Ohio: Now A Contest Too

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:57:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

A new Survey USA poll:

Two Weeks to Must-Win Ohio, Clinton 9 Points Atop Obama: In a Democratic Primary for President of the United States in Ohio today, 2/16/08, two weeks till the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama, 52% to 43%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for WHIO-TV Dayton. But her lead has narrowed. Just one week ago, Clinton held a 17 point lead at 56% to 39%.

This is more good news for the Democratic Party. Like Texas, this means the nomination can be won by Obama by winning a big contested state, leaving no doubt who "the people" have chosen. If Obama can win neither, he can still win Pennsylvania in April and claim "the people's" mantle. If he wins none, well, we have to decide this somehow. My preference remains for the popular vote winner. Internals of the poll on the flip.

In our latest poll, Clinton leads by 35 points among seniors, by 30 points in greater Columbus, by 28 points among women, by 21 points among whites, by 21 points among voters focused on the Economy, and by 17 points among registered Democrats. Obama leads by by 48 points among blacks, by 20 points among the youngest voters, and by 16 points among men. . . .

Obama wins African Americans, men and Republicans and Independents. The key, as always is turnout. We'll see what happens.

< Hillary Raises $15 Million in 15 Days | Why The Big States Matter >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Ohio: Now A Contest Too | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Survey USA (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Steve M on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 01:59:29 PM EST

is the gold standard this election season.

: It's always been my favorite (none / 0) (#62)
by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:18:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Pollster dot com (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:03:37 PM EST

Is a great place to follow all the polls, along with weighted trend lines.

See here for Texas, and here for Ohio.

Fascinating. Will the trends continue or change. If continue, is there enough time for Obama to catch up? What will the effect of Wisconsin be: will it speed up the convergence (if Obama wins), or will it be the beginning of a turnaround (if Clinton wins or comes pretty close).

(Message to much of America: why bother watching reality shows -- this is a real reality show, and one that actually matters)

: Pollster's graphs are better than RealClear's (none / 0) (#7)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST

Realclear sometimes has more info.

[ Parent ]

plzzz (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by demschmem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EST

you're slipping into your pre-nh/pre-st hopefulness.

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM EST

Yes the result in California and Massachusetts and New Jersey proved that too.

Sheesh.

Sure (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:02 PM EST

But look at the LAST WEEK of polling when the campaigning was intense.

Obama lost worse than expected.

Spin that awaay.

[ Parent ]

: What are YOU talking about? (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:50:03 PM EST

Please read the post where I discuss polls one down I think.
you simply are wrong on the facts.
I get the impression the facts do not matter much to you.

[ Parent ]

Low Information Voters & Demographics... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST

Heh... I could have sworn I posted that the polls were going to tighten a week ago, only to get mocked roundly by everyone here.

"I don't but the know him is to love him argument"

I even pointed out that, most people just aren't following the election that closely, and the exits are clearly showing that Hillary is winning low-information voters. But apparently people here don't listen to reason.

Anyway, some more bad/neutral news for Hillary -- although she closed the gap in gallup -- her core constituencies are defecting -- Hillary went from +31% with hispanics to +4%. That can't be a good sign for texas. Middle aged women gap is also closing.

To be even clearer.... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST

3 Arguments why Hillary is in trouble in Texas...

(1) Clear trend in Texas polls that, hillary's gap is shrinking

(2) Nationally, hillary's lead with hispanics has plummeted from +31% --> +4%

(3) Still two weeks to campaign, Obama, almost always does better when he gets to visit the state.

Hillary might win Texas, but, its hard to imagine this state constituting a "firewall", when she is going to have to fight hard as hell to keep it.

[ Parent ]

I do laugh at the Latino poll (none / 0) (#47)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:27 PM EST

showing. that is simply not believable.

[ Parent ]

: by itself... (none / 0) (#69)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:44:08 PM EST

.. it might not be believable,
but with the texas gap closing -- Obama could be closing with hispanics.
There really is no strong reason for hispanics to support one candidate over the other. Especially not by the margin they have been giving to Hillary.

[ Parent ]

If Obama wins Ohio and Texas... (5.00 / 0) (#63)
by mike in dc on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:20:24 PM EST

...I would hope that, not only would the nomination race be over, but that there might be at least be one day, a week later, where people here find mostly nice things to say about the Democratic nominee.

: Don't count on it. (none / 0) (#79)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:34:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Good news for Obama (3.66 / 3) (#2)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST

Not for the Democratic party maybe.

This is beyond irritating: (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM EST

This is more good news for the Democratic Party.

