home

AP National Poll Shows Obama Catching Up, Dueling Texas Polls

A new national AP poll out today finds Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a statistical tie.

Overall, Obama has 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent, a virtual tie. Clinton had a slight 5 point lead nationally in early February.

The AP stresses the increase in white male support for Obama. He's also increased among youth, liberals, those earning more than $50k a year and voters with college or graduate degrees. But, Hillary maintains a big lead in her core constituency as well.

Clinton maintains robust leads among some groups that have been cornerstones of her candidacy, including those age 65 and up, white women and people earning under $50,000 annually.

A CNN Texas Poll out today gives Obama a small lead , 1/2 point outside the margin of error. Hillary leads among Hispanics, Obama leads among Blacks. They are evenly divided among Whites.

With the Texas contest next Tuesday, whites are divided about equally in the new survey, Obama has a large lead among blacks and Clinton is ahead with Hispanics. Democrats and Republicans pick the economy as the top issue they will consider in choosing a candidate. Health care ranks second among Democrats while illegal immigration is No. 2 with Republicans.

[Added: Rasmussen has a Texas poll just out showing Hillary leading Obama by one point.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 78% of the stateís voters while Obama is viewed favorably by 72%. Thatís a change from last week when Obama earned the higher favorability ratings. Among those who remain undecided, Clinton earns favorably reviews from 65%, Obama from 56%.

[/added.]

In looking at the CNN poll and Quinnepac Ohio poll Big Tent Democrat wrote up earlier today, showing Hillary with a double digit lead over Obama, I see the AP interviewed a different subset for its national poll.

The AP poll interviewed people who identified themselves as Democrats or as leaning towards Democrats -- not those saying they were likely to vote in Democratic primaries or in November. The Quinnepac poll interviewed registered voters who were likely to vote in the Ohio Democratic primary and the CNN poll interviewed those who were likely to vote in the Texas Democratic primary.

Question: Does the polling method matter?

Also, while the Ohio poll queried 1,853 Ohio registered voters and CNN interviewed 861 likely Democratic Texas primary voters, the AP poll interviewed 1,000 nationally in all 50 states. Is that a usual sampling for a national poll?

< The False Eternal Dispute: Swing v. Base | Jonathan Alter's Boorish Column >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    But everything could change is... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    Rassmussen also says this though...

    "The current survey projects a slightly smaller turnout from Hispanic voters (26%, down from 31%) and a very slight increase among African-American voters (21% up from 19%). It is impossible to project exactly who will show up and vote in a Primary. Rasmussen Reports analyzed a variety of turnout models and found plausible results ranging from a two-point Obama lead to a five-point Clinton lead."

    RW flying monkeys out in force: Surrender Hillary! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:31:34 PM EST
    Novakula and other right wing smear bots and "Dem" concern trolls are urging HRC to back out of the race now.

    Considering the raw tonnage of anti-HRC crap that's been levelled against Team Clinton from the Obama camp AND the Right, is there any doubt who the presumptive RNC would prefer to be the more easily defeated Dem candidate?

    Ooh let's see ... the one who's weathered the non-stop Bush / Rove smear machine or the one who naively promises unity, civility and One Party rule with the moderate nice Repugs?

    Mmmm ... tough one. I'm rarely tuned into MSM for an entire day but am laid up at home, so I got to see the Drudge to Prime News Time crap rise at a dizzying rate in realtime. It's almost MORE surreal than reading about it incrementally.

    Clinton ran against Bush/Rove? (none / 0) (#49)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:43:47 PM EST
    I never knew that.

    Parent
    In case you failed to notice (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:51:28 PM EST
    she's running against Bush/Rovian 2000 campaign tactics now and has for this entire primry cycle.


    Parent
    Maybe you missed Rove's 25 yr involvement w/RNC (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    He's not the only dirty trickster, goon squad member in good standing and smear-monger funded by the deep pockets fueling the Rethuggernaut.

