New Texas SUSA Poll: Obama Up Four Points

Here's the new SUSA Texas poll released tonight.

In a Democratic Primary in Texas today, 02/25/08, 8 days till votes are counted, Barack Obama moves ever-so-slightly ahead of Hillary Clinton, though at the edge of the margin of sampling error, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KTRK-TV Houston, KTVT-TV Dallas and KRLD-AM radio Dallas. Today, it's Obama 49%, Clinton 45%. Compared to a SurveyUSA tracking poll released one week ago, Obama is up 4 points, Clinton is down 5 points.

It's not all bad news for Hillary:

"Among seniors, Liberals, voters in Central Texas, South Texas and West Texas, Clinton's support is holding. "

..."Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it's Clinton 51%, Obama 46%."

Also, the Laredo Times endorsed Hillary today, citing her experience.(pdf)

< William Haynes Out as Pentagon Chief Counsel | How Important Is Tonight's Debate? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It is looking more and more (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:35 PM EST
    that Obama will take Texas and Hillary will take Ohio.  

    Poll has her ahead in early voters (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST
    "Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it's Clinton 51%, Obama 46%."

    Those swings (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    are really wild. It seems very weird to me and no matter how hard I try I can't seem to understand it, or totally believe it.

    Frankly, the only part of this poll (none / 0) (#49)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:19:22 PM EST
    I believe is the 25% who have already voted.  And that's with the assumption they weren't lying.

    it says 25 percent (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:16:45 AM EST
    have voted or are likely to vote early.

    No (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:29:12 AM EST
    Its got two columns: one is "Already voted" and the other is "Likely to vote". The 25% is in the Already voted column, with the other 75% in the likely to vote column, which of course gives you 100%(of actual and likely voters) In the "already voted" column, Clinton leads 51-46

    Early voting is in record numbers (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    per some press stories I found -- three to four times the fate in the 2004 primary, in only the first few days. It started just after the Wisconsin primary, so with Clinton ahead in early voting in Texas, more evidence of no "Wisconsin bounce" for Obama. Interesting. Btw, a story on one county said that there had been as many early ballots in the first four days as in the entire 2004 primary. So the early ballots may be very significant in Texas results . . . although, of course, then it ALSO has caucuses. So crazy.

    Keep in mind that we... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:53:57 PM EST
    Clinton supporters are far outnumbered by Obama supporters in the MSM (now Olbermann too) and blogosphere. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that this is part of a game to control the narrative, to name "teh momentum" as Obama's. In 2008, the blogosphere is equally skilled at media narrative at this point from years of media criticism.

    "Teh momentum" is a media device used by Republicans and media throughout the past 20-30 years to depress Democratic will to vote (we are always less likely to go to the polls). We all know it exists in part from our personal experience with Bush v. Gore ("there is no difference, have a beer"). The very same thing is occurring in poll analysis and media narrative at this point in the Democratic primary. (No conspiracy, I mean each side has a will to see the results as they want to).

    These single-buyer commissioned polls (like USA Today or CNN) have a say in what the likely voter model and sampling method is. Look at Rasmussen's report from today:

    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.

    In part, the media outlets are choosing the polls to fit the narratives. So, I think we Clinton supporters can validly push back on "teh momentum" narrative by citing the national tracking polls at Gallup and Rasmussen where the likely voter model is consistent day to day. Also, at the state level, what the hell is going on with analysts projections for Hispanic voters, when one poll (CNN) says 30% (as it has been in SW exit polls), and another poll (SUSA) says 13% (following a 17% drop).

    Lastly, SUSA says 25% of voters have voted, with Hillary at +5%--but projects that the remaining voters will go for Obama by +6-7% for the rest of the week and total. That is all predicated by the accuracy of their model for those who have not yet voted. Right now, they only win if Clinton's voters give up.

    Clinton leads the race in both Texas and Ohio right now, polls for Texas and Ohio demonstrate that both are in our camp.

    this doesn't add up (none / 0) (#88)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:18:06 AM EST
    You can't really question the accuracy of the turnout model for those who have not yet voted, without also questioning the accuracy of the model for those who have voted (and lean to Clinton). It is the same model. They sample people first, ask them their preferences, and then also ask them if they voted.