Formerly tepid Obama supporter becomes Obama cheerleader in chief.

[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#8)
by coigue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST

that's nothing.

[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST

Now I get it from both sides.

[ Parent ]

Pent up ranting (none / 0) (#23)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST

that is all.

[ Parent ]

Stellaa, are you in favor (none / 0) (#33)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST

of the Dems. somehow resolving who the candidate will be before the convention, even though neither candidate yet has the magic no. of delegates?

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#50)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM EST

But I am in favor of the following.

If no clear winner apply the Vatican solution. Lock up the candidates, the SDs, Dean and Brazille. They cannot come out without a solution that will win the election. If we lose in November, we will organize a recall of Hillary and Obama and fire everyone who works for the Democratic party. When they have the solution, they will puff up smoke.

[ Parent ]

I don't like your plan either. I (none / 0) (#52)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:02:48 PM EST

want to know what happened and why. Too much like SCOTUS deciding 2000 to me.

[ Parent ]

I like my punishment (none / 0) (#54)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:04:55 PM EST

We should recall whoever the nominee is and does not win.

[ Parent ]

I'd certainly can the DNC, but (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST

do we get the opport. to can HRC and Obama?

[ Parent ]

Recall (none / 0) (#58)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: But will be have to register in IL and NY? (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]

And aligning with spin from Newt Gingrich? (none / 0) (#26)
by cymro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST

Wall Street Journal (2/15/08):

Democrats are headed for a trainwreck in campaign '08 that threatens to produce a tainted Democratic presidential nominee and, worse, a divisive and delegitimized presidential contest.

When BTD and Newt are on the same side of an argument about the future of the Democratic Party, something is wrong.

[ Parent ]

Polls not really accurate.... (none / 0) (#12)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST

You have to take into account the Republicans who don't want McCain to have to go up against Hillary, the more experienced one. Hillary would cream McCain on foreign policy, economy, and so many others issues.

from www.hinessight.com

Conservatives' plan: Love
Obama -- until Hillary is defeated

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Uh oh. It's starting to leak out too early. It's not time yet. Commentators have started to notice a few things about Barack Obama, and there are things that kind of give you the creeps."

>> Republicans continue to crossover to vote against Hillary

[ Parent ]

Democratic party can't afford the wrong candidate (3.00 / 2) (#5)
by LadyDiofCT on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST

As I watch the democratic party decide against the best candidate vs the show candidate, taking the white house in 2009 gets further from reality every day. The far left anti war crowd have chosen their idealoge and I fear a loss of the centrists in the GE. Barack (and Michelle) Obama are not ready for prime time, not in the GE at this point in time.

Michelle (none / 0) (#15)
by mouth of the south on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:21:31 PM EST

I believe that Michelle Obama has been a more positive influence for her husband than Bill Clinton has been for Hillary. He has almost single handedly sunk her campaign.

[ Parent ]

: GOP loves this one... (none / 0) (#35)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:38:53 PM EST

Michelle Obama says she wasn't proud of her country -- until now
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," Michelle Obama said in a major gaffe. The reaction so far is coming mostly from conservatives.

[ Parent ]

Old Republican talking point! (none / 0) (#57)
by LadyDiofCT on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:12:59 PM EST

Old Republican talking point out of same old republican talking heads. These stories are really old and tired! Everything is already out in the open and known about Hillary. Most voters have heard all they want to hear about those issues. Centrists are not keen on anti-war rhetoric and many believe we should have gone into Iraq (I never did). I think Hillary's hawkish stance is good in the GE. I think she can win women, independents and even some republicans. I don't think centrist and independent men will be voting Obama over McCain, just my humble opinion. The anti Hillary crowd are the same old faces and will still be around, but I believe she just might be the best all around candidate against McCain. She runs rings around him on policy. The far left imho is setting itself up for the same failures of 2000 and 2004.

[ Parent ]

BO illegally spent 1.3M & couldn't beat HC (1.00 / 1) (#39)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:44:06 PM EST

Obama spent
$1.3 million in Florida

Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida -- more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

is this 1.3 million (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST

on the cable ads that ran nationally? Or on just florida itself?

[ Parent ]

$1.3M spent in FLORIDA (1.00 / 1) (#42)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:53:01 PM EST

Obama ran TV ads continuously. Hillary did not.
Hillary beat Obama anyway. She deserves FL. Especially if he is given SC. Rules are rules.

