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

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:


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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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. . . .)

    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.


    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.

    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).

    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?

    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.)

    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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.........


    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).


    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.


    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.)


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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
    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

    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.


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


    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.

    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]


    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!

    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.

    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.


    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? :-)

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

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

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

    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.)

    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.


    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.


    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.

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

    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

    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.

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

    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.

    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
    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%

    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


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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. ;)


    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.  

    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".

    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.

    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.


    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
    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?


    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?


    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.

    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.


    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??

    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.

    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
    now I know why it was missing, that Texas poll right at the top ;)


    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.


    somebody's house? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:32:07 PM EST
    Are you saying that this blog is Hillary Clinton's house?

    No (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:29:43 PM EST
    I am saying it is rude and disrespectful to accuse the hosts of this blog of having nefarious motives for posting one thing instead of another.

    It's not an issue of Clinton or Obama; it's an issue of decency.  TL strives for even-handedness and I am really annoyed by people tromping in here and making baseless attacks.


    Obama is encouraging early voting in TX (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Josey on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    to avoid facing Obama-Rezko reality on March 3 when trial begins.

    myed (none / 0) (#156)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    ARG  is    a  major  crappy poll.   Try  SUSA.

    now it isn't over and the one who should (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    quit is YOU making those types of comments about her.

    why should she quit? (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    she should stay at least through pennsylvania, an authentic democratic primary, i believe.

    looking at the polls, obama consistently gets white men. obama is kind of a white man-uniter.

    i'm sure all of these white men will choose him over mccain in the fall.


    Lady down the street did a Tarot reading (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:59:39 PM EST
    and said Hillary will win.  Obama should drop out now for the good of the party.

    Makes as much sense as the other calls for someone to drop out  :-)


    Authentic? (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    Disregarding 22 elections? Only PA is authentic? Gimmee a break!

    Ok (none / 0) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST
    Whatever you say.

    What I say: I think this should go all the way to convention. Honestly I am not seeing the down side. Even if Sen Obama is ahead and is the nominee it carries the democratic story for months. All this assumes neither candidate starts really getting nasty.


    If it's over, we'll find out soon enough. Why do (none / 0) (#153)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    feel it necessary for her to quit before the primaries if you are so confident of winning?

    Troll alert (none / 0) (#176)
    by cymro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    This comment by an Obama supporter has (surprise!) no content.

    Jeralyn or BTD, please remove.


    Every time (none / 0) (#198)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM EST
    I think I might actually someday vote for Obama, (I live in PA) I read a few of these posts and I realize his supporters seem to be real nasty, especially towards Clinton.

    I don't get it .

    Are Republicans posting here just to get Democrats against each other?


    I think that Obama campaign released that (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    photo themselves since they knew it would come out anyway and then used it to blame the Clinton campaign...Kinda like their South Carolina campaign to call Clinton a racist....

    I would bet on that! (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:43:10 PM EST
    and your evidence for this is . . . ? (none / 0) (#207)
    by A DC Wonk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:14:48 PM EST
    is what, exactly?

    Clinton's aides released the photo (1.00 / 0) (#161)
    by 1jane on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    IClinton's aides released the photo.

    What is your statement based on? n/t (none / 0) (#170)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:03:18 PM EST
    Do we know ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    if they changed their "turn out model" at all between polls?

    THIS (none / 0) (#3)
    by zyx on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    is the kind of thing that worries me about Obama being the candidate, come November.

    Ohio.  Pennsylvania.

    Florida. Michigan. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    Nothing to worry about (none / 0) (#79)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:20:44 PM EST
    if Clinton supporters are loyal Democrats in November.

    Have to (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:24:18 PM EST
    wonder about that.  The Obama people say Hillary people are ignorant and stupid and racist.  We might not be able to find our way to the polls.

    yeah... (5.00 / 0) (#132)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    I'm so "low information" I don't even know who's running.

    Kathy (none / 0) (#158)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    Me  too.   I'm  under-educated  and  not  WORTHY  of  voting  for  Obama.  

    I may  stay  home.


    Kathy (none / 0) (#162)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:52:22 PM EST
    Rezko alert ...