    Parent
    Thanks for confirming Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    it will be interesting to see how the youth vote turns out.  If demographics hold, it seems that the weathier kids (supporting BO) have plans to go away, where the others may not be able to afford a vaca and/or still have to work that week.  I mean, that's possible.  

    In terms of the "inevitability" meme pushed by the MSM--I think it's so funny that anyone thought a women, let alone a former presidnet's wife, let alone the fact that that former president is Bill Clinton was "inevitable."  

    NJDem (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    I think you're right about the kids leaving Texas for their spring break.  That's what Florida is for, right?  Maybe some of them who are being polled now are failing to mention that they'll be on the Redneck Riviera come voting time.

    I'm also really interested in the Austin U student paper going for Clinton; I don't think the polls can really factor that in.  Frankly, I was a tad surprised when it happened.  Maybe there's been some kind of backlash over the "coolness" factor, or maybe all this policy crap Obama has been injecting in his speeches lately isn't as interesting to folks who came to be wowed?  And having a caucus and a primary on the same day in the same state should be very telling to the super d's who are watching.  Look at what happened in Washington state where the numbers on the primary were much closer than the caucus vote.  I also believe firmly the contretemps in NV are not good, though I'm not sure who they are not good for, if that makes sense.

    Again, we have no idea what is going to happen.  As the saying goes, I think rumors of Clinton's demise are greatly exaggerated...

    Parent

    All Hillary's Exes Live in Texas :-) (1.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Aaron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:03:27 PM EST
    February 25, 2008 - Texas and Ohio Primary Preferences -- American Research Group

    Feb 23-24

    Obama -- 50%

    Clinton -- 42%

    Obama 08, YES WE CAN!!!




    stop shilling (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    And don't post misinformation (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    the poll result you cite is only for TX. Their Ohio numbers give Hillary a ten point lead, 49% to 39%.

    Also, Hillary's numbers are the same in TX acc. to ARG while Obama's are up two. Nothing to crow about given the margin of error.

    Parent

    More polls just posted at TPM (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:03:05 PM EST
    Gallup national (not tracking poll) Obama +12,  PPP in Ohio, Clinton +4 in Ohio, Rasmussen in TX, Clinton +1.

    thanks, I just added (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    the TX poll to the post.

    Parent
    Could Hillary survive a narrow Texas loss? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:10:00 PM EST
    Possible scenario: Hillary wins comfortably (10+) in Iowa, but suffers a narrow loss in Texas.

    Could her campaign survive? Or would a narrow win in one of the reddest states in the nation be enough to give Obama the nomination?

    She needa a time machine to win Iowa (none / 0) (#6)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    *sigh* (none / 0) (#12)
    by sweetthings on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM EST
    No more posting late in the afternoon for me. headbonk

    Of course, I meant to say Ohio.

    Parent

    Just teasing, sorry (none / 0) (#18)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    Then again, about Iowa (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:28:30 PM EST
    pretty soon, the caucuses start over again at the next stage. That's the problem with caucus delegates -- they're not really allocated yet in some caucus states (see Nevada this past weekend).

    Parent
    It's not about being a red state (none / 0) (#8)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    It's about making up the pledge delegates.

    Parent
    No it really isn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    This is an Obama campaign line. Its really about perception, and can Hillary last until the next set of states or not, what may or may not happen to Obama's numbers etc. If she loses both states or loses badly its probably game over. If she wins one big and barely loses another she can make a (imo weak) point about waiting until PA, then depends on what happens there.

    Parent
    If she doesn't (none / 0) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    have a net gain in delegates and/or total votes after Tuesday it will be extremely hard for her to stay in the race.  

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#20)
    by sweetthings on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    I think, under my scenario, that she has a net gain. A comfortable win in Ohio should more than offset a narrow loss in Texas. (though granted, the Texas primary is a strange beast indeed)

    It's just not a very big net gain...certainly not the net gain she was hoping for. But enough to keep her alive?

    Parent

    No delagate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:20:19 PM EST
    math from Texas means Obama leads in their even if he has a slight loss.  She can't not win Texas and win the day.