    If they have already voted (none / 0) (#90)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:20:47 AM EST
    they're not leaning.  They're over the fence and gone.

    Two different things (none / 0) (#110)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:11 AM EST
    I believe it would be two different things.

    For those that have already voted, it is only a matter of sampling by age, ethnicity, geography, etc. Sample weighting will create variance in this measure.

    For those who have not yet voted, it depends on how they make their model. When they ask, "How likely are you to vote in the primary?" the answers will include very likely to not all likely (or some variant specific to the model), plus already voted now.

    Each model's projections come strictly from the people who state likeliness. Both are combined to predict the final outcome.


    I should say (none / 0) (#111)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:24 AM EST
    Both "already voted" and the "likeliness model" are combined to predict the final outcome.

    why do you beleive that? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:55:25 AM EST
    I don't know the answer. My guess would be it is a single model, with a "have you voted already" question tacked on. Do you have any certain knowledge it is two models?

    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:45 AM EST
    I have not seen the questionnaire because it is proprietary, so direct answer is no.

    But, if I can make the unsubstantiated assertion that I know a few things about polling method (for anonymity), I would say that I know how to reverse engineer or deconstruct a poll.

    For factual data, like gender or whether what vote a voter cast (both only affirmed by voice over the phone), the only problem is getting your sampling correct to represent the proper demographies and geographies of the state.

    For intentional data, how likely are you to buy a car this year or how likely are you to vote next Tuesday, you need to create a metric that gives you a best guess about what percentage of your subjects will act on those stated intentions (this is the source of much variance, but sloppy pollers can have sloppy demographics as well).

    An already vote is a 100% likely to vote (by) next Tuesday, so no metric necessary.


    SUSA Demographics (none / 0) (#121)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:33 AM EST
    SUSA Demographics do show that, despite that fact that Hillary leads by 5% in early voting, their predictive model shows a 7% win by Obama from here to Tuesday.

    Other neat demographic info too. You can see how important the regional weighting is for this poll since the vote goes from Clinton to Obama, West to East.


    Sorry to belabor this SUSA poll (none / 0) (#126)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:52:36 AM EST
    But, check this out:

    SUSA predicts that 51% of primary voters by Tuesday will be below age 45 (See the under Obama Age category). In 2004, in the CNN Exit polls, only 32% of the Texas primary voters were under 45. That is quite a predicted jump in an age demographic and a choice in the model that tends to favor Obama overwhelmingly.

    Are voters really going to be equally divided between under and over 45? From California to Florida, the percentage of voters over 45 has been more like 60% to 75% of the primary voters.


    I am officially unhinged.... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    A day after I wrote that the tracking polls reflect that Obama does not have any momentum and that single-buyer commissioned polls reflect "teh momentum" that the media wants to fit their narrative, the Gallup tracking poll's useful graph disappears and its own people claim it does not matter....

    Under the media-bias thread...


    Sorry for the O/T (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:25 PM EST
    but I heard Obama's senate record in Illinois will be discussed on Nightline tonite coming up if anyone wishes to watch....

    off topic (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    no comments to this please, go watch if you want.

    Which one is more likely to go Democratic (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:45 PM EST
    in November?

    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:35:34 PM EST
    thank you Jeralyn.

    I still feel like a lot can happen in Texas in 8 days. I also feel like these numbers are just not right. But that may be my clinton heart talking.


    which states (none / 0) (#32)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:58:49 PM EST
    that remain can hillary win?  TX, OH, and PA.  Any others?  Maybe Puerto Rico....  If she loses TX, I think she's out.  I don't think you can simultaneously say that the red states obama wins don't matter, that the blue states Hillary has won are going to go democratic in the general regardless of who wins, and that because hillary won these blue states she should be the nominee.  It doesn't make sense.

    NY, MA, CA are going to go to the dems.  Only Obama puts other states in play that otherwise wouldn't be.