    Disloyal??? (none / 0) (#117)
    by joc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:15:07 PM EST
    Oh please.

    So are you saying, that when Barack Obama suggested that he 'could get Hillary's supporters, but she couldn't get his,' he was calling his supporters disloyal Democrats? Or was he implying that the reason for his front runner status in the Democratic nomination process is votes from independents and Republicans? To give him the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume he means the latter and not the former.

    So now loyal Democrats, who have worked for the party year after year, who don't like the idea of independents and Republicans getting to choose their Democratic nominee are to be considered disloyal? Is someone a disloyal Democrat when they don't like to hear the right-wing talking points Barack has used when talking about universal health care and social security?

    Let's expand the question and ask this, how many of your core ideals are you ready to give up if you are asked to vote for a  Democratic nominee who disparages those beliefs? At what point do you cease to feel the need to vote against your principles in order to gain the honorific 'loyal Democrat?'


    Some of Clinton supporters here (none / 0) (#154)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    said they would vote for McCain or stay home in threads after the WI primary.

    The implication that Obama cannot win in "blue" states (made in the comment preceding mine) only makes sense if Clinton supporters stay home.


    I'll wait for SUSA, and the post-debate polls... (none / 0) (#4)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    ...before I draw that conclusion.  I do think he's got a very good shot at winning Texas now, and since he'll win Vermont handily, I think he only really has to keep her margin in Ohio fairly tight (somewhere between 4 and 8 points) in order to knock her out of the race.  
    Obama will win Mississippi, and probably Wyoming as well, so he'll get some good news immediately after 3/4, while she'll face a six week onslaught of "drop out now" op-eds and possibly even Dem heavy hitters talking to her behind the scenes about conceding.

    if she wins Texas close and Ohio (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:13:10 PM EST
    by more than 10, can we ask Obama to drop out since Pennsylvania is likely to favor Clinton?  Or would that be premature, I just want to know what I can expect

    It seems likely she will win Ohio (none / 0) (#5)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    Its Texas that is her problem.  And Bill saying she has to win it or she is done means she has to win it or she is done. I really wonder if that was such a good move.  A strong showing in Ohio and a close race in TX and she might have had an argument to see what happens in PA.  Now can she do that without a clear win in TX?  

    This kind of news certainly does not bode well in TX.

    Duh, his son is working for Obama (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    and this is Texas politics.  Will this gain him votes in the valley?  No.

    only Hillary can decide to quit (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:14:06 PM EST
    bill needed to say we needed those states, I'll quit when Hillary quits, not a minute before

    looking grim in texas (none / 0) (#9)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    The latest ARG Texas poll shows Clinton 8 points behing Obama. Also SUSA is releasing their Texas poll tonight at 11 est.

    ARG is the worst polling organization in the biz (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    And they had Obama ahead by six points two weeks ago.

    you are right. (none / 0) (#11)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:39:28 PM EST
    I just saw that. well, lets hope SUSA is better.

    There's so many ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:50:34 PM EST
    news cycles between now and 3/4, I'm not too concerned about current Polls.

    I think things are shifting slowly in HRC's direction, and will peak just when we need them to.


    she won't win texas (4.00 / 0) (#66)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    for two reasons.

    1. delegate distribution is skewed toward districts that reliably vote dem. that means african american areas will carry more delegates.

    2. texas has a huge angry white male hate clinton and the democrats crossover vote just dying to knock hillary out. these boys are game and ready. and then they are looking forward to a very big, texas-sized laugh in november when mccain wins b/c of such good ole boy shenanigans.  

    Ferraro on SuperDs and Republican vote (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    I don't know... (none / 0) (#150)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:41 PM EST
    If it's true that Rush is now telling his listeners to vote for Hillary so the Republicans can cream her in the GE, then that might work in her favor.

    I don't know - I don't listen to Rush. But this does explain my friend's mother crowing about how she had voted for Hillary because she hates her so much...


    as always, these are just snapshots (none / 0) (#12)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:47:38 PM EST
    but the new Public Policy Polling survey (PDF) shows it much tighter:

    Clinton 50%
    Obama 46%
    Undecided 4%

    But all of Clinton's bases are still there:
    "Obama trails Clinton 56-40 among self identified
    "She leads 55-42 with women"
    "She has a 56-38 advantage with white voters"

    it will be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:53:30 PM EST
    whether this photo flap will effect polls one way or another.

