home

Q-Poll OH: Clinton Up 11; ARG Clinton Up By 10.

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Bump and Update (TL): ARG Ohio poll out today has Clinton 49% and Obama 39%.
In Ohio, Obama leads among men 49% to 37% (46% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads among women 59% to 31%. Clinton leads among white voters 56% to 31% (82% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads among African American voters 79% to 15% (16% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among voters age 18 to 49 (61% of likely Democratic primary voters), it is Clinton 43% and Obama 42%. Among voters age 50 years and older, Clinton leads 58% to 34%.

***

By Big Tent Democrat

While Hillary Clinton's lead in Ohio is smaller than it was, it remains a double digit lead according to the latest Quinnipiac poll:

Clinton 51 (55)
Obama 40 (34)

Inside the numbers:

More...

College-educated voters back Sen. Obama 58 - 33 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Clinton lead with these voters February 14. . . . Sen. Clinton's large margins among women, 53 - 36 percent; older voters, whites and those without a college education keep her out front.

This is the old demographic math. So far Obama has not rebuilt his Wisconsin coalition. While 11 points is closer than 21, Obama's inroads are not in Clinton's coaliton, as it was in Wisconsin. Clinton looks poised to win Ohio pretty comfortably.

Update (TL): Comments now closed

< The Return Of The Theory Of Change Debate | Hillary Still Gaining Ohio Endorsements >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Q-Poll OH: Clinton Up 11; ARG Clinton Up By 10. | 215 comments (215 topical)
    Wisconsin coalition (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    could very well have been due to the fact that it neighbors Illinois.  I think Obama would most certainly have a "home team advantage".

    (and it's no fair that you closed the Muslim garb thread before I could post there ;-).

    Overlapping media markets also meant (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:51:01 PM EST
    that many Wisconsinites already had seen his ads and campaign for months from Iowa, Michigan (not ads but flyers and other activity there), and Minnesota as well as Illinois -- even before the barrage of ads in Wisconsin, outspending on ads five to one. (And most of that ad budget went to one media monopoly, btw, with two radio stations and a tv stations as well as the largest newspaper in the state . . . which just happened to endorse him. It also is a conservative paper. Its radio station also is the home of the worst and most popular conservative squawkers, also with the worst and most popular conservative blogs. Put it all together. . . .)

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, there's nearly no overlap (none / 0) (#178)
    by Rorgg on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:21:51 PM EST
    in media between Wisconsin and Illinois.  I'm about a 15 minute drive from the border here.  If you're close to Lake Michigan and on the Illinois side, you get Chicago stations.  If you're on the Wisconsin side, you get Milwaukee stations, the border's pretty close to right in between.  There are a couple high-powered radio stations from Chicago that carry a ways, but they tend not to be terribly political.

    If you go west a ways, the next market west on the Illinois side is Rockford, which is due south of Madison, WI and again, the media splits along the border.

    There was some spillover of manpower from Illinois into southern Wisconsin to help with GOTV operations, but the media markets really are split right along the state line.

    If it gets down to it, you'll see more spillover in Indiana, where the Chicago market includes a good chunk of Northwest Indiana.

    [ Parent ]

    You're neglecting cable and print media (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    as a lot of us get the Chi Trib here -- I'm also talking about the impact of print media coverage -- and we get some Chicago tv, too. And I was in the Rockford/Beloit/Janesville area just before the primary and got a lot of Illinois tv on cable there, so I imagine it was on the air before Super Tuesday. Ditto re Minnesota media when I'm in La Crosse, Eau Claire; ditto re Michigan media when I'm up that way. But if you don't, well, there may be some of those "low information" pockets of voters there -- or maybe we get more cable stations in motels.

    [ Parent ]
    Btw, another Ohio vs. Wisconsin stat (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    from another site, pollster.com, is that Ohio actually is a little less industrial than Wisconsin -- possibly relevant re NAFTA and re unions taking sides (although in neither state are unions what they were before the Reagan/Bush Rules).

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't Ohio less "industrial" because (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    the steel mills closed down?