    Parent
    i don't think so (none / 0) (#32)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:25:48 PM EST
    There may be an argument for it, and who knows, maybe she would soldier on, but the CW were tend to treat her more and more like a Huckabee figure.

    Hasn't Bill already declared that she needs to win both?

    With MS coming up, an Obama win for sure, and then a 5 week break, it would be hard to sustain any real effort sans positive news.

    Parent

    you mean Ohio? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sweetthings on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I can't find any way to edit my comment, but if you can, I'd much appreciate it.

    Parent
    I can't edit comments (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:57:09 PM EST
    only delete them. That's one of the things about Scoop I not crazy about.

    Parent
    I asked a similar question (none / 0) (#44)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    on another thread.  It seems to be that having Bill say she has to win in Texas has made things much harder for her.  Certainly if she does well in Ohio (I knew what you meant) she could make an argument for seeing what happens in PA.  But now if she loses  in TX she has Bill on record that she can't win the nomination.  Makes it a lot tougher to stay in I would think.

    Parent
    I think she could just say (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    that he doesn't speak for her.

    Parent
    She could (none / 0) (#97)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:54:38 PM EST
    but boy she would be a lot better off if he had kept a sock in it.  If the delegate count stays close, which there is every reason to think it will, she has a totally legitimate case for staying in.  With that comment it just sets up the story to be that she lost TX and now according to Bill she can't win.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#48)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    Bill said it was his opinion.

    I love how some oObama supporters and others say Bill has been unreliable this primary season and then act as if his word is in stone on this particular issue.

    Parent

    You totally miss my point (none / 0) (#98)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    The issue is not whether Bill is the font of all wisdom, he ain't.  The point is that he has made things harder for her than they would otherwise be.

    Parent
    New Gallup Poll (none / 0) (#4)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    Has Obama up by 12 points nationally...

    Gallup poll

    Gallup also says that 73% of Democratic voters believe that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.  

    bad link (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    also who people believe will be the nominee isn't the same as who people intend to vote for.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:15:28 PM EST
    While it is true (none / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    that what they believe and who they will vote for are two different things, that poll does lend to the belief of a growing sense of inevitability.

    Parent
    the inevitability meme (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:58:22 PM EST
    failed for Hillary -- even though it was the media, not her pushing it. Be careful what you wish for! (smile)

    Parent
    And the percentage for Clinton? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    Since the other poll gives both: "Seventy-nine percent (79%) say that Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say the same about Obama."

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#29)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    has a 20% chance of winning the nomination.

    Parent
    Hahahaha (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:26:42 PM EST
    Now, that's desperation speaking, Fly.

    Parent
    Just reporting (none / 0) (#41)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    what the polls said, maam.

    Parent
    and, fwiw (none / 0) (#47)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    thats the odds on Intrade.

    Parent
    No, Fly, what one poll said (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:52:20 PM EST
    and what do you think of what the other said?

    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    I was asked what the poll said of Clinton's chances.  I posted that.  My opinion was not involved

    Parent
    You're referencing the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll (none / 0) (#30)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    which is a whole different poll than the Gallup daily tracking poll....Interesting that the two polls are SOOOOO different.

    Which one is wrong?

    Parent

    Teresa--Obama rules again (none / 0) (#36)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    the polls that show Obama winning are correct.

    The polls that show Obama perhaps not winning so much as someone else who should probably drop out of the race anyway are incorrect.

    Parent

    Oh yes, silly me (none / 0) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:31:25 PM EST
    slapping myself with a wet noodle.

    Parent
    They both have a +/- of 3% (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:38:28 PM EST
    This is the first (none / 0) (#5)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    credible poll giving Obama a lead in TX.  I have seen others but didn't trust the source.

    Once again (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    they under estimated hispanics...don't get too excited yet. From their info...

    "The current survey projects a slightly smaller turnout from Hispanic voters (26%, down from 31%) and a very slight increase among African-American voters (21% up from 19%). It is impossible to project exactly who will show up and vote in a Primary. Rasmussen Reports analyzed a variety of turnout models and found plausible results ranging from a two-point Obama lead to a five-point Clinton lead."

