Clinton With Wide Lead In Texas

By Big Tent Democrat

So sayeth Rassmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports polling in Texas also shows the former First Lady on top in the Lone Star State. Clinton attracts 54% of the vote in Texas while Obama earns 38% with nearly three weeks to go until Election Day.

h/t andgarden. Polling shows Clinton with large leads in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. This ain't over.

< Which Voters Matter? | Rocky Mountain News Bashes Bush Over Telecom Immunity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Seems to me that Obama (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    will have a shot at the same day caucuses. But if Hillary walks away with wins in Texas and Ohio. . .

    ARG unreliable (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    Really no basis for determing whether Obama is slipping or closing.

    I wish it were. (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    This ain't over.

    I love a spirited political contest as much as the next guy (as long as the Republican loses), but the longer this goes on the less likely a peaceful resolution becomes.

    To win anything close to an outright victory both candidates need substantial delegate margins in the remaining contests.

    Right now Clinton leads in the biggest states.  Enough to give her a genuinely substantial margin in delegates?  I doubt it it, considering that Obama still has some strong states to come.

    And consider that the most likely result is for the race in those big states to tighten.  Close results with a modest margin for Clinton will send the candidates to the convention in an effective dead heat.

    and it is all over.

    Oh please. . . (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    Obama is picking up some supers and that's not good for Clinton.  But the supers he's picking up are just as likely to be switching away from the voters choice in their states as to it.

    Per the Washington Post (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:21:47 PM EST
    Lewis has denied switching his support.  He's "rethinking it" but has not changed his endorsement. I posted the links and a longer discussion over in the John Lewis thread.  

    As I said there, I'd be shocked if all of the Super Delegates aren't rethinking their positions.  This race is incredibly tight.


    Depends what the meaning. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:19:44 AM EST
    of "win" is.

    If Obama were to take all the delegates from one of these big states and the others were to be apportioned about evenly then yes, he'd have a significant lead.

    But if he "wins" one by twenty delegates or so, but has a deficit of, say fifty, in the other states it really doesn't make much difference.

    If the candidates go to convention within 200 delegates of each other -- especially if the delegate leader is not also the clear national popular vote leader -- then we have a bloody mess.

    It should be clear by now -- neither of these two is going to blink.


    Winning means tting the most votes (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    to me.

    Markos? I do not know if he defines it the same way anymore.


    So if Clinton wins a bunch of states (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:24:28 AM EST
    they will switch back?

    she runs the table (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    on TX, OH and PA, a 30 delegate led in pledged delegates is menaingless consideing how flawed the prcess is.

    I would hope they would follow (none / 0) (#42)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    who ever leads in delegates and pop vote, even if the spit was really tight.

    If Hillary can make the really big wins she needs to do that, great! She would completely and utterly deserve to be the Dem nominee. I want the best of these two, the one that can bring the biggest win in the general. This primary is the test for that.

    I think it will be Obama, because he reaches out farther. But I could be wrong, and if I am I would rather find out now than in the general.


    IMO (none / 0) (#12)
    by spit on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    an outright victory became pretty unlikely on Super Tuesday. Short of one of them dropping out -- and it's unclear to me why either of them would at this point -- we're headed for essentially tied delegates.

    The way I've been viewing this race for the past few days is that what they're both really jockeying for are the best possible positions from which to negotiate. That's not quite literally true at this point, but the race makes a lot more sense to me now in that framework.


    We need (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    Richardson to show up to endorse Hilary now and campign with her in Texas.    She won New Mexico, what else does Richardson need to come forward.  

    Obama seems to poll lower ... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM EST
    until he visits the state. he always has to overcome Clinton's name recognition. He is going to have a lot of time in TX to get his message out, and he's indie streak will be well received there. I still thinks he ties and maybe even wins TX. Richardson endorsing Clinton would change that though.

    Clinton needs to win TX by a decent margin, it is the first of many tests on her new and I would guess, last firewall. I think anything less than a 10% pop vote lead is troubling, if it is within 5% she is in real trouble.

    She has to be happy to have such a sizeable lead there now.

    Not in the Big States she dosent (none / 0) (#52)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    looks like Obamas front runner status is garner some unmessianc press and thinking of risk to the Dems, check out Bloomberg.com no pro Clinton group and read their fear for the GE...

    Obama's Ties Might Fuel `Republican Attack Machine'

    ...........Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.

