
    by thereyougo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    he's repeating and recycling his speeches.
    He's already getting stale, IMO.

    Hillary is tired too, but she's not repeating herself and sounds crisp.


    by not repeating (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    you mean constantly changing her messaging.  Her campaign is A.D.D. i don't think that has helped her.

    14 days (none / 0) (#72)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    Since there are two weeks between the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries and March 4, Obama will also have gone fourteen days without winning anywhere....

    It is neither good or bad (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:17:26 PM EST
    He is not running against a Republican in those states.

    I never understood that argument.

    He is not going to win Idaho.

    right (none / 0) (#65)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:20:04 PM EST
    and he is not going to lose NY or CA either

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:21:59 PM EST
    But he might lose Florida, Michigan and Ohio.



    Then you do not remember well (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    Mich is ALWAYS a battleground (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    yes and winning (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:42:58 PM EST
    requires significant AA vote, something she may not have in general.

    Good argument (none / 0) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    She needs Obama as a running mate no doubt.

    She'll Get the AA Vote (none / 0) (#169)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    She may yet need Obama as a running mate to unify the party, but the idea that she won't get the same level of AA vote that Kerry got against a guy who couldn't even win the Republican primary in Michigan and sang "bomb, bomb Iran" is ridiculous.

    She won't bring out the number of AA voters that she will if Obama is on the ticket.  But she's still going to win nearly all of the AA vote.  

    It's white men she has to worry about.  But so does Obama.


    I dont see how (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:42:26 PM EST
    winning democrats in two states that no one campaigned in proves she will have strength in them.  Especially since none of her comp was even on the ballot in Mich.  Bad argument, but i guess its like Rumsfeld says you fight with the army you have.

    I said florida (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:45:30 PM EST
    and it does not surprise me that you think that.

    the same could be said (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    about Hillary.  

    All 3 of those states are swing states, although Michigan is more blue than purple.  


    I think the evidence is (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:38:04 PM EST
    developing that Clinton runs better than Obama in Florida and Ohio.

    Michigan is an open question.


    Not sure if that can be deduced (none / 0) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    Florida and Michigan results are tainted.  Ohio hasn't happened yet.  

    The Florida result is not tainted (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    you can argue that Obama MAY have run better there but there is no evidence to back it up.

    Frankly, it is bad strategy for Obama supporters to start these discussions.

    As a predictor of what could happen in November, the Florida election is better evidence than EVERY SINGLE CAUCUS VICTORY for Obama.

    there are no caucuses in November.


    If you look at the other states (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    Obama starts off way behind in almost every state.  As he starts to campaign in the state the numbers start to come together.  He may not win but the numbers tighten.

    If he isn't allowed to campaign then he is ceding the state to Hillary who had far more name recognition and voter identification.  I don't see how this can be argued.

    I have no idea what predictive value the caucuses have.  More than zero but probably not a whole lot.  


    He campaigned in (none / 0) (#168)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:38:07 PM EST
    MA, NJ and CA.

    Florida Tainted? (none / 0) (#148)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    She won by more in Florida than she did in NY, don't you think that's a bit odd?  Seriously FL is her biggest Margin state outside of AR, I think that means something.  

    No, it wasn't (none / 0) (#156)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:17:44 PM EST
    Her NY win was the same margin - 17 points - and her Oklahoma victory was larger (24).

    Yes it means (none / 0) (#162)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:24:07 PM EST
    that she wins in uncontested states.

    If Florida is a statistical outlier you have to ask yourself, why?  How was it different?  And one of the most obvious ways it was different is that neither candidate campaigned there.  I really don't understand how that can be ignored.


    Why do you call it a statiscal outlier? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    It is in line with MA, NJ, and CA.

    Not to mention NY.

    Now what are the correlations? Big heterogenous states.

    This is my point.


    I wouldn't say that (none / 0) (#172)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:50:28 PM EST
    FL is nearly double the margin of MA and NJ.

    Florida is a swing-swing-swing! (none / 0) (#163)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:25:14 PM EST
    And as someone else said, and one wonders....if Obama wins the nom and they advertise that he was endorsed by Ted Kennedy, Moveon.org and that he wants driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, many right wingers down there are going to hold their noses and vote for McCain.

    (just as many Hillary voters will hold their noses and vote for Obama)


    yes (none / 0) (#91)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    but we certainly cannot use Hillary's "victories" in MI and FL as any evidence that she would do any better there.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:37:05 PM EST
    You can CHOOSE not to if you want. I think it is very GOOD evidence that she runs better in Florida.

    Plus using a little common sense will help you there too. Think about the age of the voters in Florida.


    Electoral vote from 2004 (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    Here's a US map showing electoral victories in 2004. Mouse over each state to see the margin of victory:



    My favorite is the line (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    that he's going to win in Kansas and Nebraska.

    He might, might win Montana, but I really doubt that too.


    I am in Montana (none / 0) (#77)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:27:11 PM EST
    and most folks dont appear to mind McCain in fact most I have spoken with will vote for him...however, I live in a very red area...