    We're talking about this poll (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:15:22 PM EST
    like it is predictive.  :-)  This thing could go anywhere in the next 8 days.

    IMO Hillary is as she still has the base democrat (none / 0) (#9)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:36:05 PM EST
    in a rather large percentage

    Neither will (none / 0) (#10)
    by mg7505 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:36:23 PM EST
    Really? What do you know about Ohio? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    That's a huge piece of information. Tell more.

    The one most important to super-delegates (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:40 PM EST
    it would seem, the one that will go Dem. Uh, Ohio?

    In my unscientific (none / 0) (#17)
    by NecSorteNecFato on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:55 PM EST
    opinion, Ohio will go blue this year no matter who is elected. I live here, and after the events of the last election there is a lot more motivation to get out there and vote. SoS Jennifer Bruner has been working to overhaul election boards and make this year's voting unquestionable; it's been in the news all year.

    On an o/t note (the other thread has been closed), the Obama pic story made it across the pond.  


    Let's leave the photo out of this thread please (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    and keep it to Texas and polls, ok? Thanks

    yea, except... (none / 0) (#21)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:48:30 PM EST
    ... Bill Clinton says she is done if she doesn't win BOTH.  This is 1 week to go , and she is behind in TX and her lead in Ohio is either declining or steady between 5-9.

    I think the only way she drops out is if she loses (none / 0) (#25)
    by Rigelian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    both Ohio and Texas.  Given the polling I think the chance that Obama wins there is significant, Ohio, I still have doubts about.  Of course a variable I don't have access to is what Clinton's donors are saying to her.  If she loses Texas can she expect the financial support necessary to carry on.

    I guess the question I have for Clinton supporters is this.  If she loses Texas and wins Ohio do you think she should continue?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:16:40 PM EST
    but then again I don't mind a brokered convention.

    Her fundraising must be going well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:42 PM EST
    as I read about a big ad buy by Clinton for Ohio.

    Donations (none / 0) (#115)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:56:05 AM EST
    started to spike on her website when she stood up for herself (when she tore into Obama in Ohio about the mailers).  I saw more and more people sending in donations that night.

    Big Tent Democrat has said... (none / 0) (#37)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:57 PM EST
    ... Clinton MUST win both states. If she continues on, its ridiculous, its 6 weeks till the next

    I'm just not sure she would throw in the towel (none / 0) (#44)
    by Rigelian on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:32 PM EST
    even though some of her major supporters suggest she should.  I've heard Senator Clinton supporters suggest that she should take it to the convention even if she loses both Texas and Ohio.  I don't think she would do that...but if there's a split, I'm just not so sure.

    If she loses TX (none / 0) (#54)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:51 PM EST
    Obama might get a flood of superdelegates to try to end this thing.

    And if she wins Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:26:15 PM EST
    others might be wary of committing . . . and reaching for aspirin.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#24)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52:16 PM EST
    Have you endorsed yet?

    No, why? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    I don't know that I will endorse anyone. My favorites have always been Hillary and Edwards. I've been clear on that. But neither TalkLeft nor I have officially endorsed anyone (Big Tent has tepidly endorsed Obama). Nor have I donated to any presidential candidate this year.

    i was just wondering (none / 0) (#51)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:20 PM EST
    if you were going to make it official or not.  I know you've been clear about supporting Hillary over Obama and BTD's mild support for Obama.  Was just curious if you had plans to make it official for TL that's all...

    Good point .. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Rainsong on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:45:07 AM EST
    .. Was reading the other day in the NYT an op-ed about the super-delegates, how a few had switched to Obama. The MSM had been making noises that the trickle would turn into a flood, but the NYT piece (sorry, gone blank on the author's name!)suggested another view that some Dem state politician super-dels have switched (or declared) because of not wanting to risk their own chances of re-election in their constituencies with small Democrat bases.

    in  other states or with retired ones etc, its not so much a problem, they are unlikely to have as strong a personal stake in who they are seen to support.

    If I was Super-Delegate for a day, I'd have some egg-head statistician working the numbers down to county level for me, to cast my vote on who I think can take the White House.