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#14)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    is a different poll.  CNN has Obama with a 4 point lead.

    Parent
    Also could be underepresenting AA (none / 0) (#16)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    some speculate could be 30-40%.

    Parent
    True...but (none / 0) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:18:13 PM EST
    Hispanics could be as much as 60% which is the far larher misrepresentation.

    Parent
    Texas a good test of his ground game (none / 0) (#31)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    as is Ohio, but especially with the Texas hybrid of both a primary and a caucus. His ground game hasn't had the impact in larger states like these that it has had in smaller ones.

    Parent
    that's true (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    The AA districts get more delegates than the Hispanic ones because they had higher voter turnout in the last two elections. Also, there's a caucus type event at the conclusion of the primary and a lot of delegates, maybe 1/3, I can't remember exactly, are awarded based on that.

    Parent
    "Hispanics could be as much as 60%"? (none / 0) (#68)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:05:08 PM EST
    Do you mean that someone is asserting or speculating that Hispanics could make up 60% of the TX vote on March 4? That is not possible. Even with the African-American vote at a modest 25% of the primary electorate, that would put the white percentage at 15%. There's no way the vote will break down like that.

    Parent
    Uh..no... (none / 0) (#76)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    I am saying they are using a model for the poll that 26% of registered hispanic voters turn out and yet the prediction is that it could be as high as 60% of registered hispanic voters. Duh.

    Read the Rass info.

    Parent

    I did go back and look (none / 0) (#88)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:31:35 PM EST
    just to make sure. The Rasmussen data is presented the way all pollsters do it, and so you are reading the data wrong.
    When pollsters cite turnout models and percentages, they are saying they believe that X, Y, and Z groups will make up A%, B%, and C% of the voters in that election. The numbers do not refer to the percentage of the overall X state population or eligible electorate.

    In this poll, Rasmussen is projecting that Hispanics will cast 26% of the votes; and African-Americans, 21%. The rest, 53%, will be mostly white, and a small percentage Asian and other.


    Parent

    Blacks are only 12% of the population in TX (none / 0) (#71)
    by Shawn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:09:47 PM EST
    Granted, they will turn out disproportionately in a Democratic primary (they were 21% of the total in '04), but you'd have to have both collosal AA turnout AND whites & Hispanics voting below their participation rates to have it get up to 30-40%.

    Parent
    CNN Texas poll (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I really wish it showed a lead outside the margin of error.

    But a four point lead, with a 3 1/2 pt. MOE, is not outside the MOE. The MOE is applied to each number, so there would need to be a 7 pt. gap to stand outside of it.

    Yes, polling methods matter (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    so the SUSA poll, so far one of the best, will be interesting on Texas -- to be released tonight.

    I love the wording (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:23:06 PM EST
    Obama has a slight .5 lead out of the margin of error, but in the other Clinton is ahead by 1 point.

    Consistencey means Obama has a very slight lead in one and in the other they are tied, or Obama leads by four in one and Clinton leads by one in the other.

    Does the Polling Method Matter? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    I say, yes. Look at the end of the Rasmussen Text poll:

    "The current survey projects a slightly smaller turnout from Hispanic voters (26%, down from 31%) and a very slight increase among African-American voters (21% up from 19%). It is impossible to project exactly who will show up and vote in a Primary. Rasmussen Reports analyzed a variety of turnout models and found plausible results ranging from a two-point Obama lead to a five-point Clinton lead."

    If is not just what percent of registered voters turn out, but which voters the survey method determines are likely to vote.

    Rasmussen has basically reduced the likelihood that one of Clinton's core constituencies will vote by 17%... while boosting the likelihood that one of Obama's core constituencies will vote by 10%. Of course there is a swing to Obama, and it has little to do with people's changing their minds. The methodology accounts for the swing in a situation like this.