    If it bleeds over into the news tonight--major networks as well as Entertainment Tonight--I want to see how the story is spun and whether or not they show the photo.  Obviously, the Obama camp believes the photo will damage him in some way.  I suppose the polls will be the clearest snapshot of how people respond.


    In my humble view, the only (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:44:19 PM EST
    thing damaging about the photo is he looks rather silly and perhaps like a cross-dresser.

    Agree (none / 0) (#71)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:11:18 PM EST
    Looked like he was dressed for a church X-mas pageant.

    or dressed (none / 0) (#84)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    like an Amish woman, except for the turban.

    It sounds (none / 0) (#201)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:05:08 PM EST
    to me that Independents and Republicans are picking the Democratic nominee - which really ticks me off.

    What the hell kind of system is Dean and the DNC allowing to operate here?

    I swear they are idiots.


    "Clinton Up 11" (none / 0) (#18)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    I don't see how this poll can be spun as good for Clinton. On the contrary, it shows quite clearly that she's losing support, and if the trends are like they've been in every other post-super Tuesday state, she's in trouble in Ohio. A close finish in Ohio (even if she wins a 51%) plus a loss in Texas is the end of her campaign.

    Polls can be spun ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    any way you like.  Because they are meaningless.

    And, frankly, nothing would surprise me in this election.

    If a UFO landed during tomorrows debate, I would barely raise an eyebrow.


    It's not about prediction (none / 0) (#21)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:15:26 PM EST
    It's about trends. She could still win Ohio, but the emerging pattern is unfavorable to her. That's what's notable here, not "Clinton up by 11".

    I mean, if you want to take the line that all outcomes are equally probable, then why do any analysis at all or discuss what our opinions are about what the outcome might by? Might as well shut down the blogs, or spend the next 9 months posting cat pictures. Clearly there is something to be gained by looking at polls, even if it's not prediction with absolute certainty.


    Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches (none / 0) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    Frankly, they rarely even show accurate trends.

    And polls aren't the only way to do analysis.  It's better to do analysis based on historic voting patterns, demographics and the like.  Much more reliable.


    cat pictures would be more informative (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    than polling has been in this cycle.  i literally don't care what they show anymore, in any direction.

    I would suggest that if either candidate makes what's billed as a major foreign policy address, perhaps that should be covered instead of a years old photo of Obama and/or Clinton in foreign dress.

    Or just post cat photos  :-)


    Please, don't lets go there: (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:27:54 PM EST
    cat pictures, I mean.  So far this seems to be a cat-free-photo zone.

    But, but, but . . . (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:38:21 PM EST
    I have a new kitten. And she's so cute. And now you don't get to see how cute. Btw, as ever, we gave her a political name -- we seem to only adopt 'em in elections. Al and Bill in 1992 have gone on to that great field of catnip in the sky . . . but now, with a female feline, you can guess. Yep, she's Hillary. (I won't get into the slight problem that occurred in 1992, when we were told that they both were male, and the kids wouldn't give up the name Bill when it turned out otherwise.)

    HAHAHAHA!!! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    Who predicted this?  I did, thank you very much.  In case suskin's comment gets deleted for improper formatting, here is the LINK that shows Obama no longer beating McCain over Clinton.

    Obama's big electability argument has been that he polls better against McCain.  I asked weeks ago what would happen if he no longer polled ahead--would the inverse hold true?

    Okay, Obamabots, have at it.  Explain this away.

    And it isn't just in (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    the last day.  He was been behind for two days and tied on three days ago.

    And with MOE taken into account, both Hillary and Obama are polling the same against McCain for the last three days.


    Explain what away? (none / 0) (#27)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST
    Obama's numbers are still better against McCain than Clinton's.

    But besides that, the argument has always been that in addition to better numbers, Obama has natural advantages against McCain that Clinton lacks. Obama has wider crossover appeal than Clinton, Clinton has too much political baggage, Obama offers a much starker contrast against McCain than Clinton does, and Obama is, by all objective measures, far better at running a campaign than Clinton. None of these factors change.


    the "argument" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM EST
    is a straw argument.