    Mountain West (none / 0) (#94)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    Why do you doubt he would win Montana, I'm a student here, and honestly think its doable, asides from Bush, Montana is historically a Blue/Purple State (we've had one multi-GOP Senator in our history, and one multi-term GOP Governor, at the moment we have two Blue Senators and a Blue Governor with massive approval, I just don't see why people assume we're Red, MT conservatism and Mountain West conservatism in general is a far different breed than that dominates the GOP, seriously Mccain might win here but that's entirely due to his perception as a Maverick, the GOP here likes most of the stuff he'll have to disavow in order toshore up his base).  

    In addition to MT, I think Obama could take one or both of the Dakotas and almost definitely Colorado, (possibly NM too, though Clinton might be a better shot here), we shouldn't them off Obama has at least as good a chance of peeling off a portion of the Mountain West as Clinton does of winning TN (AR I can see, assuming the Huckster doesn't get a VP nod, TN isn't happening, I don't care if Bill won it, he had Gore's help and TN has gone whacky conservative in the last 10-12 years, if Harold Ford couldn't take it running as a DLC/Lieberman clone, then no Dem nominee is going to turn it Blue-- unless you attribute Ford's loss to race which could be the case).


    He siad he MIGHT win (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:40:14 PM EST
    That's 5 EVs.

    But he MIGHT LOSE Florida and Ohio.

    That is 47 EVs.

    That is a bad tradeoff.


    Testor wasnt massive approval he just (none / 0) (#119)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    squeaked by and if you are a student you must be in the western part of the state which is bluer than the rest.....I almost pulled my hair out working for Testors victory...

    MT (none / 0) (#152)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:16:27 PM EST
    True, its Bluer than the rest of the state (went to HS in Billings for what its worth, when Conrad was not overwheleming there I knew he was probably finished, given that it was his real stronghold.), but I think the MT GOP is so disjointed right now that Obama has a shot ( Seriously, Tester won against a multiple term incumbent from the biggest city in the state, despite being delightfully unpolished). I realize that Romney actually came to the state GOP convention but can you explain why he won the state other than that, I seriously was a bit suprised by that I thought Mccain would take it given the fact that he seems to line up with the values of the rank-and-file GOP here a lot better than Mitt does (I thought Paul might actually have a shot at a plurality win).

    Well I think Testor (none / 0) (#175)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    won in part based on the fact that Conrad was perceived as very much dishonest...The Montana board I visit alot talked about Romney having a better organization etc than the others...I have no clue other than that...I am a bit south of Miles City so that shows you that I am in the heart of redsville lol....

    Don't Think He Will Win Montana (none / 0) (#155)
    by MO Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:17:43 PM EST
    NRA has in its possession all kinds of nice stuff about Obama's gun stance over the years all ready being distributed throughout their networks. Just one example is this little ditty.

    In 1996, however, Obama said in a questionnaire that he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" -- a fairly extreme position.

    HOWEVER, it should be pointed out that this appears to be yet another example of Obama not being able to get good help.
    You guessed it -- his campaign says this questionnaire was filled out incorrectly by a staffer.  ABC

    It is my understanding, that people in Montana don't like pols messing with their guns.


    No they don't and that is (none / 0) (#176)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    my husbands number one issue....they love their guns here....

    Can I ask a question here? (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Sima on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:49:17 AM EST
    If you cater to independents and center republicans, what's left of the democratic party platform?

    You write: 'As a Dem, I've always wanted for us to have a candidate that can bring in Indies and Republicans. I'd rather cater to them so we expand our ranks for the future than have a partisan Dem candidate.'

    Then, why be a Dem?  And why have a Democratic party if we are diluting the message and the platform in order to bring inside those that are, by definition, OUTSIDE the democratic platform?

    What's the point?  Why not have Republican-lite, Republican, and Republican-scary-religious?  And do away with the whole left wing of politics?

    Is the whole point winning at any cost?  Do we expect the leaders (like I think many Obama supporters expect) to go back on their words of inclusion for those Indies and Repubs?  Of course, we are projecting our own wants and desires onto the candidates' nebulous statements.

    If Obama had come out and spoken against (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:03 PM EST
    sexist remarks himself, instead of saying nothing personally and instead being content to blast the Clinton legend that would have helped him a great deal with women...but women are a large part of the voting public...like it or not....

    I just spoke to a (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by standingup on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:54:07 PM EST
    friend of mine yesterday who had been undecided on how she would vote.  She has had strong issues with both Clinton and Obama.  The recent incidents that show the double standards in place with regards to race and gender issues have swayed her to vote for Hillary in an upcoming primary.    

    But he did (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    so subtly:  "likeable enough," "tea parties," etc.

    It is made worse by him not speaking up about media misogyny, agreed.


    Obama's remark (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:43:30 PM EST
    about his criticizing the status-quo and the "claws come out" - didn't help either.

    Right (none / 0) (#173)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:51:49 PM EST
    And some not so subtle:

    Great clip on YouTube of some of the nastier attacks.

    Pass it around to everyone you know.  I don't think people realize how horrible it really is.


    the misogynistic comments at DKos (none / 0) (#138)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:03:24 PM EST
    are deplorable!

    My advice (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    My advice is to just stay away.  Let the place implode by the weight of its own vaccuum.

    and allowed to continue (none / 0) (#140)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    50 nations, divided. (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    I must admit that I'm surprised by how large the difference in support for two Democratic candidates by Democratic voters in various states.