    A Series of Bombings

    The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s -- including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that ``I don't regret setting bombs.''


    I heard his barber (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:05:32 PM EST
    is a communist as well.  

    I think you underestimate (none / 0) (#61)
    by magisterludi on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM EST
     the ability of the GOP to turn little pieces of dirt into piles and piles of manure. Whitewater is a prime example.

    If the GOP (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM EST
    is going to start chasing down college associates of Obama as proof that Obama is some crypto-radical, more power to them.   I'll look forward to 8 years of an Obama presidency if they try.

    Rezko, while wildly overblown, at least has SOME merit to it.  Pointing to radical professors does not.


    Weather Underground in Bloomberg (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    going google to know what this even is but whats with all the refrences to the chruch what are they hinting at I am not picking up on it?

    And is this old news or is it really something that has legs?


    This comment (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    takes a salient point, Obama will be subject to attacks, and utterly undermines it with BSs.

    there is also the fact that jackson jr (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST
    and now sharpton are making threats to democratic politicans and the dnc. jackson jr to politicans to change sides and sharpton threatens to march on the dnc if michigan and floria are seated.

    these items will eventually make it into the media if they keep this up and the end result will not be good for obama in the big states primaries coming up.


    Honorable People (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    wont be intimidated, but the new monies now flowing to the super delegates looks really sleazy.

    To you maybe not to me. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    It will be a non issue anyway, Clinton has her own set of sweeps coming up here shortly.

    Oh man (none / 0) (#71)
    by magisterludi on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM EST
    If this is true about Sharpton, that spells trouble for dems in the south. There's already an underground narrative that BHO would win the nomination more on the AA vote than any other. For better or worse, that makes a lot of white southern dems uneasy.

    not just the south! (none / 0) (#92)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    if this continues and grows in intensity, expect a backlash.

    analogies (none / 0) (#78)
    by dc2008 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    I read that post and the report it cited. It appeared to me that on the face at least Jackson's comments about primary challengers constituted a frank political analysis of a likely chain of events in a given set of circumstances, and probably a correct one. That likely chain of events may represent an unfortunate political and cultural dynamic, but nevertheless.

    The comments on that post filled up before I got a chance to join in. In my opinion, BTD's post about Jackson was precisely analogous to what he criticized in Josh Marshall's post about Hillary Clinton and the MSNBC letter. Some people think the letter was meant to imply that Shuster should be fired. Other people think it should be taken at face value, and that all she was saying was the MSNBC has some issues to work on. The same with Jackson's comment. If taken at face value, it does not constitute a threat, only constitutes a political analysis.

    In reality, none of us here actually knows what Hillary Clinton intended about Shuster (although the fact that in a interview question following up on it she declined to state directly that she wasn't saying he should be fired seems very suggestive to me), and none of us here actually knows what Jesse Jackson Jr. intended to mean by those comments. But if we're being asked to take Clinton's letter at literal face value -- if bloggers like Josh Marshall are actually being called LIARS for not doing so -- then the people asking that should also be willing to afford the same literality and benefit of the doubt when it goes the other way.

    I hope I don't get suspended for saying that -- WEAK!


    Bannings (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    The poster LittleDemWhoCould is banned poster Memekiller/Democratic Hotrodder. Posts under all three monikers have been deleted.

    DoordieDemocrat is banned for the day.

    If you need a place to vent your anger and make comments personal, this isn't it. It won't be tolerated, so don't bother. All your time spent typing will be for naught.

    All points of view are welcome here, but they must be expressed civilly and in line with our comments policy.

    Please no jinx.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST

    ARG (none / 0) (#5)
    by SpindleCityDem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:51:21 AM EST
    shows Obama ahead 48%-42% but that's not important.  

    do not post ARG polls here (4.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    For example, ARG has Clinton well ahead in Wisconsin.

    Not posted here because it is an vey unreliable polling outfit.

    Your insinuations are not welcome. Do it again and your comments will be deleted and you wll be suspended for the day.


    Here are (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    two posts by BTD citing ARG polls: here and here.

    I don't believe Obama's ahead in TX either.  But the idea of censoring rather than refuting implausible information or arguments, I do not get.


    If you think those post make m a hypocrite (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    so be it. I think the posts speak for themselvesd and how I used the ARG info - comparing it to prior ARG polls. One was in March 2007, one was in DEFENSE of Obama.