    [ Parent ]
    Closed plants across upper Midwest (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    so I don't know that it's worse in Ohio or Wisconsin. It is awful in Wisconsin, which also has a significant segment dependent upon the auto industry. (So the worst, of course, is Michigan.) The Rustbelt -- which includes Ohio -- was recovering under Bill Clinton, but that has reversed with serious repercussions since. (So it isn't because of NAFTA; it is far more complex than that.)

    [ Parent ]
    New Poll Information (none / 0) (#98)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:51:54 PM EST
    The NYT/CNN Poll just released today:

    54% want to see Obama nominated for president.
    38% want to see Clinton nominated for president.

    Details of the poll on the NYT website.

    Many polls show Obama winning over McCain.
    Many polls show Clinton losing to McCain.

    Trending Obama across the county continues.

    [ Parent ]

    hillary only needs to win primaries against BO (none / 0) (#110)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:04:25 PM EST
    not the general, so who cares what national says?

    [ Parent ]
    Double Digit Lead in todays Gallop Poll (none / 0) (#141)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:33:32 PM EST
    Not only does Obama now hold a double digit lead over Clinton in the newest Gallop Poll released, Obama also sweeps all the major Texas newspaper endorsements.

    [ Parent ]
    Not new, ljane, but now that we've got you (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:37:45 PM EST
    here again, could you give us (spelling the poll correctly) the second paragraph of the memo? Then read downthread for more on your poll, already posted. Then, since you like to talk about polls and all, see more about same outfit's more reliable same-day tracking poll, maybe see pollster.com -- yes! another source -- for the discussion of the great divergence between this outfit's polls today, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Except (none / 0) (#145)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
    that  all those  newspapers   he  mentioned  are  conservative  newspapers  who  endorsed   George  W.  Bush.   In  the  general,   they'll  endorse   John McCain.    Trust  me.  I'm  a  Texan.

    [ Parent ]
    Except (none / 0) (#146)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    that  all those  newspapers   he  mentioned  are  conservative  newspapers  who  endorsed   George  W.  Bush.   In  the  general,   they'll  endorse   John McCain.    Trust  me.  I'm  a  Texan.

    [ Parent ]
    Newsweek's Jonathan Alter says she (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    should get out now and endorse Obama. It's in their new edition. I don't think she'll win but she owes to people who have voted for her to stay in until March 4. Nasty article in some places.

    She is leading in Ohio at this point.

    Too (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    interesting.  The MSM has Obama closing in on her rapidly!

    Jonathan Alter needs to get a grip.  Where in the Constitution does it say that small potatoes journalists get to decide who's in an election race?  I have never cared for him.

    [ Parent ]

    1st amendment (none / 0) (#135)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:30:56 PM EST
    it allows everyone to express their opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#157)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:47:36 PM EST
    no matter how stupid, we let everyone speak. We get to call them on their stupid comments, but everyone can speak.

    That is exactly what annoys me about people calling for her to leave the race.  Let the people speak with their votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Lousy journalism is protected (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:14:42 PM EST
    by the First Amendment, yes, Tano. So what? The poster did not suggest censorship.

    [ Parent ]
    right (none / 0) (#189)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    love you comment re Jonathan Alter.

    Also Novak today wants to know who will tell Hillary to get out.

    Some Obama people are saying she should concede too.  

    Oh yeah, right before March 4.  Maybe they really think she'll do ok on March 4.

    Polls have her well ahead in Rhode Islane, but well behind in Vermont, up a few in Texas, and up around 11 in Ohio.

    Will be interesting.........

    [ Parent ]

    When Bill Clinton was president (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:11:07 PM EST
    Jonathan Alter hated him so badly I thought he must be Republican.  He isn't.

    But I presume that he still hates Clinton(s).

    [ Parent ]

    The MSM (none / 0) (#120)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    is hammering the Obama Garb nonsense, accusing the Clinton campaign of circulating the photo.  I knew they'd do something to crucify her for answering back to the mailers.  Obama got on the radio in San Antonio and said it was the worst example of fear-mongering he'd ever seen and the Clinton camp should be ashamed.  Guess this is the Chicago Smackdown.  Don't have ideas, you're getting outpolled, then trash your candidate with lies.  

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama said that (none / 0) (#128)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    he missed another opportunity to work on uniting the party.

    [ Parent ]
    Although I'm supporting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    I do think she needs to finish what she started and stay in the race until March 4th. The voters have been promised a chance to weigh in, and they deserve a real election. Also it helps Democrats, by giving the candidates a chance to campaign and build organizations in those states.