    Demographics are everything (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST

    I'm thinking of. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:15:19 PM EST
    Ohio vs. Wisconsin -- I think you need to dig a bit to uncover demographics that account for that degree of difference.

    good question (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    I research (and teach) on the Midwest (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:49:55 PM EST
    and am just commenting here to find it to get back to it when I can, with some thoughts for you from the Heartland.:-)

    But now I've got to go do some work for the Clinton campaign -- helping to escort Ambassador Joe Wilson around Milwaukee.  He's here to work for her, too -- speaking at campuses, and we got an interview with our finest journalist in town's tv show; if it's live-streamed or something, I'll post that, too.

    (Btw, all of this made more complicated for the campaigns by yet MORE SNOW today, maybe almost another foot or so -- we're breaking records in Wisconsin for seasonal snowfall already in some towns like Madison.  Still waiting to see if weather is going to be a factor on primary day.)


    Cream (none / 0) (#174)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:53:15 PM EST
    Tell him to talk up what he said about Kenya in his op-ed.  People need to know that crap is going on.  We don't need a nominee who already has an ally calling him a stooge.  (We already have a president who gets that)

    I Wouldn't Be Too Quick (none / 0) (#179)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    to embrace Kenya's current leader.  He most likely did steal the most recent election.  

    I'm not sure the kind of speech Obama went and gave, especially since he's apparently a distant cousin of the opposition leader, is good or helpful, but I don't think Kenya's leader is on the side of the good and light here.  

    Of course, Obama did say he could deal effectively even with the leaders of Iran, so that might be fair game - his effectiveness.  But I don't know that Kenya's leader is some great friend of the U.S.  Or if he is, he's one of those great friends who is not necessarily a good person.


    the poll did comment... (none / 0) (#3)
    by mike in dc on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    ....that Clinton's entire margin of victory was due to women.  Obama is competitive or ahead in every other demographic there.  If he can bring her below 60 among women, and bolster his other demos a bit, he can either win or keep it from being a large margin.  

    Still waiting to see the latest TX polling.

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:02:20 PM EST
    Well if you take solace from that, Gawd bless you.

    Hillary lost Women... (none / 0) (#183)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST
    ... today in virginia. 58/42. I know, Virginia is a state that doesn't count. And women there especially don't count. And there are black people there. But, like I said, a lot of hillary's female support is weak (at least based on anecdotal evidence), and Obama should be able to pick-it-off in Ohio.

    White women, he lost 45 / 55 in Virginia. If obama can get that same margin in Ohio with White women -- clinton is dead.


    Clinton will need (none / 0) (#7)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    to fight hard here. Once Obama is on the ground and in front of the voters the gap may begin to close in.

    I just can't believe (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    the "to know him is to love him" rhetoric.  To say that voters need only meet Obama, and they are instantly swayed, is a complete misnomer. I have met the man.  I shook his hand.  I am still a firm Hillary supporter.

     As a matter of fact, Clinton gets a huge bump whenever folks see her and are reminded of how much they like her.  This is the reason Obama doesn't want the debates.  When she looks smart, he looks like a good VP.

    I really like this poll that is being cited, but it would be hypocritical of me to say the others are wrong and this one is right.  Honestly, I don't trust any of them.  This is the whackiest election ever.

    It makes me happy to see her listed ahead, though!


    debates... (none / 0) (#28)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    Obama doesn't want debates because he doesn't excel in that format. He is a good debater, but hillary is an excellent debater. If they hadn't had 18 debates already, I would say this is a big problem for Obama, but enough is enough of debates. I think 2 more before March 4th is reasonable, maybe shoulda been 3. 5 is too much.

    You know, I'm sorry (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:11:18 PM EST
    But for me and a lot of people I know, Obama could stand in front of me for a week doing his charismatic, content-free oratory, and I'd only wish he would go away.

    You need to face the reality that his "appeal" is not for everyone.


    you... (none / 0) (#182)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:14:53 PM EST
    ... aren't someone he's trying to persuade. Anyone posting on an internet blog is a lost cause. Fortunately, we are a small minority.

    Mebbe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:08:43 PM EST
    Didn't work in Cali, NJ or Mass.

    I think this is the $64 question now with Obama.


    Obama's One Help in WI (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    Is that Clinton hasn't spent time organizing in WI like they did in California.  

    Obama's real problem is that he needs to be ahead going into the election.  Voters who decide on that day have been breaking for Clinton.


    an interesting tidbit.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:47:26 PM EST
    ... would be how closely are hillary supporters following the election and who committed are they to her. It would give more a sense of how strong her lead really is. She isn't going to win Ohio by 15 points. So her lead is going to start shrinking -- and I'd guess it be amongst hillary's weaker supporters (i.e. low information voters, who receive more info, as we get closer to D-day).

    She won Mass by 15 points (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    I have no idea even if she will win but these pronouncements "she won't win by 15" are kind of ridiculous.

    jor (none / 0) (#38)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:59:18 PM EST
    After being ahead by 30. Yea, yea, I know kerry, kenedy, blah blah blah. If 30 went down to 15, what will 15 go down to with time?

    Obam awaas ahead in some pollsand cl (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM EST
    close in almost all in MA.

    Look, you folks can believe what you want. Heck this is GREAT NEWS for Obama!!!

    Woo hooo!


    Which polls was he up by 10? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:37:31 PM EST
    ARG? The ones with average of 10 pt margin of error this race?  