    None was to predict a result.

    But these types of insults will not be permitted.

    You are suspended for the day. Come back tomorrow.


    Run your own website (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    Your comment is dishonest as is your presntation of how I cited those polls, when and to what purpose.

    It actually proves my point. I do NOT use ARG to predict results.

    What was your intent in doing this research project?

    To insult me? Do you demand I post about the ARG Wisconsin poll?

    You are warned. do this again and you will be suspended.


    For the record (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by AF on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    I did not call you a hypocrite or biased.  I don't think you are.

    As I said, I don't for a minute believe the ARG poll, which appears to be a ridiculous outlier.  I agree with your decision to cite the Rasmussen poll and not the ARG poll.

    I did the research in response to your statement: "do not post ARG polls here."  I was curious whether that was in fact a policy of this website.  

    It does seem to me that you are quick to delete or threaten to delete information and arguments that you find implausible or annoying.  You are absolutely correct that that is your right and discretion, but I would hope it's at least permitted to question in a respectful manner your exercise of that right and discretion.

    This is all in the spirit of open and respectful debate and I meant no insult.


    i should hope that nobody uses ANY poll (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tano on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    to predict results.

    Polls are, always, a snapshot of the present, taken with a particular filter. No poll has any ability to predict the future.


    All Polls suck,... (none / 0) (#38)
    by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    as evidenced throughout the primary season. Your faith in Pro-Hillary polls are in the hopes that it will sway public opinion. This much like Hillary's campaign is your error.

    If any polls had been accurate Hillary and Guliani would have locked up the nomination.

    Why you continue to waste time publishing inaccurate polls rather than sway opinion by debating the issues is beyond me. This distinction is clearly why Obama is the better leader.


    You are suspended (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    Do not post anymore comments here today.

    Come back tomrrow.


    What is the difference? (none / 0) (#44)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Rasmussen hasn't been very good either.  According to http://www.surveyusa.com ARG median's deviation is 6.5 while Rasmussen's is 6.  

    For me the difference is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    ARG's errors hae been rather atrocious, while Rassmussen has missed when everone else did.

    ARG has stood alone with its pro-Clionton bias in its polling. Not intentional, just an appparent faw in the methodology.

    Rass has been po-Obma inits polling, but less o and in line with other. Not a Zogby for instance.

    ARG and Zogby are comparable to me.


    OK (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    It's somewhat difficult to pull historical information on the various polls without paying for a subscription service.  

    According to this post at MYdd ARG has been mostly pro-Clinton whereas Zogby has been unabashedly pro-Obama.

    I agree with you that methodologies certainly are affecting the results of the polling agencies.


    As a poller, (none / 0) (#94)
    by sas on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:39:55 PM EST
    go with Survey USA.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#49)
    by doordiedem0crat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    It's not just ARG (none / 0) (#77)
    by dc2008 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:57:39 PM EST
    POS has a smaller lead for Clinton over Obama, 49-41.

    Of course it's not over, but the picture when one looks at all of the data instead of just the one you mentioned is that the gap seems to be closing.

    Telling people not to post ARG polls is pretty weak in and of itself.  If the poll is unreliable, then pointing that out and letting sunshine be the disinfectant is obviously the way to go.  Trying to explain away your own past use of ARG polls is even weaker.

    Are you going to suspend me?  WEAK.


    Because of your last comment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
    which I deleted, you are suspended for the day.

    I am working overtime to maintain ciivlity at this blog. I simply can not tolerate any insults from anyone directed at anyone.

    Sorry that you are the victim of this zero tolerance policy, but it is necessary.

    Come back tomorrow.


    Polls (none / 0) (#6)
    by GV on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    The Texas Credit Union League has Clinton up by only 8 (with Obama closing) and projects that Obama will win the delegate count in Texas.  Because my home state has such weird primary rules, it would not surprise me if Clinton wins the popular vote, but loses the delegate vote.  

    This primary has disaster written all over it for the democrats.  A brokered convention looks inevitable.  It also looks like Obama is going to be up in the pledge delegate and popular vote tallies, but Clinton will be up in the total delegate tally.  What a mess.  