    [ Parent ]
    People, she is NOT considering getting out (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    enough of this nonsense, she is not going to go anywhere PERIOD before March 4th and she doesn't even need our encouragement to do so.  Bill's comments on Texas and Ohio were to get people off their butts as well.  Only Hillary should decide when she's ready to get out, no one's asking Huckabee to get out.

    [ Parent ]
    And Clinton is not reading TL (none / 0) (#130)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:28:20 PM EST
    so please take that c**p to another blog where it will get lots of gotchas and they love that stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    I suspect  Jonathan Alter  wants  to get invited  to    Markos  and  Marshall's  next   cocktail party.     Sheesh

    [ Parent ]
    I live in (none / 0) (#192)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:45:16 PM EST
    PA and want her to stay 'til 4/22.

    He's not that popular here. Of course , next to Fla, I hear we are the most "Senior" population in the nation. Lots of PA people like Clinton.


    [ Parent ]

    WTF: OB fans/MSM trust Drudge, blame HRC for smear (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:39:41 PM EST
    A short while ago -- use salad-making as the unit of time here -- Jack Cafferty castigated Team Clinton for not denying a Drudge published smear when it appeared at sunrise ... as if it's her fault more than that paragon of truthfulness and non-partisan objectivity, Matt Drudge.

    Team Obama, in total keeping with their avowed platform to change the tone of politics, helpfully megaphoned this alleged Clinton-generated "smear" of circulating a photo that's been public for years.

    Candy Crowley then appeared on Lou Dobbs' reality show ("Watch my Long Painful Descent Into Barely Comprehensible Sputtering Madness") to propagate the CW that Team Clinton released this "damaging" public photo ... as if OB in heritage garb is any more damaging than Team Obama using his half-Kenyan heritage or foreign schooling as a plus.

    (Still baffled by how Team Obama can conjure indignation over this. Neutral references to race, gender, religion aren't in themselves slur. Note: as a humanist and liberal, I don't think any cultural, gender, or religious attribute which accurately and objectively describes a person is elementally, innately malicious.)

    [ Parent ]

    No denial (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:54:55 PM EST
    The Clinton campaign has issued no denial regarding releasing the extraordinay racist photo of Obama in Kenyan native garb.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, they have actually (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    They said no, then they asked why Drudge was being believed, and why didn't the reporters on the line actually do some research, and that the Clinton campaign shouldn't be expected to interview 700 people on staff.

    Basically, he asked them why they were trusting Drudge and not doing their jobs.

    Fair question.

    You can read a transcript of the call at Taylor Marsh.

    [ Parent ]

    Taylor Marsh has a transcript? (none / 0) (#214)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    I couldn't find it there Kathy.  :(

    This is the most comprehensive account of the call I've found on the internet, at news.com.au.  

    Today's Clinton News Cycle:  In Sum

    "Asked if Senator Clinton's aides had circulated the picture, campaign communications chief Howard Wolfson said: 'No, not to my knowledge. Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it.

    'If you have any original reporting that the Clinton campaign circulated this picture, let me know. I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone here has.'"

    What an absurd 24 hours it's been.  I really hope this is not part of the debate on Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]

    That photo (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    was racist?

    Honestly, what is there to be outraged about?  

    I don't get it - he visited the land, put on the outfit, BIG DEAL!

    Methinks thou doth protest too much, Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    1jane, you keep clogging it here (3.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    with tired old stuff, news a cycle ago -- you must not be on the priority list for updates from headquarters, huh?

    [ Parent ]
    It's sort of a drive-by unifying thing :-) (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:33:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    really, Drudge? (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:09:24 PM EST
    They are acting like adults and good campaigners, until Drudge gives a source they cannot be CERTAIN some staffer (idiot) didn't send it out.  PLUS, it is not a big deal!!!! He is wearing the local dress to be respectful, PLUS this picture has been around for a while

    [ Parent ]
    The photo isn't racist (none / 0) (#131)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:29:15 PM EST
    Think about it.  Why would Obama allow someone to take a racist photo of himself?

    Also the Clinton campaign did not release it.  It has been in circulation since 2006 and was on a tabloid this weekend.