    The Ohio poll isn't good news for Obama, but its not great news for Hillary either. It shows Obama in striking distance with 3 weeks to go, in a very topsy-turby election. I would say its neutral news, or maybe slightly positive for clinton.


    How is your opponent at 56%... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:43:11 PM EST
    within striking distance?

    Hillary was +23 points over obama a week ago (none / 0) (#184)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST
    Today she is +17 points over obama. He has been consistantly down in states by 20 points and come from behind in 1 months time. That is striking distance.

    Why its not good news for hillary... (none / 0) (#111)
    by jor on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    ... let me make this even clearer. You yourself have said Ohio is a must win state for Hillary. According to you, Obama has his choice of OH, TX, or PA.   Hillary went from +23 over Obama a week ago, to +17 today. There are 3 weeks to go. Thats why I think this is neutral to only slightly + for hillary. She must win this, and she now has a lead that Obama has overcome in several other recent contests. This is what I would be worried about if I were running hillaryland.

    yes, but SUSA had her (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    37 up on Jan 22-23 in MA.

    And up 10 (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    the week of Super Tuesday.

    She won by 15.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#101)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    Obama is competitive or ahead in every other demographic there.

    I'm not sure which demographics you're talking about. He's behind by thirty with whites, behind 87-8 with Hispanics (though this is probably a small sample) and is trailing in every age group. His best demographics are African-Americans and independent voters (though his lead with both is smaller than it's been in other states).  


    deceptive Obama ad airing in Ohio (none / 0) (#6)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    Obama doesn't have a universal health care plan and isn't willing to fight for it.
    But his ad implies otherwise -

    Not only that... (none / 0) (#44)
    by doordiedem0crat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    Hillary's plan will be more expensive! She does not have the focus of reducing cost.

    Her plan is cheaper says Krugman by quite a bit (none / 0) (#47)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    do you have a link for Hillary's comment? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    your interpretation is different from mine (none / 0) (#194)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
    Hillary didn't oppose deliberations on C-Span - and even added some reality to it. The president wouldn't be "the decider" on C-Span deliberations. Congress will have to be persuaded. What's wrong with Hillary telling the WHOLE truth?

    CLINTON: And, certainly, it is important that the president come up with the plan, but we'll have to persuade Congress to put all of those deliberations on C-SPAN. Now, I think we might be able to do that, but that's a little heavier lift than what the president is going to propose, because what happens is we have to have a coalition. And I think the plan that I have proposed is if you take business, which
    pays the costs and wants to get those costs down, take labor that has to negotiate over health care instead of wages, take doctors, nurses, hospitals who want to get back into the business of taking care of people instead of working for insurance companies, I think we will have a coalition that can withstand the health insurance...
    BLITZER: Thank you.
    CLINTON: ... and the drug companies.
    BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.
    CLINTON: And that's what I intend to do.


    Single payer (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    is the only truly universal plan, if you want to be fully accurate about it.

    There is a difference in the plans (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:20:55 PM EST
    And it is clear that Obama's plan is PERCEIVED by EXPERTS to CLEARLY NOT cover everyone.

    Is it a false ad? It is all opinion so one can not say that but EXPERTS say Obama's ad is false.


    you dont need experts (none / 0) (#73)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    to tell you his plan wont cover everyone.

    It obviously wont cover people who CHOOSE not to sign up, even though affordable (subsidized if necessary) insurance is available to them

    Most experts will also tell you that Hillary's plan will not cover everyone. Unless she is willing to roll out a stringent enforcement regime for her mandates. In MA, their mandated plan has only reduced the number of uninsured by half, at least that is what I read somewhere recently - sorry no link readily at hand.


    just to follow up on this (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    In the old days (90s) the differences here were characterized by the terms "universal access" vs. "universal care". Insurance readily available to all vs. essentially a single payer system.

    Hillary's plan is somewhat in between - not automatic universality, but rather universal access plus mandates to try to force ones way toward universal coverage.

    Personally, my interest is in having everyone have care available to them, that they can afford. I dont particularly lose sleep over someone choosing not to sign up if an affordable plan is available to them. Thats their problem.

    If we reach the point where insurance really is available to everyone who wants it, and all of the outliers are simply people gaming the system, then I, and most Americans, would be amenable to a mandate to end that practice. I think that is pretty much Obama's position too.


    Studies Show (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:41:02 PM EST
    That healthcare costs are almost double per person if there are no mandates.  

    Plus, if Obama would quit beating the Republican fear drum, mandates are politically important.  Everyone has got to be covered to keep costs down.  First because if healthy people opt out or wait until they're really sick to seek treatment, then insurance goes up because the pool is sicker.  Obama acknowledged this in his last debate when he said he might have to charge people seeking ER treatment without any insurance back premiums (which is way worse than an upfront mandate since it discourages treatment).  Second because once everyone is covered, it'll be easier - as a political matter - to control costs.  There's a reason you can't opt out of Social Security.  Because if you let people opt out then that opens the door to private industry picking at the plan and continuing to drain it of participants until it's no longer economically feasible.  Plus, once everyone has insurance, they aren't going to want to risk losing it.

    If costs run up on a universal access system, it just drives people out of the system, to the joys of conservatives and private sector everywhere.  If costs run up on a universal coverage system, then the political pressure is to bring down costs because people 1) can't opt out of the system and 2) most won't want to risk losing coverage.