[ Parent ]

: Obama spent $1.3M in FLORIDA, only (none / 0) (#61)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:16:46 PM EST

From the Center for Responsive Politics...
Hillary Clinton and Obama each spent about $130,000 in Michigan while Obama spent $1.3 million in Florida--more than any other Democratic candidate and more than eight Republican candidates, who were eligible to win delegates from the state.

[ Parent ]
: No its is 1.3 millin he (none / 0) (#68)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST

spent on florida based vendors. This has been debunked. MYDD was shilling as usual.

[ Parent ]

Could you please provide (none / 0) (#84)
by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:56:13 PM EST

some proof for your assertion that Obama did anything illegal?

That comment is wrong on some many levels I don't know where to begin.

If you are going to pull a single snippet and spin it at least get your facts straight.

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#91)
by Alien Abductee on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST

From comments on this MyDD diary:

All the campaign's AmEx bills -- all of them -- were paid to a Florida address....
I can't repost the entire spreadsheet; it's huge. Download it here, chop off the contributions and you can filter to the expenditures. It's a mammoth amount of AmEx bills paid to PO Box 360001, Ft. Lauderdale FL 33336-0001, some hotel stays in Florida, and salary for Ashley Walker and Jessica Clark, who handled Obama's FL fundraising. (Which, of course, was totally okay under the agreement. All the candidates raised money in the state.)

The FEC filing says it's AmEx bills and fundraiser expenses. Not advertising in Florida. It covers previous campaign expenses paid to the credit card company at their Florida address - Milwaukee rental cars, New Hampshire hotel rooms, catering in New York, etc. etc.

[ Parent ]

Boys and Girls or Men and Women (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by lily15 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:27:40 PM EST

You can spin this anyway you choose...but one truth is self evident...Obama will never win the general election. Either Democrats come to terms with this reality or be prepared to face devastation in the general. No polls to consider...no lofty analysis. This is about common sense. Obama does not have the qualifications to run and does not capture the constituency to win. The primaries and caucuses that allow independents and Republicans are relatively meaningless. And the Republicans have not even begun to define Obama.

We will either have a party of adults..cold eyed and realistic, men and women.....or a party of children, naive boys and girls led happily over the cliff in their group think.

WE have been given sufficient evidence of our downfall. The folly of any Obama authenticity has been exposed...and Mrs. Obama's self narrative drives the nail deeper. We don't have two equally good candidates. And no intellectual acrbatics will make it so. Either fight back now or prepare to go down in flames...and not just an Obama candidacy...but the Democratic party...a party devoid of much leadership..though much talent.

: wow! (none / 0) (#67)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:30:51 PM EST

You can spin this anyway you choose...but one truth is self evident...Obama will never win the general election.

That's some powerful crystal ball you have!

[ Parent ]
: right and (none / 0) (#70)
by Jgarza on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST

the Obama supporters are cult like?
All the evidence points against what i'm saying, but it must be true!!!!!!

[ Parent ]
: Exactly. And saying "I told you so" ... (none / 0) (#82)
by cymro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:49:57 PM EST

won't be any comfort either. Frustrating isn't it.
But I'm still hopeful that Hillary can win the nomination.

[ Parent ]

That's another irritant. OSU students. (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:19:42 PM EST

Talk about low information voters!

Do you consider standing in a crowd of (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:20:42 PM EST

10,000 a chance to "meet" Obama?

: Ha. Surely you will concede both (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST

candidates are wooing the Super Ds? And Obama campaign has pushed more money to them. Plus Jesse Jackson Jr. is publicly threatening them.

[ Parent ]
: Not exactly the postmodern candidate (none / 0) (#74)
by lilburro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:11:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Maybe this is OT (none / 0) (#17)
by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:22:17 PM EST

It appears that Obama should win these states not so much because one believes he's the best candidate, most capable of doing a good job, but because, at this point, it solves a contentious election.

I'm sure I missed it.

Has TOS (Tepid Obama Supporter) ever made a logic proper case for Obama? Preferrably without having to say "he's not.....".

Sentences starting like "I support Obama because he is," etc. etc. etc.

How does TOS define Obama in the positive and how does TOS project an Obama Administration as favorable or not? Upon leaving office, 4 or 8 year laters, what would one expect him to have in terms of a job approval rating as such?

Thanks. I'm waiting for that also. (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:53 PM EST

: It's Telling (none / 0) (#89)
by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:01:00 PM EST

That there is no response to the question I have asked.

[ Parent ]

"Tepid Obama Supporter" is an Oxymoron, (none / 0) (#83)
by cymro on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:56:03 PM EST

... isn't it?