    If Obama is far better at running a campaign, then why hasn't he blown Clinton out of the water?  See, this is where your theory collapses.  He should be twenty points ahead of her if he is so loved and adored.  Yet, he is not.

    But, my original comment was that Obama stated in the debate that the reason he should get the nomination is because he polls ahead of McCain.  Now that he is tied with Clinton, that argument no longer holds and therefore, by his own words, he is not more electable than Clinton.

    Where is that pesky petard...


    Drudge (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    "where is that peskyp petard".

    I'm sure Drudge will have a picture of it soon -- attributed to Clinton, of course.


    Campaign malpractice (none / 0) (#32)
    by s5 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST
    Clinton's campaign has blown through money, had no backup plans post Feb 5, no organization in states that Obama had been in for weeks, no strategy for the caucus states other than Nevada, and was just recently quoted as scrambling around trying to figure out how Texas's primary system works. And these are just a handful of examples.

    Considering Clinton's name recognition, insider backing, experience, and impressive legacy, the fact that Obama has been able to appear from out of nowhere and knock her "inevitable" candidacy down to where it is now is incredibly impressive.

    Believe me, I have great respect for Hillary Clinton and had argued in favor of her candidacy for a solid year, but if her primary campaign is a taste of the management style we can expect in the general, then she's coming in with a major liability.

    Unfortunately there's no spinning this. She started off as the inevitable candidate, and now she's losing. Obama, by contrast, has run a highly effective campaign. He's doing the hard work and the heavy lifting, and is reaping the results.


    Some truth to this (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    But I would also say Sen Obama has gotten a very good ride from the press. It is now just slightly more realistic (for one week now). Let's see if his fortunes stay when and if the media turns on him. If he does then I'll agree, he is the better candidate.

    Right now Sen Clinton has hung on against a very good candidate that has had most of the MSM behind him, and tons of money. I'd say she has done pretty well.


    Why hasn't he blown Clinton out of the water? (none / 0) (#76)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    Becuase she's Hillary f-ing Clinton. She's great with a popular ex pres husband, lots of dough and tons of support within the party.  She was inevitable, and some bad strategy and underestimation of Obama on her part is why she is where she is.

    Bill Clinton is still popular? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:52:32 PM EST
    You could have fooled me. I thought he was an old fart dinosaur who ruined our economy and is in the pocket of the evil corporations. :)

    are you 10? (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    either you weren't alive during his Presidency or just unconscious

    I thought that the :)... (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:32:22 PM EST
    ...would let you know that I was being snarky. All that I listed in my original post, btw, is stuff that I've read on DKOS written by young Obama supporters, but rest assured I am not one of those.

    I was just surprised to see Bill called popular nowadays since the history that I experienced is being rewritten before my very eyes.


    Like you, I've seen that junk (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST
    Until I read some Obama supporters I didn't know the Clinton years from '92-'00 had been a tragic debacle.  I thought I had enjoyed the relative peace and prosperity.  :-)

    Honest, "tragic debacle" is a quote.  They can't be more than teens or sone of these folks are brainwashed.


    25 year olds (none / 0) (#169)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    Would have been 9 when Clinton became president.

    It makes sense.


    This 26 year old (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by BryanNYC on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:26:59 PM EST
    has a lot of respect for Bill Clinton and even more for Hillary.

    My political "awakening" happened when I was 17 and I watched as the House impeachment vote results came in on C-Span. I realized that the Republicans were willing to do anything to our country to keep themselves in power.


    People never recognize sarcasm. (none / 0) (#173)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:06:40 PM EST
    Rewrite that to read "Zealots ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by cymro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:25:48 PM EST
    ... never recognize sarcasm".

    No "Wisconsin bounce," no (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    bounce from the string of successes; instead, a decline against McCain. There is 'splaining to do -- and not about the Clinton campaign, please. It is not the one that ought to have gotten the bounce.

    Better arguments ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:07:59 PM EST
    like losing Massachusetts?