    Say Hillary's Iraq war vote sucked.  Say her Cuba policy stinks. Say whatever you want about a whole host of issues, but she has the best universal healthcare plan.  Now, some people don't want UHC and want tax credits or whatever, but if you want UHC, she's got the best policy.  Now, that does not mean you have to vote for her, but don't kid yourselves that the two policies are the same.  There is almost unanimous agreement in among liberal healthcare experts that they aren't.


    How many people (none / 0) (#127)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    Currently opt out of affordable plans?  

    Certainly some people are willing to forgo coverage.   But it seems dubious to me that Obama's plan would somehow increase the number of people that opt-out.   Why would people all of the sudden choose to opt of plans they are already part of?  and if they aren't opting out then who are the people that are playing russian roulette with health care?  

    If you wish to make the Social Security comparison make sure you follow it to its logical conclusion.  Hillary's plan will impose a payroll tax on everyone.  No way to enforce the mandate otherwise.

    What do you think the chances of that happening are?     Probably a lot closer to 0% than 1%.  


    Fewer people opt out. . . (none / 0) (#133)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM EST
    because of the exclusion of pre-existing conditions.  If you opt out now and get sick, you're out of luck (and out of pocket).  Eliminating the ban on pre-existing conditions removes this motivator.

    And still, I'll bet that lots of perfectly well off folks in their 20s and 30s who could afford insurance don't have it.  Of course, they might argue about what "affordable" means, but we're not talking an order of magnitude difference under Obama's plan.

    This is simply a huge logical hole in Obama's plan.  The only good thing is that I believe these detailed plans are simply campaign posturing -- Obama undoubtedly has polling showing that mandated coverage turns some people off, as Clinton probably has polling showing that having to give up one's current plan (for those with insurance) is similarly a big turn off -- and after election either of the candidates will simply concentrate on extending health care as far as politically feasible.


    I agree with your last paragraph (none / 0) (#147)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:08:46 PM EST
    When one of these candidates sits down in the Oval Office they will be able to implement the best plan feasible.  

    The problem. . . (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:46:33 PM EST
    my interest is in having everyone have care available to them, that they can afford. I dont particularly lose sleep over someone choosing not to sign up if an affordable plan is available to them. Thats their problem.

    is that it isn't their problem, it's your problem and mine.

    Combining voluntary enrollment and a ban on pre-existing conditions means people will simply wait until they get seriously ill to buy insurance.  Then, bang, they are covered -- after not having paid in during their years of good health.

    This simply cannot work as an insurance scheme -- it removes the entire insurance aspect.

    If previously uninsured people are going to be immediately eligible for coverage of pre-existing conditions when they sign up either rates will have to be sky-high or else the government will have to step in and cover an enormous amount of the cost.  From taxpayer money.

    More logical -- although perhaps less politically palatable -- to "force" people to participate by requiring proof of health insurance or payments through the income tax system (or something).

    Either way is universal coverage, I suppose, just in Obama's way well-off yuppies basically don't pay (the working poor would already be largely subsidized).


    i understand the problem (none / 0) (#139)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:03:40 PM EST
    of those who game the system. And I said, as has Obama, that if we reach a situation where health care is available to all, then a mandate to solve this problem may well be appropriate and necessary.

    Look there is a poltical problem here that you seem not to acknowledge. I know I have explained this several times, but not many people here want to take it seriously.

    A mandate up front is going to immediatly apply to 47 million people, and indirectly to all those other millions who have insurance but fear they may lose it soon. You are giving these people a mandate with penalties, and a promise that health insurance will be affordable to them.

    Many of them will not believe you.
    Whether rightly or wrongly, people do not believe politicians making promises. And that will seriously undermine popular support. And popular support is critical to overcome the opposition from the interest groups.

    It seems infintly smarter to me to not burden these plans with punitive mandates when the average person will be suspicious of the benefits promised. Give them the benefits first. Demonstrate to them that insurance really will be affordable and available to them.

    The program will be a much eaiser sell. Most responsible people will gladly sign up. Once we reach that point - when the only people outside the system are gaming the system, then everyone who is signed up (the great majority) will gladly support mandates to stop the gaming.

    I keep making these points and people keep coming back to how important mandates are to the overall, longterm working of the system. Can you grasp that I am not arguing that point? That I acknowledge that ultimatly mandates may be necessary?

    A good part of the reason why the '93 plan failed was that it had just these mandates. It was a good plan - in the wonk-world sense. It was a bad plan politically. It was not possible to build sufficient popular support to overcome the inherint opposition of the medical establishment.

    Hillary often speaks of bearing the scars of that fight, but I would rather see if she has actually learned any lessons. I think Obama understands, in fact it is a key part of his campaign, that the way to overcome the influence of special interests is to build popular support.

    Mandates, up front, undermine that.


    I certainly see the political issue. . . (none / 0) (#149)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:11:14 PM EST
    and, in fact, it's one of the reasons I think we won't get anything genuinely resembling universal health care -- people are idiots and won't pay.  This idiot idea courtesy of the Reagan revolution (pay less taxes, get more services, and ponies for all) is sadly still with us.

    I have no problem with people saying "yeah, Obama's plan isn't universal and probably won't work financially, but it has the most chance of getting our foot in the door, politically".  That's honest and, I believe, indicates a reasonable fluency with the issue.