    Now, for the swing to be real, it could be that Clinton supporters, sensing her imminent loss, are less likely to vote in the primaries as they draw closer (the importance of media narratives about momentum to disillusion potential voters), while vice versa for Obama's supporters, sensing his imminent win, are more likely to vote now.

    What drives the indifference: the blogosphere used to point to media narratives, such as "teh momentum," as producing shifts in voter indifference and likelihood to vote (um, like exit polls released 5 hours before polls close). But now, Obama progressives would dispute that: it is the man, the message, and "teh movement!"

    Am I the only one who wonders (none / 0) (#42)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    if the hybrid nature of Texas will be better for Hillary?

    How many of Obama's youngins will really vote in both? How many are going to vote in the primary in order to be able to caucus? I am really curious as this is not a question that ever gets asked.

    Hard to know but (none / 0) (#50)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:44:17 PM EST
    the history so far suggests it helps Obama. He has consistently done better in caucus due to his superior ground game.  You would think that Clinton's people would have figured this out by now and would be all over the ground in TX.  Reports that they were just figuring out how the delegate count works there are not promising, but I don't know and don't think its possible to know until the event.  

    Parent
    Frankly, just about anything is possible (none / 0) (#53)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    with the hybrid primary/caucus mess.  We won't know a thing until after the 4th.


    Parent
    Rational Behind "Vote Early"? (none / 0) (#100)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:12:18 PM EST
    Spring Break may be a small problem for Obama. Even if he gets a big part of his base (college students) to the polls for the primary, if they leave town for Spring Break, they won't be able to caucus.

    Parent
    Nevermind (none / 0) (#102)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:17:41 PM EST
    Saw the Spring Break post below.

    Parent
    isn't "numbers will go down poorly" (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    a double negative?

    So, what you are saying is that they will go up?

    If we believed in polls, this thing would've ended back in NH.

    "Go down poorly" as in (none / 0) (#51)
    by JJE on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    HRC supporters will need a spoonful of sugar.

    Parent
    nah (none / 0) (#52)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:46:32 PM EST
    I think you're really saying you think she's gonna win.

    And, you know what?  I agree with you!

    Parent

    I think polls right now ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    are trailing indicators.  

    (Not that I ever take them that seriously)

    The race feels like it's changing again, and I think TX and OH will be the first real indicators.

    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    poorly is a adjective, it doesn't negate, it describes.

    Parent
    Actually, no, it's an adverb (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    Note also that the article before a vowel is "an."

    Parent
    check out the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:52:32 PM EST
    "can't not" in the earlier post.  :-)


    Parent
    Cream (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:52:54 PM EST
    Exactly.  So, I am just going to believe what I think was stated: Hillary Clinton is poised to win the nomination.

    It's perfectly clear to me.

    Parent

    Perfectly clear to me as well (none / 0) (#75)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    Why are there more call for Hillary to drop out than there are for Huckabee?  WTF is up with this mess?

    Sidenote:  From Jerome at MyDD...

    "I feel for their sickness

    Wow, how does it feel now for some bloggers, having crossed the line from representing a voice for progressive values to parroting the legitimization of Drudge Report as a news vehicle. It's a sad day when any Democratic candidate have to deny any report on Drudge, lest they be called guilty without any proof.

    I can see someone arguing 'anything goes' and 'whatever it takes' in their desire to see a candidate nominated. But you need to ask yourself at what cost? Drudge has done this twice now this campaign season. It's worse this time though, as we have plenty of progressive bloggers that fell in line too, legitimizing Drudge Report in a false smear.

    Drudge is a pox on the house of Democrats. It is a rightwing crap site that spews rumors designed to tear democrats down and divide us. I don't read it, link to it, or believe anything from that site. Everyone here ought to feel the same way on this subject, right? We are all agreed?"