[ Parent ]

: Not for BTD (none / 0) (#88)
by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 06:49:57 PM EST

BTD is TOS.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:22:24 PM EST

If there is a split between pledged delegates and the [popular vote, I think Lukasiak's measure is a very good tiebreaker.

: This one I support. (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:39:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: You mean the one (none / 0) (#85)
by flyerhawk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:00:08 PM EST

that didn't count any of the caucus results at all?
How is that accurate? It doesn't matter if determine vote totals is hard for caucuses. Simply discarding them is hardly the way to go.

[ Parent ]

It's a low point (none / 0) (#20)
by Edgar08 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST

Criticizing someone for asking that votes be counted.

Chorus: Obama sd. FL should count, (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:34:45 PM EST

then changed his mind.

[ Parent ]

: Link in many, many posts in past here (none / 0) (#76)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST

to him saying so in Florida, last September. Perhaps that can help you search here or google to find it.

[ Parent ]

BO gets SC & HC should get FL (none / 0) (#41)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:49:45 PM EST

Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as ,"no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February" (Iowa), "no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February" (New Hampshire), and "no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February" (South Carolina).

Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.

The fact is that "the rules of the game" were changed to continue to give Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina preferential treatment in the Democratic Party's presidential nomination process.

Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, all violated Rule 11.A., but only Florida and Michigan were punished for it.

If you're going to enforce the rules, then the rules need to be applied equally and fairly.

[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#22)
by NJDem on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:24:22 PM EST

HRC won CA and NJ by double digits, so I don't know if that's considered a small deficit.

Also, I read that the primaries in TX (and possibly OH) fall during Spring Break. Does anyone know if this is true? I can see that having an effect on the college vote, no?

Several people here have stated the TX (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:25:46 PM EST

contest is during spring break.

[ Parent ]

Looking at the Gallup numbers for hispanics... (none / 0) (#32)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:36:00 PM EST

... if CA and NJ were held today, she would lose.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST

which shows the Gallup polling on this is ludicrous.

[ Parent ]

If 2004's election was today (none / 0) (#78)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST

Bush would lose, too. So?

[ Parent ]

: the difference is... (none / 0) (#87)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST

... Bush had Katrina and Iraq is now a clear disaster (where in '04 it was murky for the MSM).
All that's happened since super-tuesday is, people are becoming more and more familiar with obama.

[ Parent ]

Democrats are giving another one to the GOP (none / 0) (#46)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 02:56:41 PM EST

GOP is having their people vote for Obama to get Hillary out.

GOP will destroy Obama. McCain will destroy Obama.

Obama may be charming, but he has no experience, McCain does. Hillary does.

This is not a popularity contest. This is serious.

... and the counter argument is: (none / 0) (#59)
by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST

Clinton may be charming, but she has high negatives. McCain doesn't. Obama doesn't.

I don't understand how anybody doesn't think this is a close call. Obama's inexperience vs Hillary's negatives and alleged ability to galvanize the GOP. I think reasonably minds can differ.

Obviously, lots of people differ with me on that ;)

[ Parent ]

Negatives (none / 0) (#64)
by john5750 on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:22:25 PM EST

Obama will have plenty of Negatives when the GOP and the SwiftBoaters are done with him. You can bet on that. Rezko and Exelon are just warm-ups.

[ Parent ]

Obama, Clinton tied for negatives (none / 0) (#77)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST

Actually, she does a bit better, but close enough to call it a tie. See pollster.com for analyses. Of course, feel free to post your source.

[ Parent ]

Got a link? (none / 0) (#81)
by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 04:44:43 PM EST

Couldn't find candidates' negatives on pollster. Is this among Democratic primary voters or the general electorate?

[ Parent ]

Here's one in recent weeks (none / 0) (#86)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST

that was on there in January from Rasmussen Reports, which found that "Among Democrats, Clinton is viewed favorably by 80% of Democratic voters, Edwards by 66%, and Obama by 61%." (Sorry, borrowed computer isn't letting me do links well -- maybe googling that phrase will bring it up on pollster.com or the Rasmussen site for you.)

[ Parent ]

: Thanks (none / 0) (#90)
by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 07:36:03 PM EST

But that's among Democrats.

[ Parent ]

Different vibes (none / 0) (#72)
by 1jane on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST

The Latino causus in the county where I live has endorsed Obama. The state I live in already has one Congressman who endorsed Obama. That man is creating Obama operations around the state. My state votes 3 months from now. A big Obama launch is planned after March 4th.