    People don't say that, though, they pretend it's something it's not.

    I think Obama has good political instincts on this issue, but they're instincts which tell him that liberal issues like universal health care aren't going to go far and that he shouldn't even try to sell them to the public if he wants to maintain his "new way" politics.


    ok larry, but recognize (none / 0) (#158)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    that your criticism of Obama for not wanting to try to sell universality really only comes down to the fact that he doesnt want to try to sell punitive mandates, up front, with the rest of the program.
    That strikes me as pretty smart.

    When did I criticize Obama. . . (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM EST
    for not trying to sell mandates?

    The only people I'm criticizing are Obama supporters who claim he is trying to sell a universal system.  He isn't, and anyone comfortable with their candidate should be able to report and defend his actual positions (as you are well able to do), not the ones they've made up for him.


    How will Hillary's plan (none / 0) (#93)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    force people to pay for health care?  Health care is generally state regulated.  How will the Feds know when someone does or does not have health care?  How will they force them to pay?

    Several Ideas (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    Folks have talked about some sort of automatic registration.  Where you provide proof of insurance on your income taxes or something similar or you get enrolled in a government plan.  Keep in mind the costs for the government plan are capped based on income and there are more generous subsidies in her plan than in Obama's.  

    And this isn't anything new.  The Government already does something similar with Social Security and Medicare.  

    And Obama has exactly the same issue because his plan mandates coverage for children.  So parents would face the same issue.  


    Something similar indeed (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    It is called a tax.   You can be sure the Republicans will be calling it that.

    Big deal (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Steve M on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:00:48 PM EST
    I'm baffled by all the Obama supporters who believe we can change the country, reinvent the government, and create a whole different kind of politics, but we can never, ever convince the electorate to support mandates for health insurance.

    Wow, good point! (none / 0) (#165)
    by echinopsia on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:26:54 PM EST
    I am so stealing that.

    But Not Attacks (none / 0) (#116)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    based on fear and lies, which is what Obama is doing.  

    No (none / 0) (#67)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    Mandates with subsidies and cost controls are also universal.  Single Payer is better, but neither candidate is advocating that.

    I really don't understand why Obama folks can't admit his plan leaves some people uncovered.  He's admitted that, for frak's sake.


    no one denies that it leaves people uncoverd (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:33:04 PM EST
    would you acknowledge though, that the people it leaves uncovered are those who CHOOSE to remain uncovered, even though an affordable plan is available to them?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:49:24 PM EST
    Which is the problem.   You cannot have people who are young and healthy choose not to pay for healthcare and then leave society to pick up the slack when they get sick.  It skews the pool towards the older and sicker, driving up overall costs, including for them when they are no longer young and/or healthy.

    Obama's argument is akin to saying that states shouldn't make everyone buy car insurance.  And when my car gets totaled by some drunk teenager, I'm just out of luck because he didn't think he needed the insurance and the state didn't mandate it.  So my insurance will pay and I'll pay the increased premiums.


    I see (none / 0) (#124)
    by Nasarius on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    You might want to tell the Germans (and the Dutch, and the Japanese...) that their outstanding health care system which covers everyone isn't really universal, because it's multi-payer and allows private insurance as an alternative.

    Obama's ad is deceptive (none / 0) (#126)
    by Josey on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:52:46 PM EST
    because he leads voters to believe he supports UHC - but he doesn't have a plan.

    Also, during the last debate Obama gave his solution for enforcing his mandates for children - he'll FORCE parents to pay all the back premiums.
    Perhaps that will involve garnishing their wages?


    Yes, again, definitions matter (none / 0) (#129)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    and mandates do make health coverage universal.

    Without mandates, it's not universal.


    let the battles begin! (none / 0) (#9)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:05:54 PM EST

    Other polls from today (none / 0) (#15)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    Have Obama up 50-39 in WI and 50-40 in NC.  If all these numbers hold up -- and Obama wins today, and Hillary wins TX and PA -- we really could be heading for a nightmare at the convention.  Let's hope something gives.

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    Obama needs to win one of the big states, Ohio, Texas or Pennsylvania.

    You keep saying that (none / 0) (#20)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    But it's not necessarily true, math-wise.  

    I present it as my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST
    If math is your guide, then there are not enough pledged delegates for either to claim the nomination.

    I thought you agree with me from the discussion last night? It turns out you do not. Not surprising frankly.


    We basically agree (none / 0) (#35)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    You're probably right.  There's a chance you're not.  If Obama loses narrowly in TX, OH, and PA, and wins by wider margins in the other significant states (MD, VA, WI, NC, OR, IN, etc), he ends up with more pledged delegates -- perhaps significantly more -- and also more votes.  In that scenario, I think the super-delegates go with him and he wins the nomination.  

    But I admit, it's unlikely.  If he's winning states like IN and staying close in WV and KY, he's probably also winning PA.  And if he's losing all those states, he's probably losing the delegate count.  I just don't think winning "big contested states," in itself, counts for anything beyond the delegates and votes it entails.  I'm not sure if you're saying it does.


    Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    If Obama has the most delegates and the most votes at the end of the primary season, his critics should put down their drums and get behind him.  Those are the bench marks, not Tex-O-vania. But as BTD says, chances are Obama will only have the former if he gets one of the latter.