    Parent

    since you brought it up (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    (and apologies to Jeralyn if this is too OT) I saw this at Taylor Marsh, where it seems she transcripted the phone call from Wolfson:

    When confronted with Maggie Williams's statement, he [Wolfson] was asked why there wasn't a clear denial. He then said, "No." Howard's voice rose at one point, excoriating reporters on the call...asking why everyone is believing Drudge. Wolfson then pivoted, asking all of us on the call whether we had independent reporting proving anything different from what the Clinton camp has denied. "I'm not in a position to ask 700 people to come and answer questions."

    Seemed to me like his message got a bit garbled.  Jeralyn, was this the call you were on and is this your take?  Or is it too off-topic for this post (I guess I'll know if I come back and it's gone! Haha!)

    Parent

    CAn someone please confirm/disprove (none / 0) (#61)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    I have read the that March 4th is Spring Break week in Texas (and possibly OH).  If this is true, won't this change things a bit?

    I can't believe that after NH we stil talk about polls like they really mean something--especially when they're all over the place now.  

    And does anyone notice that there are more calls for HRC to drop out than Huckabee.  I mean, it's still close, not to mention the MI/FL issue.  

    Also, BC said she "must win" NV too--I think it's a motivational method.  If she wins OH, RI, and TX is close, I don't see why she can't stay in until PA--especially "if" BO starts to get vetted the bubble bursts.  

    FWIW... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    One of Ohio's larger papers (the Akron Beacon Journal) endorsed Clinton yesterday: http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/15916767.html?page=all&c=y

    I live in OH and I haven't heard anyone eager for HRC to drop out. Many voters here seem less concerned with the supposed leanings of their demographic group than with the problems of the economy and health care, etc. which are HUGE issues here. Many people I've met are looking for more details from both candidates before they make their decisions.  

    Those calling for her to drop out have a horse in this race. Considering how heavily Obama supporters have pushed the "let the people decide" meme, it seems that letting the 3/4 primary states have a say wouldn't hurt anything. Especially us here in OH, the swingy-est of the swing states in the GE.

    Parent

    I am shocked (none / 0) (#78)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:14:08 PM EST
    that there is such a huge push from Obama supporters to get Hillary to leave the race if they are so confident in their candidates ability to win.

    Parent
    Thanks, Ohioan, and please keep posting (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    what you see from there.

    Parent
    Yep-I have heard it's Spring Break (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    that week, too.  I actually celebrated the news when I heard it a few weeks ago, much to outraged responses.  I think it's really good for Clinton.  I can't see my very smart and politically active niece giving up a minute of her spring break for anything that feels like work.

    On the other hand, Obamaphiles are very devoted.  Maybe instead of all those money bombs Hillaryis44 is doing they should do beer bombs?  Much more likely to affect the outcome...

    Parent

    I'd bet a lot of them (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    will spend spring break at school so they can volunteer for Obama.

    Parent
    My take: OB-bots think HRC is the enemy (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ellie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    Once he's beaten HRC to get on the Dem ticket, they'll have "won", mostly fall off for the summer and be hard to RE-energize for activism and votes in the fall.

    Hey, I was young once (and not too long ago to remember what I was doing even in my more "causey" days.)

    Parent

    Maybe they'll just vote early (none / 0) (#80)
    by independent voter on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    like Obama is reminding them to do. Then again, my daughter is spending her spring break in Texas on an Obama GOTV project. So who knows... those crazy college kids

    Parent
    Yea... (none / 0) (#89)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    Those crazy UT Austin kids...endorsing Hillary...you never know what's gonna happen....

    Parent
    But if they leave town... (none / 0) (#101)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    ...they can't caucus.

    Parent
    Sorry to pop the Spring Break bubble, (none / 0) (#84)
    by along on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST
    but here are the details (via The Field):

    Texas Enrollments and Spring Break Dates:

    University of Texas at Austin 49,697 (March 10-14) (5th largest in US)
    Texas A&M 45,380 (March 17-21) (8th largest in US)
    University of Houston 34,663 (March 17-21)
    University of North Texas 34,153 (March 17-21)
    University of Texas at San Antonio 28,533 (March 17-21)
    Texas Tech University 28,260 (March 17-21)
    Texas State University - San Marcos (March 10-14)
    University of Texas at Arlington 24,888 (March 17-21)
    University of Texas at El Paso 20,154 (March 24-28)
    University of Texas-Pan American 17,435 (March 10-14)

    NONE of Texas' top ten universities have spring break that week.