    And I'd probably exclude a lot of the solid red & blue states, (and probably most of the caucuses too, weird unlikely numbers coupled with anecdotal evidence of local confusion and screw-ups), or at least weight them much less, and then focus most on the best purple states numbers.

    I really feel for the super-dels, I understand they were set up for "in case the primary goes pear-shaped" situations like this, but it hasn't happened for so long, there's not much precedent or history to work with.

    For Party loyalists, with no druthers for either candidate, no personal stake in the outcome in their own constituencies - and wanting to vote in good conscience for the Party, its even harder -- but, I guess we have to wait and see how it pans out.. sigh

    But then I don't mind a brokered convention. I dont see a problem with it, or why so many think it needs to be avoided at all costs.

    A heck of a lot of damage has already been done to split the Dems, by the MSM mostly. (And not helped with Nader now entering the race either).

    The appalling negative campaign on Clinton exploited by Obama, and his public opposition right from Day 1, (usually front-runners politely ignore each other, leaving open the possibility for deals later) has caused some internal Party bad blood that wont be that easily fixed, no matter what the polls say. People often lie on those sort of poll questions because they dont want to be seen as "bad losers", (or racist, sexist, ageist or whatever) so they nearly all say they would vote for the other if their first preference loses.

    Maybe letting it play out through to the end, even August would be better? Maybe time will heal the wounds?

    I doubt a graceful concession by Clinton would  help much at this late stage anyway, so I think she may as well go as far as she can, for as long as she can.  Don't give up now Hillary!


    absolutely not (none / 0) (#127)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:10:59 AM EST
    Every day our two candidates compete against eachother, is another day that we force them to speak only to us rather than to the general population. Obama is trying to get out of this box somewhat by appealing to independents all along, but he can only do that to a certain extent. Hillary is focusing on the base and forcing Obama to fight for that. That means that as the campaign goes on, and impressions of the candidates become more widespread (what they are actually proposing) that impression is more and more a Dem-based image.

    Meanwhile, McCain has a free pass from now forward, to distance himself from his base and make his appeal to the center. And he can do so without too much resistance, shaping a centrist-sounding message, and basically defining the meme landscape that the ultimate Dem candidate will have to fight on in the fall. Obama, once again, is trying to cut this off by working in a lot of criticism of McCain in his speeches, and I actually heard Hillary do that a bit very recently, but it can only be a minor part of their rhetoric so long as they are competing with eachother.

    The game in the fall will be fought, as always, between the 40 yard lines, or even the 45 yd. lines. Dems will unite, Reps probably will, and that means they both start with a 40% core. With good solid candidates, as both parties will have, its probably starting with 45% each. The whole game is about how much of that 10% in the middle you get. They are not the same people as in either base.

    McCain also has 8 months to unify his party. With a brokered convention, we would have 2. Now granted that he probably has a lot more work to do in this regard in his party, but 6 extra months is a long time. And that is not only 6 months we lose for building party unity, it is 6 months spent fighting and making the party even less united.

    There is no benefit to extending this any longer than necessary.


    Obama is winning (none / 0) (#141)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    It is quite clear and undeniable that Obama is winning.

    Why would we ask the candidate who is winning to withdraw?


    Truisms don't advance your argument (none / 0) (#144)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    There is no benefit to extending this any longer than necessary.

    I'm guessing that nobody here disagrees with that statement. But the intent of the Democratic primary is for the Party to select the candidate best qualified to (a) defeat McCain and (b) be the President. Clinton supporters seriously doubt whether Obama is that candidate, on both counts. That's why we need to continue to support Hillary all the way to the Convention, where the best decision for the Party can be reached.

    People have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the concept of a "brokered" convention. But if neither candidate has a plurality of the delegates, negotiation and a brokered decision is exactly what we will need to produce a united Party for the GE.

    Anointing Obama as the Dem candidate now and giving the Republican attack machine 6 months to completely destroy his credibility and undermine his electability will not help the cause of Party unity.