    If he loses OH, TX and PA (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:16:17 PM EST
    he simply will not have the most votes.

    He trails Clinton now in the popular vote.

    You were speaking about math before.


    Think narrow losses (none / 0) (#66)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    And big wins elsewhere.  It could happen, though it's unlikely.  But if we're only arguing about predictions, no big deal.  We shall see.  My real point is that the bench marks should be delegates and votes.  Not states -- large or small, red or blue, black or white, primaries or caucuses.  Delegates and votes.

    Well (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    It could happen applies to just about anything.

    Right (none / 0) (#76)
    by AF on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    But in ordinary speech, which I am using, it means there's a non-neglible chance.  I'd put it at 5-10%.  

    I never heard that -- her lead (none / 0) (#150)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    was (per CNN, I think, or NYT) about 550,000 before the last round.  Caucuses don't bring in as many as primaries, of course, and Lousiana's turnout was reported as very low, 15%.  So if you can get those figures and add them to his. . . .

    Or maybe the new figures are up at news sites above.


    What about miracles? jk (none / 0) (#25)
    by independent voter on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST

    Huckabee? (none / 0) (#26)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    Mike (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:42:41 PM EST
    there are guidelines for posting links.  This will probably be deleted because it skews the threads.  Highlight the word you want to turn blue to indicate a link, then click the chain icon, paste in your http and hit okay.

    I am deleting (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:43:29 PM EST
    all insulting comments.

    If you do not want to risk being deleted, do not come close to the insult line....

    Use hyperlinks please (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    Keep your comment ON Topic (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST
    I am deleting all off topic comments as well.

    Hypocrites (none / 0) (#33)
    by licity on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    To me there has been way too much bashing between Hillary and Obama. It just isn't necessary. You can win more votes by making just, sound statements, appealing to the people rather than beating each other up.  I read an article on http://www.hypocrisy.com about Hillary and Obama, it was real informative.

    As was noted above (none / 0) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    SuveyUSA has been pretty good at getting reasonably accurate results.  It should be noted that this is the best result that Obama has got in Ohio in over a year according to RealClear

    I'm not terribly shocked that he is behind by that many points 3 weeks out.  Right now he is focused on  the Feb states while Hillary is working Tex and Ohio.  

    As BTD notes he will have nearly 3 weeks to focus on either Texas or Ohio. I don't think he will go full court on both.  He will pick the state he thinks he has the best chance in.  My guess would be Ohio. The  Latino vote hasn't been very favorable for him whereas his across the aisle appeal in the semi-open Ohio primaries.

    Texas (none / 0) (#125)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    The funny thing is that it wouldn't be suprising at all if Obama wins the majority of the Texas delegates as long as he can keep within say 5-10% in the popular vote, given the states hybrid system, and its delegate allocations (which favor AA strongholds like Dallas and Houston, as well as the Liberal Mecca of Austin), Clinton may well suffer an inverse of NV winning the Hinterlands but losing the cities and thus the delegate race.

    But might TX turn blue? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    I really wouldn't count winning Dems in red states, big as they maybe, for as much as BTD does.

    They don't help us if it's another Electoral College fight.  We need a decisive number of states.


    I can live with this, at this stage. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    The campaign in Ohio has just begun.  We'll see how the campaigning and advertising goes.

    If the demographics line up the way they did in Missouri, you're probably looking at a 2-4 point Clinton win.  If Obama comes closer amongst whites than he did in Missouri, he could win Ohio.

    An Edwards endorsement would really matter in OH and TX, imo.

    It's a poll (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    No more no less.

    Missouri (none / 0) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    What could really help Obama, here is that unlike in Mizzou he has the endorsement of a political machine (KC's mayor endorsed Clinton, and St. Louis's mayor doesn't appear to ahve endorsed anyone) that of the mayor of Columbus (which interestingly enough, is the largest city in Ohio), a city that hits Obama's non-African American demographic sweet spot (young professionals and the largest university in America and perhaps the world OSU-- 50,000+ enrollment), you add Cleveland and possibly Cinncinati (the one large city outside of NYC and major hispanic areas, that Hillary might carry or at least achieve a tie in) and you have a recipe for Mizzou all over again. I think the real deciding factor in Ohio could be College turnout, if OSU turns out in the proportions other students have (60-70% for Obama, with record participation) he may have a chance to keep it very close and or steal the state.

    Columbus bigger than Cleveland? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    You're right, but I would never have guessed.

    OH and TX will be fun to watch.


    Columbus, Cleveland (none / 0) (#144)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    It shocked me too, I wonder if its just due to recent growth or something because its not just a little bit bigger its nearly twice as large.

    Yep, just learned that, too -- and (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    also was surprised.  Not the Columbus I recall!

    Biggest city in Ohio, a major city in the Midwest now -- and I think it's majority-minority, too.


    North Carolina= New Jersey? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    BTD- Wouldn't an Obama win in NC count as a big state? Or would it be too late, I mean it has the same value as NJ and you and others have cited that as one of the states that Obama could have made a statement in.

    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    North Carolina has a high A-A vote so it is not like the top 10 states.

    Can he win without a huge A-A vote is an issue.


    I was raised in North Carolina (none / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    and in our county we had a 75% AA population...