    [ Parent ]

    What was so racist about the photo?!?! (none / 0) (#138)
    by MarkL on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Or denied charges that she put out a hit on a CAT (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:04 PM EST
    ... therefore (by that logic) she's guilty of that, too. And I don't mean merely guilty. Based on the new Clinton rule of not personally, immediately denying every Obama-ward smear ...

    "Your Honor, we find the defendants incredibly guilty!" [/Jufy foreman in orig. Mel Brooks' The Producers]

    (Let's do the Right Wing Rethuggernaut's job for them, shall we?)

    [ Parent ]

    I think the fact that the Clinton people didn't (none / 0) (#163)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:53:26 PM EST
    have a ready answer when pressed on whether or not they pushed the photo proves, ironically, that they didn't. Surely, if they had done it, they would have anticipated the question and had a convincing lie at the ready,not a fumbling response.   They obviously were taken by surprise or else they are so stupid that they deserve to lose.   But if they are that stupid, then of course they can't be the devious, cunning, back-stabbing, evil geniuses the Obama campaign continually accuses them of being.

    [ Parent ]
    Her staff would have to be huuuuuge for this (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    Denying every piece of crap that's put out there, that's assumed (without a shred of evidence or even logic) to originate from her just because an *hole like Drudge or Robert Novak or member of Team Obama's sensitivity squad make hay from it?

    Or be presumed to be guilty of it?

    Is that what the New Politics of Unity and Star Spangled Wholesome Goodness is about?

    Really? Really????

    Then these "new" politics are nothing more than the "Have You Stopped Beating Wife?" tactics purchased at the vintage politics boutique along with the other retro gear.

    [/eyeroll into a tumbling line annnnnnd she sticks the landing]

    [ Parent ]

    that photo isn't racist. (none / 0) (#204)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    go do your homework before making inflamatory comments. next!

    [ Parent ]
    Dobbs later just about lost it when (none / 0) (#149)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    one of his guests on the topic of racism, an AA woman professor, Dr. Carol Swain, told him and the others that sexism was far more of a problem in this country than racism. (And I bet she knows, though they don't, that the great Shirley Chisholm said the same thing decades ago in her run for president.) Btw, Lou was sputtering in general today about the problem of identity politics and ethnicity -- he who has mercilessly hacked about Hispanic immigration. I am so weary of msm creating stories that they then discover that they can't control . . . much as they keep trying to manipulate our minds.

    [ Parent ]
    I no longer 'watch' MSM news so much ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:58:01 PM EST
    ... as rubberneck it.

    Lou Dobbs is a household guilty pleasure. I just love how at a loss CNN reporters are when he interrupts their routine stand-ups to sputter about one of the bugs up his patoot.

    TMI: One of my sisters, who used to work in print and TV news, is frequently over for dinner & a game with a colleague or two in tow. Lou's the go-to pre-game entertainment. Watching the reporters try to look casually unshocked while he goes off is pants-peeingly hilarious.

    No one can imagine what it must be like for reporters to have to maintain a neutral facial expression at that overtly batsh*t insane a studio anchor. I mean, those are usually the most SEDATE and composed people on the team.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, I admit it (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:17:38 PM EST
    also is entertainment for me, as I find that I can't take Dobbs seriously . . . and I had to find something for that hour instead of MSNBC, to which I was so devoted that I did take it seriously. I think I need to switch to the Cartoon Channel. I wonder if I'd notice much difference? :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Cartoon, exactly! (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
    I always turned him off but when Sis and her newsie pals were over for dinner and a game they demanded Lou! Lou! Lou! ("They're not booing ..." )

    Now I keep my eye more on the reporter rather than Lou's sputtering face. Watching the reporters' ongoing struggle for composure actually IS quite funny.

    I mean, as an anchor, Lou shouldn't be opining in a reporter's face. if issuing a commentary at all. If he can't keep himself from doing so, it should be at the end of the show.

    He's just nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    Quinnipac's last poll in ohio showed Clinton +21 (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    ...(2 weeks ago). Now she is up 11 pts. That trend in between their polls doesn't look so rosy.

    Recent polls (none / 0) (#38)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    Are showing Sen Clinton holding around 10% lead. If this holds I'd say the trend is pretty rosy for her, it means with the full press court she wins the state pretty easily.