    Spin? (none / 0) (#140)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Jeralyn... are you seriously starting the spin already that Texas doesn't matter?

    Are Clinton supporters (and the Clinton campaign) really wanting to say that primaries only matter if (and it must be each of these):
    1 - they are primaries and not caucuses
    2 - they will vote Dem in November
    3 - they don't have large African American populations
    4 - they are big

    I guess we should only count California and New York in the Democratic primaries from now on.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#146)
    by s5 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:13:24 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton already started the "Texas doesn't count" spin, only a few days after Bill announced that it was a must-win state for her.

    I wonder if Rhode Island counts.


    Not at all (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:24:18 PM EST
    I'm saying the system in Texas works to her disadvantage. She may be the more popular candidate and get less delegates.

    How... (none / 0) (#154)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:38:51 PM EST
    ... is that relevant to your comment about which one will go Democratic in November?

    Not entirely problematic (none / 0) (#6)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:34:05 PM EST

    "Of the 25% of respondents who have already voted, it's Clinton 51%, Obama 46%."

    Their likely voter model (which has been accurate) is producing the Obama lead,--and "already voted" is part of that model...

    don't believe everything you read about TX (none / 0) (#29)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:36 PM EST
    It's too confusing for words.  :-)

    But you're right, early voters should be in what I would think were Obama strongholds.  oh well.


    Good (none / 0) (#87)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:18:00 AM EST
    That means Obama is 5% points behind in the precincts he was supposed to win. This will be a 10%-12% point blowout by Clinton.

    Arrgghh! (none / 0) (#107)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:46:38 AM EST
    Knock on wood...  Knock on wood nooooow!

    the poll says (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    "Among seniors, Liberals, voters in Central Texas, South Texas and West Texas, Clinton's support is holding. "

    Primarily (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:52:33 PM EST
    El Paso, Amarillo, Abilene in the west. Waco, Austin, Killeen, etc in central.  Laredo, Brownsville etc in south.

    I thought Houston was (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:56 PM EST
    in the southern part of Texas. And Austin must be quite an Obama island, for Clinton to be ahead in that area. Or is there something odd about this poll showing it for Clinton overall?

    Houston is southeast (none / 0) (#43)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    and could go either way.  Depending on which ethnic group votes in greater numbers.  I don't like putting it that way but it sure looks like demographics are all this time.

    Obama should have a big lead among the UT crowd but I wouldn't be so sure about more permanent Austinites.  Among people I speak with in Austin, Hillary has significant support and there seems to be lots of suspicion about the Unity Pony.


    That is very interesting and (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:20:01 PM EST
    not what we're told to think about Austin as a UT town; thanks. Btw, I wonder if Texans were watching Nightline tonight -- it was the first straight reporting I've seen on Obama in a long time. And his response (after refusing an interview) was just . . . well, just awful in terms of a real answer, the usual stuff about "that's old politics" to even question his 130 "present" votes, his home purchase with the Rezkos, etc.

    As an Austinite (none / 0) (#57)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:26:12 PM EST
    I can see we are a pretty diverse group, but one thing we do seem to do is go against the grain. Our motto is "Keep Austin Weird." I think there's an anti-establishment mentality that you find here. And if Obama has become "the chosen one" by "the establishment" there could be a bit of a backlash. I don't know if it's enough to keep Austin from favoring Obama when all this is said and done.

    Austin will go Obama (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:29:27 AM EST
    Dallas and Houston too.

    El Paso and the Valley will go for Hillary...Central Texas--depends on what you mean, but someone mentioned Killeen, and that is Ft. Hood.  The other nearby towns in Central Texas are almost all white and over 60.....but with few people.....The kids move away....

    Midland/Odessa, usually considered West Texas, and Abilene, should be for Hillary.


    That's different from this poll (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:37:35 AM EST
    on voters in south, central, and west Texas. Are you citing a different poll with regional data?

    My aunt and cousins (none / 0) (#113)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:44 AM EST
    are West Texans (from Midland/Odessa towards the Big  bend area/Marfa) and they're pretty much holding firm for Clinton.  Some of them are pretty uh...I dunno how to describe it.  They still think/believe Obama's a Muslim/are afraid of him/don't trust him.