    Glad to see you are a tad more (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:45:11 PM EST
    perky here now!  

    Obamabot says: McCain got bump... (none / 0) (#73)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:14:15 PM EST
    from wingers in the immediate aftermath of the NYTimes.

    Would you perhaps like to play a game of chess, Dave?


    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.

    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."

    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."


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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?

    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?


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

    The state of the race (none / 0) (#100)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:53:27 PM EST
    Be sure not to miss the NYT's most emailed of the day!!

    O.K. That's it. NOW I am cancelling (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:17:08 PM EST
    my subscription.

    Here's another interesting viewpoint:



    What's not to like? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    From the "It will be me" Iraq war plan parallel, to the proliferating commissions, to the "insult 40 states" strategy, it was exquisite. Painful maybe for Clintonistas, but there's an awful lot of truth there if you care to see it.

    undecideds seem big to me (none / 0) (#109)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:02:51 PM EST
    I've been making calls for a week and a lot of the people I get on the phone are undecided.  

    Where are you calling? (none / 0) (#174)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:07:58 PM EST
    ohio (none / 0) (#196)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:55:41 PM EST
    Lou Dobbs (none / 0) (#125)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM EST
    LOU DOBBS actually defended Hillary on his show by saying Hillary actually has not been for NAFTA and Sentor Obama Has...Wow Pigs must be flying....I love seeing some honesty for a change from the media tho....

    I'm sure there's someone in the Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#159)
    by rdandrea on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    who isn't worried that she's lost half the lead she had two weeks ago.

    But whoever that is ought to be.

    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.

    Reality Check (none / 0) (#168)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:00:41 PM EST
    There is nothing remotely racist about the photo, nothing.  My G-d-children are half Ethiopian and they wear traditional garb when appropriate--just like BO did, as well as BC and HRC on many occasions abroad.  

    Two, where do people see any proof she's conceding TX? (nice try though)

    Three, I'm so p*ssed at what BO is getting away with that tomorrow night I want HRC to use the analogy of lawyers using the ol' "so when did you stop beating your wife" line--just to prove a point.  

    In terms of the poll about the debates being positive for BO--I don't by it, especially when during the last two debates the focus group of undecideds have gone with HRC.  But of course they don't talk about that b/c it doesn't fit the storyline they're pushing.  Just like they ignored her standing ovation.  

    BTD I thought you hated ARG (none / 0) (#181)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM EST

    I don't think (none / 0) (#185)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:10 PM EST
     the next few days will be good for Obama. I don't believe he is a muslim, but that photo will put doubt in many voters mind. If he gets past this week unblemish from that photo he may have a chance in Texas. If this photo is creatig so much buzz in a democratic pimary, can one imagine what the rightwingers will throw at him if he gets the nomination? I really have no doubt that McCain will beat him if he gets the nomination. The media and many mainstream democrats placed their money on the wrong candidate. Here comes 2004 John kerry swift boat all over again. Every vote for obama put McCain one step closer to the White House.

    Will passion loose the election for the Demo? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:37:16 PM EST
    Was talking to some very passionate voters from both sides.  My suspicion of what might occur after Hilary or Obama is nominated could possibly  happen.  I asked  a Hilary supporter.  Will you vote for Obama if Hilary is not nominated.  Response not only NO but HELL NO.  The same response if Hilary is nominated.  This tell me that because of this unprecedented passion by voters for their choice, if they do not get their choice they will not vote in the general.  Any body else witnessed  similar responses?

    lots of that round here (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:58 PM EST
    and of course it leads people on the other side to say, oh yeah? - then me too!

    Thankfully elections are decided by the great Ocean of Inertia known as the American people - not by the tiny slice of passionate political junkies.


    No so tiny though I think (none / 0) (#200)
    by Saul on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:00:07 PM EST
    I agree with you but I honestly believe due to extreme and I must emphasized the word extreme, passion like I have never seen before in the past, I don't think it will be a tiny slice.  I think it will be large enough to erode the popular vote that is needed to win the EV that decides the election.

    Obama said so about his supporters (nt) (none / 0) (#205)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:12:36 PM EST
    he was, obviously (none / 0) (#210)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:36 PM EST
    referring to the independents and disillusioned Republicans that he draws.