    Now Texas, that's a different story.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately for her (none / 0) (#39)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    Bill Clinton has declared that she needs to win both just to stay in the race.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, suck it up (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    this isn't over yet no matter how many times you say she should drop out.


    [ Parent ]
    In this thread alone (none / 0) (#42)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    I've said twice that she should stay in the race and not drop out.

    Think she should stay in past March 4th if she loses Ohio or Texas? Take it up with Bill.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:29:54 PM EST
    As much as I love Bill...he said it was his opinion...and I do not want his opinion deciding anything.

    [ Parent ]
    again, it's her campaign (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And, as you have been here a while, JOR (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:47:44 PM EST
    you know that the margin always closes up as the day draws closer.

    [ Parent ]
    WISCONSIN (none / 0) (#114)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    +4 pts --> +17 for obama. :-P

    [ Parent ]
    ARG is junk (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    I'm a little disappointed you posted on it.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    I don't know the difference between one polling group and another. They are all about as reliable as astrology to me, as I've written before. (Not to bash astrology.)

    [ Parent ]
    I hear you on the astrology (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    but there are two mainstream junk pollsters: ARG and Zogby. Just ask BTD.

    My personal favorite is Survey USA, and they're scheduled to have some new TX numbers tonight.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#195)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:52:38 PM EST
    Survey USA is usually one of the most reliable.

    ARG, Zogby are junk - Strategic Vision (Republican) usually tilts to the right, as Gallup and Rasmussen are known to do sometimes.

    CNN is odd at times.  WSJ (Wall Street Journal) is pretty reliable.

    [ Parent ]

    SUSA (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    has been the gold standard.  The rest are flaky and all over the place.

    [ Parent ]
    Tarot cards are probably better :-) (none / 0) (#54)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ARG... (none / 0) (#112)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    ... has been wrong a lot this cycle. They aren't even biased for one candidate or the other -- it just seems if the predict Obama ahead in a state, Hillary wins, if they say hillary is ahead Obama wins.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed -- ARG and Zogby, the dregs, (none / 0) (#133)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    are both at the bottom of the barrel

    [ Parent ]
    Rush Limbaugh is now (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh is now telling his flock to vote for Clinton in the Tx primary so she stays in and the party implodes. LOL....What an evil dork he is.....

    Rush is evil but turnabout is fair play (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    Kos was asking democrats to vote for Romney in MI.

    [ Parent ]
    Finally some good advice for R's (none / 0) (#52)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:41:46 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That means I have to -- ugh, ick -- (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM EST
    go check the local conservative blogs and squawk radio hosts here in Wisconsin again to see if they are falling in line, yet again. They were promoting the crossover for Obama, but they have been quite capable of turning on a dime many a time, believe me. Red turns green if Rush or Karl say so.

    [ Parent ]
    Evil seems to work (none / 0) (#126)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
    If it will make people vote for Hillary I'll send him a donation.

    [ Parent ]
    This is great! Could turn the tide in HRC's favor (none / 0) (#186)
    by Angel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:39 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you've posted the two OH polls today (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:52:17 PM EST
    that have the best numbers for Clinton, up by 11 and 10.

    You might also consider posting the other two that came out today, ones showing Clinton up 8 and 4.

    Ohio Poll, University of Cincinnati

    Clinton 47
    Obama 39
    Edwards 9
    Undecided 4
    Kucinich 2

    Public Policy Polling (PDF) (from my comment above):

    Clinton 50%
    Obama 46%
    Undecided 4%

    Interesting bit out of Texas. There's a debate (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    tomorrow and I imagine a lot of people will watch it.

    The polling out of Texas shows:

     "Among the one-third of Texas Democratic primary voters who watched all or most of the debate, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points," said CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.

    "Among the 42 percent who followed news about the debate, Clinton and Obama are neck and neck. And among the one-quarter of Texas Democrats who paid no attention to the debate, Clinton leads Obama by nearly 20 points.

    "Is this because Obama appeals to better-educated Democrats and they were more likely to watch the debate? No. Even among college-educated Democrats, the more attention you paid to the debate, the better Obama does."

    Source: CNN

    If the HRC camp had this news before she called Obama out yesterday I imagine she might have thought twice about it.