    In Ohio, only TWO of the top ten give students next week off:

    University of Toledo: 19,480 (Spring Break: March 3-7)
    Bowling Green State University: 18,989 (Spring Break: March 3-7)

    Parent

    d'oh! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:20:19 PM EST
    Thanks for not being as lazy as I was.  So much for the beer bomb.

    Parent
    What I can't believe is that our future (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    could rest upon whether it's spring break week -- whether it will be "Guys and Girls Gone Wild" in Cancun or staying on campuses for the campaign. (Allow me to note that I am, at the same time, most admiring of the college students who are spending spring break week, yet again, in Louisiana and Texas to work with residents there to have residences again, through Habitat for Humanity and other fine programs. Allow me also to suggest that this thus is a great time to give a call to HforH and see what they need -- as I did last week. And I got a chocolate bar for my donation to send students to NOLA. So you can get good feelings from doing so in several ways. :-)

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    Honestly it seems like the goals of the Dems would be better served if we donated more time and money to orgs like Habitat and less to the nomination process...

    Parent
    So if Hillary does pull it out (none / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    despite the polls and Democratic concern trollsand wins the nomination, will Republicans declare her candidacy unconstitutional?  (because she's a woman).

    (got the idea from electoral-vote.com)

    well, the Spring Break theory (none / 0) (#90)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    made it intersting--and while I can see students staying to help GOTV, I would imagine that many made flights/booked hotels well in advance.  Seems to be a mute point now anyway...

    I still think it's too earlier to seriously consider these polls--it's not Monday the 3rd after all.

    And, what's with the BO supporters basically telling  the voters in TX/OH/RI/VT that they don't (shouldn't) count?  As though MI and FL voters haven't been insulted enough! :)

    what's up, fear of losing :-) (none / 0) (#92)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:46:13 PM EST
    I've always thought the (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:50:40 PM EST
    If Obama wins the nom, I've always thought the Republicans would be well-served if right around November 4th, SOMEBODY releases a really good new electronic device or a super hit video game....a new fad to replace the old.

    This would steer the spring break constituent away just enough that the Republicans would win the swing states.

    Parent

    just between us (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    I don't think they'll need a new video game   :-(

    Parent
    Now we need more info on (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    when midterm exams are, for a new theory. :-)

    Parent
    Cream (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    yet again, we are of one mind!  They'll have midterms going into spring break.  Maybe their college professors--surely some of them are Women of a Certain Age--will assign them projects that will take lots of time!

    Parent
    Kathy (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:57:01 PM EST
    can't tell you how often I wonder if we were separated at birth or something. Who knew I had me a steel magnolia sister? (Fave chick flick.:-) Btw, every woman college prof ever I've met is a woman of a certain age . . . as there's nothin' like academe to age 'em fast.

    Parent
    Better watch out! (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:59:16 PM EST
    I heard someone chanting "hail, hail, fire and snow"

    (think star trek).

    Parent

    Hillard Is Karl Roves (none / 0) (#105)
    by HillaryRovian on Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 10:18:45 PM EST
    The last week, Hillary has accused Obama of using Karl Rove tactics when it's really her camp who has used these tactics. The person who is accusing is usually the one who is playing the trick. View the release of Obama's picture in African wardrobe in Kenya. The Clintons News Network (CNN) called the wardrobe "Muslim" outfit.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316273,00.html

    Clinton Campaign Requests Resignation From Second Iowa Coordinator for Obama 'Muslim' E-Mail
    Sunday, December 09, 2007

    DES MOINES, Iowa --  Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign on Sunday requested the resignation of a second Iowa volunteer coordinator who forwarded a hoax e-mail saying Barack Obama is a Muslim possibly intent on destroying the United States.