    Comparisions (none / 0) (#79)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    While NC is 20% A-A, NJ is more Hispanic than the National average and is a New York Suburb, additionally if one is going to use demogrpahics to disqualify NC, why can't the same be done for MA which has a far lower % of A-A than the National Average (6.9% compared to 12.8%)? I think NC is at least as important as MA (if you stipulate that NJ is not a valid comparison), and perhaps more so given that MA is Blue regardless of the nominee, while Obama could genuinely swing NC (far more likely than SC, NC is doable with the right canidate).

    NC (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    These are the most recent poll numbers I could find for the state; they're from about three weeks ago:

    John McCain 49 Hillary Clinton 42
    McCain 48 John Edwards 42
    McCain 52 Barack Obama 38

    From the link:

    John McCain would be the strongest nominee for President in North Carolina, leading match ups with all three Democratic hopefuls. But Democrats would do pretty well against any of the rest of the possible Republicans, as long as their nominee is not Barack Obama.

    Obama's weak performance is mostly the result of doing badly among voters of his own party. Hillary Clinton gets 72-75% of the Democratic vote in her four match ups, while John Edwards gets 68-73%. Obama, on the other hand, gets the support of just 59-66% of Democrats. A meaningful number of North Carolina Democrats aren't sure they'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

    In other words, the black vote and the Research Triangle wouldn't be enough to make this state competitive for Obama. He'd lose too many white Democrats.


    SUSA projects A-A 36% of the vote (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:31:38 PM EST
    in the N. Ca. primary.

    Demo (none / 0) (#146)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    This doesn't seem any worse than California being 30% Hispanic (nearly 3 times the national avg.) and only 7% AA(little more than half the national avg.), If you count that and discount NC its a bit disingenous.

    Heh (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    California is sui generis I agree.

    But you want to coutn N. Ca equally to Cali?



    NC isn't equal to Cali (none / 0) (#170)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    I would never argue that, I was just pointing out that if you explain away NC due to demographics, California should be subject to the same.

    I would not (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:35:46 PM EST
    read to much into that except as a baseline poll, his ad buys just started this week, and I imagine they are just starting to open up offices.

    The Political Lexicon (none / 0) (#121)
    by bob h on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:49:43 PM EST
    a new word for people who vote for someone only because other people are doing it.  In any event, such people have no business participating in a democracy.

    Great News in the world of Polls (none / 0) (#131)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 04:57:30 PM EST
    Good news from a poll
    Ohio HC 42 BO 19
    Penn 40 20
    Texas 48 38

    How old are those polls? (none / 0) (#141)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    How old are those polls? (none / 0) (#143)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    Gravel! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    Come on,  don't tell you can't see the oncoming Gravelanche! :)

    I live (none / 0) (#136)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, and I can't find any plan rally for Hillary. Obama commercials are all over the tv nd radio and I hve yet to see a Hillary commercial, obama is having a raly in madison tonight. What is she think? she have good grass roos here and she is writing it off.

    So do I, and we're busy as can be (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:26:43 PM EST
    with lots of Clinton activity in Milwaukee.  That is the biggest Dem base, after all -- although I know that we also have campaign cochairs in every one of the 72 counties.  Where are you?  And have you checked the campaign website, gone to our state, looked up the events calendar, etc.?  And signed up for info to be sent?  I'm getting many emails daily with event info, contact info, etc.

    Btw, I hear that her ads start soon.  And the Big Dawg is coming in Thursday to Wisconsin, where we love him -- I'll never forget those GOTV events.  So far, he's coming to Green Bay; more on the way.


    She's coming this weekend (none / 0) (#160)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:19:55 PM EST
    I heard she was visiting Wisconsin this weekend, seriously though, I think she's adopting the Rudy strategy which means she's wither really confident about WI, or that her internals are disasterous-- and that ARG is way, way, off, no one abandons a mid-size state that they're up by 9 in.

    Yes, she is -- that has been known for ages (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:30:16 PM EST
    that she's here this weekend, lots of activities planned for it, etc.  It has been reported many times in the major paper in the state, so if you don't read it, start doing so at jsonline.com

    And, as noted below, sign up for info.  You have to let 'em know where and how to find you, after all.  It's not hard to do, the site has been there for ages, too: hillaryclinton.com, go to Wisconsin, etc.


    "Already Voted" (none / 0) (#171)
    by BDB on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:49:32 PM EST
    There's potentially some good news in the SUSA poll for Obama - he is only behind four points 51-47 among those who have already voted in Ohio.

    The danger is that the sample size is so small, this result doesn't mean much.  The last Field Poll in Cali had Obama ahead among those who already voted 32-31 and that was only about two weeks after the poll it had done showing Clinton up by 20 among early voters.  It was then that I knew something was wrong in that last Field Poll.

    So if it's right, that's good for Obama.  If it's wrong, then he may already be more behind than any of us realize.

    dont know as I just saw them (none / 0) (#177)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 05:59:19 PM EST
    posted elsewhere (the polls I mean)....Sorry didnt get a date....

    Obama wins! (none / 0) (#178)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    Obama wins Virginia! Stole tons of independent voters to put him over the top! Like he will in Nov.!

    30% Independent and Republican (none / 0) (#180)
    by Teresa on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:08:52 PM EST
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#181)
    by hvs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    That'll be his recipe for taking the state in November!