    Oh, man. I really have to (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:14:48 PM EST
    wonder where all those "better educated" voters got their education.

    [ Parent ]
    But the way this is phrased ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:16:30 PM EST
    makes it look like the debate increased his numbers.  When in fact it's just that people who like watching debates prefer Obama.

    Why is that news?  

    Cable news is Obama fan central.  Of course his fans tune in to see the latest on His Royal Cuteness.

    It's like saying, "Hannah Montana Fan Clubs Full of Hannah Montana Fans."

    [ Parent ]

    What evidence is there (none / 0) (#81)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:23:19 PM EST
    that people who like to watch debates prefer Obama over Hillary in general?

    [ Parent ]
    Other than this poll? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:33:22 PM EST
    None that I'm aware of.

    I was just making a logical supposition.

    But the poll doesn't suggest the impact of the debate.  It merely states the preferences of those who watched it.  Or more accurately those who "said they watched it."

    [ Parent ]

    This poll isn't evidence of that. (none / 0) (#95)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's inconclusive (none / 0) (#92)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:43:00 PM EST
    The data are a snapshot. As reported, the data don't tell you that there is movement in any direction--towards or away from Obama--from watching the debate.

    This is a silly example, but it could be that people with red hair like to watch debates and people with red hair prefer Obama. Knowing that people who like to watch debates also prefer Obama does not tell you that there is any causation leading from one to another.

    I didn't see the original reporting, so I don't know if they reported it as a causal relationship or just correlation.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't see it either unfortunately (none / 0) (#97)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:51:52 PM EST
    but I have a hard time believing that an overwhelming number of Obama supporters are the ones watching debates, where HRC shines, than HRC supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree it seems weird (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    I clicked on the link, and it does try to draw a causation -- it says the debate helped Obama. If they are accurately reporting what they asked, they don't actually have evidence that it helped.

    Could just be sampling or other statistical error.  Goodness knows we've seen plenty of that this polling season. Sample size appears to have been 861, which is decent, but still.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay so applying Occam's razor (none / 0) (#88)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    The simplest conclusion is that, for whatever reason, debates aren't helping Clinton, which is contrary to what her supporters have been insisting.

    [ Parent ]
    No that's not what the poll says ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    it's merely listing preferences of those who watch.

    You will note, Clinton leads among people who "followed news of the debate."

    There's no "because" in this poll.  It's not because of the debate Obama gained 20% more support.  It's merely among debate watchers, 20% more support Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Is there evidence that Obama supporters (none / 0) (#102)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:55:17 PM EST
    are more likely to watch debates?

    As far as those who watch news of the debates as being basically even that's because the news called it a draw presumably.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, no sale (none / 0) (#96)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    Suppose I know nothing about modern technology.  I walk up to an elevator and stand there. All of a sudden, the bell rings and two seconds later, the doors open. What caused the doors to open? Since I know nothing about technology, the simplest explanation is that the ringing of the bell caused the doors to open. In fact, someone got on the elevator on another floor and wanted to descend to the lobby, and she pushed a button that made some wheels turn and the elevator descend. The bell rang and then the doors opened, but one did not cause the other.

    Sometimes, Occam is wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    And yet (none / 0) (#123)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton cannot count on debates to help her, as her supporters have insisted. This poll is just one piece of evidence in favor of that position. Even if they're not helping Obama or hurting her, they're just not helping her win.

    And honestly I have no idea what can possibly help her campaign at this point. A big win in Rhode Island? Her path to nomination is a fragile Rube Goldberg contraption, relying on a chain of unlikely events to coalesce perfectly and against all odds.

    I've already voted, but I'd seriously like to know. What's left for her campaign? She seems to already be conceding Texas, which was a "must win" for her a week ago. Convince me that not only can she win the nomination, but that it's likely.

    [ Parent ]

    A link? (none / 0) (#167)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:59:56 PM EST
    To where she's conceding Texas?

    And did you know we have Ohio and Penn to go, not just RI?

    Better do a little reading before posting.

    [ Parent ]

    There won't be a useful link (none / 0) (#171)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:04:37 PM EST
    because that conceding Texas is pure crap.