    Central Texas (none / 0) (#28)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:16 PM EST
    In basic terms, you can consider this an area that runs from Waco to Austin spreading out from the I-35 corridor. Obviously Austin is a major city and supposedly is going to Obama, though my husband and I voted for HRC today.

    I would almost bet that this poll (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:02:26 PM EST
    picked up big differences in North Texas, primarily in Dallas and burbs.  Dallas is pretty much  majority minority due to white flight to the north and northwest suburbs.  Suburbs like Plano and McKinney you'd have to turn over some rocks to find a Democrat.  If "democrat for a day" is going to be a factor, it'll be there.

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:15:18 PM EST
    I can only hope that the "news" about Rush Limbaugh urging his listeners to vote for Hillary is true. The irony would be welcome.

    Ironic indeed (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:23:06 PM EST
    since it's went Obama's way up to now.  I don't know if the Limbaugh "news" was right or not though, but I'd sure take it.  It would be the only good advice a republican has gotten in a very long time.  :-)

    I want to (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    believe this "news" is true, but I have no way to verify it, personally.

    But it does explain how my friend's mother could so gleefully tell me that she voted for Hillary because she (friend's mother) hated her (HRC) so much.


    hahaha let;'s hope it spreads. (none / 0) (#62)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:30:38 PM EST
    But it's not same-day registration (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:41:30 PM EST
    in Texas, is it, as it is in Wisconsin? Do you have to register in Texas for one party or another? Or ask for a party ballot at the polls? And if you register for one party in the primary, you can re-register for another in fall? Sorry, from a state of essentially all Independents, I don't quite understand how it works elsewhere . . as it also seems that it works differently everywhere!

    Sorry, some of my questions answered (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:43:06 PM EST
    in Jeralyn's linked site below, the ones about it being an open primary. But not same-day registration, right? So does that still allow so much crossover as we see in same-day registration states?

    we're also all independents (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:47:48 PM EST
    there is no same day registration but all you have to do is ask for the party ballot and you're a democrat for a day.  yuck.

    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by sumac on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:48:15 PM EST
    It is same-day "registration." You are asked whether you are voting in the Republican or Democratic primary. You can change back to your true party come the GE.

    In heavily Republican areas ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    .... like Plano, you said

    you'd have to turn over some rocks to find a Democrat.

    In which case, wouldn't these areas have been allocated significantly fewer primary delegates? I read that the weighting algorithm implemented by the Party in TX allocates delegates based on previous election results.

    And if so, polling results from these areas should be discounted somewhat. Do the polls take this aspect into account?


    OK, but the popular vote is irrelevant. (none / 0) (#148)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:00:47 PM EST
    Only delegates matter, because that is the way this contest is set up. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but ... I know it hurts sometimes, and we might wish that things were different, but we have to be realistic.

    Check out this Texas Primary Site (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    You can find the maps and lots on the demographics and primary rules at Lone Star State Project.

    Thanks for that link... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Rainsong on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:55:26 AM EST
    .. if Clinton's SUSA poll leads in regions holds (eg 66% in south) might put them closer with delegates, depending on how you split up the cities.

    No, they do not (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    That;s not the only thing funny about it. (none / 0) (#91)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    They have 61% of voters from north and east Texas.  There's no way.

    If this holds (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:47:59 PM EST
    I  think it's the end of the road for Hillary. Last week, so did bill.

    National polls show hillary down... (none / 0) (#23)
    by jor on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:50:31 PM EST
    ... double digits.

    Not Rasmussen (none / 0) (#31)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:58:11 PM EST
    Its 45-42 Obama.

    Comment by Oje deleted, url too long (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM EST
    use the link button please and put urls in html format, otherwise I have to delete the whole comment as it skews the site.

    oops, sorry... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:03:08 AM EST
    New to this, I was just a reader until the blogosphere became the Obamasphere... I didn't notice that little button before....

    no problem (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:22:18 AM EST
    there are lots of new commenters here. I can't edit comments to fix the url, only delete them. It's pretty easy once you get the hang of it.