    I disagree wih most of your post (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    I do agree that this is a mess.

    average of 4 polls... (none / 0) (#9)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    ...SUSA Clinton +10, another with Clinton +8, Ras with Clinton +16, and ARG(h) with Obama +6...comes out to Clinton +7.  
    Two states on 2/19, two debates, and two weeks of ads, endorsements, ground game, rallies, speeches, media, etc. to go.  His chances of an upset in Texas appear to be better than in Ohio(where the polling range is from +14 to +21 for Clinton).  Wisconsin might impact that slightly, since their demographics skew more closely toward Ohio than toward Texas.  A win for Clinton might put Ohio in the bag for her, while a win for Obama might give him a little boost there.

    Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, West Virginia, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Mississippi, Wyoming, Puerto Rico and Guam have a total of 489 pledged delegates at stake, while Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania have 492.  I'll leave it to someone else to do the delegate math to figure out who has to win what by what percentage in order to win the most pledged delegates, and to a math genius to figure out what the turnout has to be where and what the percentage of vote has to be to figure out who has to win what where by how much in order to wind up winning the popular vote.  

    SUSA has a Texas poll? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    Do you have a link?

    No SUSA poll (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:01:44 AM EST
    that I could find.

    The Texas Credit Union is not a polling outfit I have heard of . . .

    ARG is terrible.

    To me there is one recent Texas poll, this one.


    SUSA hasn't polled TX in ages (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    I think they lost their contract in the state, or something. They also only poll PA infrequently.

    my bad, it was an IVR poll... (none / 0) (#17)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    ...from 1/30-31.  Clinton 48, Obama 38.

    I'd accept this Ras poll as a baseline for where the campaigns respectively start the race in TX.

    He's got his work cut out for him, but I like +16 better than +25. ;)


    Ancient history (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:09:31 AM EST
    Unless someone wants to make a ridiculous argument like "Clinton widens lead!"

    Ramussen also (none / 0) (#22)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    Has Obama polling over Clinton nationally by a double digit lead.

    Yep (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    When you see a post from me on national polling, you can call me a hypocrite for not posting about it.

    I didn't post it to call you a hypocrite (none / 0) (#36)
    by jdj on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:29:53 AM EST
    I just saw that poll when looking for the one mentioned here. Sorry if posting suggested otherwise. Not my intention.

    I think the key might actually be... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mike in dc on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    ...one of the two of them suddenly going over the 50% threshold in most national polls.  Wouldn't that be an additional indicator of what the current preferences of Democrats are?

    I mean, in theory you could have candidate A roll up a big number of votes in early primaries, and candidate B come on strong(and lead in pledged delegates) as the campaign goes on, with the larger electorate of "likely general election Democratic voters" swinging heavily behind candidate B, even though, on paper, candidate A won more total votes in the primary.  

    In other words, if national polling consistently suggests(leading up to the convention) a strong preference for one candidate over the other when the primaries are all over and done with, wouldn't that matter as well as who has more pledged delegates and who won the popular vote?


    A key to what? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:26:04 AM EST
    Superdelegates? Perhaps.

    At th end of all of this, that is a data point in any event.


    Not true, its 8 (none / 0) (#55)
    by Salt on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    Blinded by the light I know... and Gallop has a spread of one, wait until she sweeps the big States polls are meaningless for now, me I am not worried dont pick out the drapes just yet.

    i kept looking for the fat lady, (none / 0) (#24)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    but couldn't find her. guess she's still backstage, waiting in the green room.

    why should either of them drop out, it's still up for grabs?

    i can vote for either come the GE. i would vote for sen. clinton with a tad more enthusiasm than sen. obama though. are either perfect? nope, they both suffer from "feet of clay" syndrome, but either would be a massive improvement over what we have now, and what we'd get with a mccain presidency.

    my big concerns with sen. obama are:

    1. lack of substantive experience.
    2. lack of the kind of massive vetting that occurs during the GE, and what the right-wing smear machine will do with it. i honestly don't think he's hardened enough to withstand it.
    3. my doubts that the youngsters who support him during primary & caucus season will vote in the GE in the same numbers; will the excitement die by nov?
    4. african americans are only 11-12% of the total population, can he get them all to come out in nov?

    oh well, i guess we'll see where this goes.

    Here's some the recent TX (none / 0) (#67)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    polls complied together.

    I know that Hillary perfomed better than expected in MA and CA, but both those states were still collapses from where she had been 3 weeks prior.  Has there been a state that she has truly expanded her numbers in?

    You wre asked to abide by a suspension (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:33:53 PM EST
    today. you chose not to.