    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, this poll says... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:56:25 PM EST
    nothing about shifts in support. Obama supporters may have been more likely to watch the debate, or those who turned into the debate were more likely to support Obama before tuning in. I think that Schneider on CNN tried to misconstrue this.

    I would also say that this is no measure of informed and uninformed voters. Voters who feel confident of the information they have and who see Hillary as the best candidate may not see a need to watch the debates as informative (and analysts often say debates are not informative).

    Conversely, just as the number of hours watching Fox News correlates with being misinformed about the Iraq War, Obama supporters tuning in for a debate are not necessarily becoming more informed. They can hear and see what they want to see. Plus, if the media is biased toward Obama, then the increased exposure to media propaganda on behalf of one candidate perhaps heightens their acceptance of misinformation.

    [ Parent ]

    And yet, CNN/your link also says (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    "Forty-three percent of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans say the economy is the most important issue in their choice for president. The second most important issue for Democrats was health care, followed by the war in Iraq, illegal immigration and terrorism. . . . "Likely Democratic primary voters think that Clinton would handle the economy and health care better than Obama . . . and those are the top two issues on the minds of Democratic voters. Obama has an advantage over Clinton on Iraq." But I am not going to trust CNN on interpretation, since Lou Dodds just declared himself appalled at "identity politics" by ethnicity -- the one who has devoted himself to whipping up anti-Hispanic sentiment. With all the talk of "shame" today, let's remember who should be most ashamed in this campaign: the media.

    [ Parent ]
    those are the polls that get me (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    When they ask...
    Who would be the better leader: Clinton.  
    Who would turn around the economy: Clinton.  
    Who would protect us from terrorists: Clinton.  
    Who has more experience: Clinton

    Who are you going to vote for?  Obama.

    How do these people dress themselves and go to work every day?

    [ Parent ]

    Have you ... (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:34:29 PM EST
    seen how most people dress these days?

    [ Parent ]
    obviously lots of people (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:47:32 PM EST
    must be wearing mis-matched socks.  just goes to show people don't vote on issues.  it's heart vs head and heart seems to win.

    we're probably the only major democratic nation where that may be true.  ask some guy on the street where a candidate stands on virtually any issue and you'll get a guess at best and the guess is usually wrong.

    citizens in EU nations generally know where their parties and politician stand.  is this the fault of the media or the people?

    [ Parent ]

    It's probably electibility. (none / 0) (#105)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:58:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Clearly decisions are far more complex than (none / 0) (#82)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    bullet point questions.

    [ Parent ]
    ya think? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:28:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I do. That's why your shock is probably not (none / 0) (#93)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    warranted.

    [ Parent ]
    They read Alice in Wonderland (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
    every night before they go to bed.

    [ Parent ]
    But it doesn't say by how much as (none / 0) (#86)
    by RLMcCauley on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:28:48 PM EST
    far as I can tell. Do you see a breakdown.

    I agree with you about Dobbs and the substance free media in general.

    [ Parent ]

    Classic example of confusing (none / 0) (#160)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:50:34 PM EST
    correlation and causation. Thanks for the tipoff to it; I can use it in class.:-) This is especially problematic without evidence of possibly confounding variables, i.e., causal factors skewing results such as order of questions asked; see pollster.com discussion on this. We have to say "possibly" because it is not one of the outfits that releases such information for us to better judge its results.

    [ Parent ]
    New CBS Poll out tonite (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM EST
    Obama leads Clinton nationally by 16.

    Head to heads:

    Clinton - 46
    McCain  - 46

    Obama  - 50
    McCain - 38

    LINK

    woohoo, yawn (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:40:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Public Policy Polling poll (1.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jhiestand on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:30:26 PM EST
    A new poll shows Obama within 4 points in Ohio.
    Clinton is going to lose both Ohio and Texas.  It is over and she should quit.

    Why do you deny people the vote? (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:19:11 PM EST
    This is the arrogance that I find to be the worse characteristic of the Obama world view.  You, nor Kennedy, nor any blogger will tell people what to do.  

    [ Parent ]
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:56:51 PM EST
    No one is telling anyone to do anything. Opeinions and observations are shared then we decide who will vote for in private.

    [ Parent ]
    I am in OH. (none / 0) (#127)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    His commercials have a message at the end about early voting. Don't know where you are, but that's what's happening here.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm so glad to hear that (none / 0) (#139)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:33:00 PM EST
    headquarters is still respecting the secret ballot.