    Which? Not Gallup tracking poll (nt) (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22:48 PM EST
    CBS/NYT (none / 0) (#63)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:31:04 PM EST
    Has Obama with a 16 point lead with Dems nationally.  Perhaps the worst news for Hillary is that they are now tied with women. Its also got him beating McCain by 12 with Clinton-McCain a dead heat.  Poll here via Mark Ambinder

    I have not dug into the methodology.  Not sure I believe these numbers, but there they are


    That is so far from SUSA, the best poll (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:49:52 PM EST
    so far this season, that it must be vastly different polling methodology -- which, of course, so few pollsters explain. I.e., some use registered voters, some likely voters, etc.

    Registered voters (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:36:12 AM EST
    v. likely voters, although determining who is a likely voter in this time of great voter enthusiasm using old models may unndershoot the actual Obama vote--as happened in Wisconsin.

    Pls clarify -- registered voters (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:39:00 AM EST
    is the answer to what question?

    I believe the two big national (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:46:19 AM EST
    polls showing a double digit Obama lead over Hillary polled registered voters.....

    Then that isn't applicable (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:52:42 AM EST
    in states with same-day registration, like mine. I wonder how such polls figure those states -- they must be really "likely" voters, too.

    Oh oh, going into details on the polll (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:53:40 PM EST
    via your link, there is not good news for Dems in this one. Good news for Obama clearly is not the same -- less than half say he could handle a national crisis, they like McCain for national security, etc. It is so worrisome if we just let what seemed like a clear Dem win into the White House slip away again.

    yeah, but (none / 0) (#109)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:49:22 AM EST
    they prefer Obama over Hillary in handling international crisis (47-39), as commander in chief (23-20), and improving foreign relations (32-23). On that last one, both beat McCain (16).

    Obviously nat. sec. is McCain's strong suit, but it doesnt seem to be his trump card, given the fact that Obama beats him so badly overall.


    CBS/NYT National Poll (none / 0) (#92)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:46 AM EST

    Jan 13: Clinton 42%, Obama 27%
    Feb 3: Clinton 41%, Obama 41%
    Feb 25: Obama 54%, Clinton 38%

    Also Pollster Trends

    I agree that each individual poll is shaky at best (although some (SUSA) are better than others (Zogby, ARG)).

    But I find that the Pollster's aggregation is generally pretty good, and was very good for predicting 2006 GE stuff.

    FWIW . . .


    I like the site, too, but it doesn't (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:42:06 AM EST
    include SUSA, the best so far this year -- yet does include Zogby and others less good in its averages. So I like it more for the discussions.

    I believe you are mistaken (none / 0) (#159)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    When I went back to see the Texas polls, I found that, indeed, SUSA polls are included there.

    If I had to guess... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    from the series of polls released recently, the likelihood that Hispanics will vote has become difficult to measure or muddled by Independent and Republican voters.

    A CNN poll released earlier today with roughly the same percentage difference (-4) changed their estimate of the Hispanic proportion from 31% to 26% of Democratic primary voters from one week to the next. But, that poll suggested that Hispanics still favored Clinton 2 to 1.

    SUSA says more like 4 to 3, but does not mention their proportion of the likely Democratic primary voters. No state in the Southwest has demonstrated anywhere near the minor margin for Clinton by Hispanics that SUSA suggests, the exit polls from California to New Mexico are ~67%.

    The methodologies matter, hopefully Clinton people will not be discouraged from voting in Texas. They are winning right now, as the survey demonstrates. Clinton's ground team needs to focus on that.

    If Hillary only loses one of the two biggies (none / 0) (#38)
    by magster on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:05:43 PM EST
    she should stay in, as long as she doesn't tear down Obama.  Increased interest in the primaries get people more involved, which is more likely to carry through to November.

    Again, only if she doesn't tear Obama down.

    But the last few days (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Maggie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:21:37 PM EST
    says her strategy is to tear him down.  Alas.