    I have asked that you be banned Little Dem.

    All of your comments will be deleted.

    you are not wlecome here anymore.

    You may be letting your emotions (none / 0) (#74)
    by cannondaddy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    get the best of you with these bannings.  I may have missed a post but I didn't see him get that out line.

    I deleted them all (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    It turns out it was a banned troll.

    Perhaps you will trust my judgment on this now.


    Perhaps These Polls (none / 0) (#70)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:40:02 PM EST
    Are why there's what appears to be a frenzy of pressure coming out of the Obama campaign to try to get the Super Delegates to SWITCH NOW!  Honestly, for a guy who is the frontrunner now and who has had an amazing couple of weeks, why the sudden big push to have this election over?  Doesn't he have momentum?  Won't he be in a stronger place to make this argument after he sweeps to victory on March 4th?

    If I were a Super Delegate I wouldn't be making any final decisions now.  I'd be in serious wait and see mode.  Obama's been on a heckuva win streak.  The polls, like this one, show Clinton could be about to stage a comeback, but they are just polls so Obama could also put it away.

    So I'd be waiting to let more voters vote, which I suspect is exactly what the majority of them will do.  And, if so, good for them.

    If you (none / 0) (#73)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    were running the Obama campaign I'd imagine you would do anything in your power to end the primary as soon as possible.

    The Obama campaign has the momentum.  Why wait until March 4th and risk losing that momentum if you can avoid it?

    The one thing that Obama's campaign wants to do is maintain the narrative and momentum.  Every superdelegate that they can get to switch sides builds upon that.


    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    But I think they are trying a bit too hard or appear to be.  This has the capacity to backfire in their face big time.  What they need here is a stiletto, not a shotgun.

    If they dialed it back a bit, I think it would be a lot more effective.  I was worried about it a couple of days ago because I thought they were playing it beautifully.  Now, to me anyway, it's starting to look like they are over-playing their hand.  And if that continues instead of making Obama look like he's riding a surge of momentum, it's going to make him look desperate, like he's trying to beat the crash.  And for what?  Clinton isn't going anywhere until after March 4 and he's not going to get enough Super Delegates to seal the deal before then.  And any SDs who do switch because of his momentum, are fair game to switch back if Clinton regains it.  

    So I totally think pressing the SDs and raising the issue makes sense for him and is smart politics, but I can't help but wonder if his campaign isn't in danger of overplaying the issue.  I can tell you as a Clinton supporter, I feel better about her chances today than I've felt in a couple of weeks - the polls, the over-the-top rhetoric from the Obama camapaign - all make me think that this thing is far from over.


    Truth be told (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    I think the least likely SDs to flip are the ones that have already flipped.  You can only walk down the road to Damascus once.

    Likewise, I imagine the Clinton Campaign (none / 0) (#75)
    by katiebird on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    Likewise, I imagine the Clinton Campaign is doing everything they can to encourage the idea of "Not Making any Sudden Moves" --  unless, perhaps to support Hillary :)

    I know there's a broad sense that it's "all over" for Clinton -- but I don't feel it yet.  Obviously she isn't in the best position.  But it's too close to call -- there are still some big precincts that haven't reported.

    If I was a SuperDelegate, I'd be waiting for more returns.


    I agree (none / 0) (#80)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    both campaigns are jockeying for position right now.

    I'd imagine there is a lot of horse trading going on right now with the Superdelegates. Obama is likely telling superdelegates that their support is worth more now than next month and as such they will get more from him if they support him now.

    Not sure how much impact those offers have but it might be pulling a couple of SDs.


    Remember (none / 0) (#83)
    by athyrio on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    No matter who the nominee is, Karl has a dossier on him/her. Obama might be the media darling, but Karl has other ways to get the news out....Sadly...

    Obama leading in Texas (none / 0) (#90)
    by Aaron on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:05:45 PM EST
    February 15, 2008 - Texas Primary Preferences American Research Group

    Obama 48%

    Clinton 42%

    Yes, in this one poll (none / 0) (#91)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:37:33 PM EST
    All others show Sen Clinton in lead, various numbers.

    is that the "ARG" poll that BTD (none / 0) (#93)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    was talking about earlier, the one with nominal reliability?

    the "clinton is finished" story is being pushed by the media and (big surprise here!) the obama camp. from where i sit, it's the beginning of the 4th quarter, and she has the ball.