    [ Parent ]
    Arrogance (3.00 / 2) (#36)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:27:22 PM EST
    is declaring the election over before even a single vote has been cast! Which if I'm not mistaken was the implicit message behind Hillary Clinton's "inevitable" theme.

    As an Obama supporter, I'm happy for the primary campaign to continue as long as it's numerically possible for one candidate to flip who is in the lead over the other. However, at some point, the math will force one of them to drop out. It's ... inevitable. ;)

    [ Parent ]

    When did she say that? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    That is what the bloggers made up.  

    [ Parent ]
    How about a link to this arrogance (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    Please post a link to the Clintons or anyone on their campaign saying they were "inevitable".

    [ Parent ]
    It was not her theme, and you must know (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
    that as a reader here. You have issues, but they're with the media that created that meme. Aim there.

    [ Parent ]
    if it wasn't her theme (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    then how do you explain the utter lack of planning and organization for anything post-Super Tuesday? The reliance on big doners who would be hit up early for their max donations, rather than building a vast network of small donors as Obama did, meaning that when she ran out of money she had to build a new network on the fly?

    This sounds like denial to me. If I were a Clinton supporter I would be royally pissed at the strategy chosen for this campaign. And while you can put a lot of that on Mark Penn, it obvioulsy is the candidate who makes the final determination of how she intends to run.

    She assumed that she would sail to the nomination - that it was inevitable. She bet on the fact that no other candidate could mount the kind of challange that Obama has, and that she would wrap it up on 2/5.

    Maybe it is hard to come to grips with that because of the obvious disappointment, but also maybe because it shows a certain incompetence in planning ability.

    [ Parent ]

    good thing you aren't a Clinton supporter then (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If I were an Obama supporter, I would not ... (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cymro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:06:25 PM EST
    ... try to tell Clinton supporters how they should feel about their campaign, because I would know better than to offer arrogant opinions like this one:

    If I were a Clinton supporter I would be royally pissed at the strategy chosen for this campaign.

    But then, I'm not an Obama supporter, so what do I know?

    [ Parent ]

    not much (none / 0) (#184)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:33:45 PM EST
    How do you read that as telling anyone how to feel?

    If my favorite candidate, who I really believed in, ran a campaign with a really dumb strategy, and I sensed that that contributed to a defeat that I thought should not have happened, then I would be pissed.

    What is the point of lashing out at others?

    [ Parent ]

    You gotta be kidding (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:48:41 PM EST
    It's arrogant to tell other people how they should feel, which you implicitly tried to do.  And chances are Clinton supporters don't care what you would feel.  This won't help Obama, unless you just want to piss off a few more people.


    [ Parent ]
    Tano, you are just trolling here, and (1.00 / 1) (#213)
    by cymro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    ... it's very annoying.

    I usually just ignore your many, many posts, because they are so predictably negative. But for you to have the nerve to try to tell us how Clinton supporters should feel, when all your posts demonstrate that you obviously have no clue about how Clinton supporters do feel, that is the limit.

    Speaking of limits, at one time we had a limit of 4 posts per day for some people who posted nothing but annoying comments. I'm not sure why you have not been similarly limited; it would be a good thing, in my opinion.

    If I were you, I would stop posting here until you have something positive and constructive to contribute about how to get Hillary elected President. People would appreciate it.

    [ Parent ]

    Texas?? (none / 0) (#49)
    by myed2x on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:35:08 PM EST
    I haven't seen any Texas polls on here, that's the next biggy right?  What are the numbers on that one??

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? I said nothing about Texas, and (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    you might check a few diaries and a few hundred comments here today on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Forget it... (none / 0) (#61)
    by myed2x on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    I found the ARG poll for Texas, wow, Obama ahead by 8% now - Obama 50% Clinton 40%...lol now I know why we havent heard about Texas in a few days...but I forgot, that state doesn't really count now either.

    Oh yah, the link to the ARG polls that was conveniently missing from this post is
    http://americanresearchgroup.com/
    now I know why it was missing, that Texas poll right at the top ;)


    [ Parent ]

    why do you walk into someone's house (3.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
    and insult them?

    It's unseemly.

    [