    Primary v general (none / 0) (#211)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    I have been as critical of Sen. Obama as many, and he was far down on the list of people that I wanted as the Dem nominee. But this evening I watched ten minutes of some horrendous show on CNN, where David Frum appeared and started talking about how Democrats prefer Obama because they are ashamed to be Americans and want to become one with the world.  (Mr. Frum apparently thinks that the rest of the world should want to become one with us, or some such nonsense.) Ten minutes of listening to that drivel made me say, h*ll yes, I can vote for Sen. Obama if he wins the nomination.

    But Sen. Obama ruins it for me when he starts talking about the light coming down and people having epiphanies.  So if he wins, I'll be spending a lot of time this fall watching Fox News to keep myself motivated.


    I am a Hillary (none / 0) (#191)
    by talkingpoint on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:44:48 PM EST
     supporter, and a proud liberal. I hate the idelogy of conservatism more than i hate anything, but I doubt that i can vote for Obama. I may go Nader if she does not get the nominaion.

    I heard it a lot from Obama supporters (none / 0) (#197)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    for a while.  I've just recently been hearing it from Hillary supporters

    by the way, (none / 0) (#199)
    by nycvoter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    I'm a Hillary supporter who will g-d forbid, vote for Obama if necessary

    More like Lack of Passion in some cases (none / 0) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    My very Republican brother isn't voting for McCain, since if McCain is the nominee, he feels it doesn't matter who wins.

    I'm the same with Obama....and yes, people say JUDGES, but I don't have any confidence that Obama the "Radical Centrist" will nominate judges I like.

    So if Hillary isn't the nominee, then I have no passion for either of the candidates.


    yes (none / 0) (#212)
    by sas on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:20:31 PM EST

    I have seen a lot of reluctance from the people here in my area of PA to vote for Obama - of course there are some.  I live in a Philly suburb, and our Governor (Rendell) has come out for Hillary - Rendell' s very popular in the suburbs here.

    I fully expect McCain to win PA in the GE unless it is Hillary.  Right now polls here have her beating McCain, but have Obama losing to McCain.

    Of course, polls can change.


    Comments now closing (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    We're over 200, time for a new thread.

    I voted for Hillary and of course am absolutely (none / 0) (#216)
    by DemBillC on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:06:13 PM EST
    stunned by the slime directed towards this great American Woman. You would think that she would be a shoe-in being married to Bill Clinton, who was by far the best president in our nations history, (no wars, no unemployment, no national debt, in fact a surplus.) Of course Bill was slimed more than any president ever. Now she runs for President and she is slimed by he far left more than she used to be slimed by the far right.
    Sexism is alive and well in America.
    Barack Obama is nothing but a snake oil salesman, he is a slick  talker but he is completely untested and and unproven except for representing some urban sections of Chicago. His slime peddling backers painted the great former president as a Racist because of him comparing BO with Jesse Jackson. What??? Why was this racst? Because they are both Black? Whe could possibley believe Bill was racist?  
    Actually BO whole campaign staff has been very racist with his wife saying she is finally proud of America now that people were voting for her black husband, and that she would have to think about voting for Hilary if she was the nominee. And do not get me started about Baracks' good friend Louis Farrakan. For all I know Barack supports Black Muslim causes, in fact very little is known about him, except he talks a good game. So did George Bush, remember the "no nation building" and the "I am a Uniter line"? As a matter of fact Obama ripped of that line from Bushie right out of the Rove playbook.

    The math... (none / 0) (#217)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:43:16 AM EST
    ...says she needs more than a 10 point win in Ohio and a close win/lose in Texas.  She can go on to win Pennsylvania by 15-20 and will still almost certainly lose as Obama cleans up in the remaining states.

    If she doesn't win Texas and Ohio by 10-15 each, she will still find it almost impossible to win.

    In other words, winning Ohio by 10 points means little at this point, even if they will try to downplay Texas (another one of the states that won't matter).

    If I had to guess, I'd say Obama takes Texas by five and Clinton takes Ohio by 5.  That will be a crushing blow to her campaign, and I hope she does the right thing after that.