    We'll see how that plays for her. Personally, I think it hurts them both.  And since I'd like to see the Republicans out of the white house, I rather wish she'd stop.  If it were up to me, she'd run a positive campaign through 3/4 and then withdraw from the race if she loses either OH or TX.

    I have extended family in Texas. They've always voted Republican.  But a bunch of them have already voted for Obama.  (And I mean FOR him -- if he's on the ballot they'll vote for him in November too).  Don't underestimate the disaffection for their own party among Republicans.  The only thing that gets them to vote for the Republicans this fall would be HRC.  Let's just say that she is not much liked in those parts.


    So Hillary should let him attack her (none / 0) (#60)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:28:08 PM EST
    and just keep her mouth shut?  Did I get that right?  Are you seriously suggesting something like that?

    No, you didn't get me right. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Maggie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:52:49 PM EST
    If she feels her positions have been mischaracterized, she can and should set the record straight.

    The problem is the ranting about it.  Especially when she is ranting about things that she has done herself. That hurts her, because she looks desperate. (Which, she probably is.)

    The other problem is that IMO her attacks also involve mischaracterizing him.  And since he's the likely nominee (Intrade contract on him is over 80) that's not a good move for November.

    If she has a positive case to make for herself, she should make it.


    Let me explain a bit (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:02:07 AM EST
    about politics being a contact sport.  What you saw as a rant, I saw as anger at an opponent outright lying about her position on two big issues.  Obama is now saying that he's always been against NAFTA when that is plainly not true.  In his mailer, he says he "always fought against NAFTA".  That's BS.

    If you're worried about November, ask Obama to stop the lying.


    I disagree; her consistent message (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    is that she has the experience for the job. You may not be receiving the message, but that doesn't mean it's not sent to you.

    DON't YELL (none / 0) (#143)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    it's impolite and stupid in politics.  Since what we  see usually depends on where we stand, you can only give your viewpoint.  Speaking for most people is hardly in your purview.

    I didn't see rants. On which Obama attacks? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:55:44 PM EST
    Her response to the mailers? Not ranting to me, but maybe to others. When else?

    When you are the candidate ... (none / 0) (#145)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    ... you can demonstrate to the rest of us just how you

    can and should set the record straight

    when your opponent distributes information that mischaracterizes your positions, all the while making a positive case for yourself, and not being mischaracterized by the media and your opponents as "ranting".

    If you can pull that off, then you will deserve to be elected President, and maybe canonized too.


    Another use for duct tape. That would (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54:02 PM EST
    be a funny debate to watch.

    Totally MSM narrative (none / 0) (#84)
    by Oje on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    Attacking her character once again, as if she is "hysterical" or "desperate" or (now, Olbermann) "suffering from a multiple personality disorder."

    Whenever a Democrat raises a question about issues, the media attacks that Democrat's character. Then, they mince about that "unhinged" Democrat destroying the Democratic party. Even as, they seek to destroy the credibility of yet another Democratic leader.

    That is not just Clinton Rules, that is Democratic Rules. Happens every 4 years.


    But it is okay for Obama to tear her down? (none / 0) (#85)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:13:29 AM EST
    but what if she wins OH (none / 0) (#40)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:12 PM EST
    and the popular vote in TX--I don't think she'd drop out then.  

    I think we all know that much can happen, in either direction, in a week.  But I also recall that just before Super Tuesday, the NYT (not that they deserve much respect these day for the McCain story, but they're still the NYT) had a 'hit piece' on BC on Thursday (re: how he got the money to help fight AIDS in Africa) and then the Excelon piece on BO that Sunday (Of course no one seemed to care about him lying about passing that bill in Iowa, nor his ties to big energy).  

    Anyway, I think they're are some pieces they're holding off on but will release just before 3/4, especially considering the McCain story time-line.  

    i read the poll: (none / 0) (#59)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:27:11 PM EST
    obama now atop clinton

    as part of the headline was a clue as to how seriously i should take it: not so much.

    one interesting note: it showed obama with 85% of the AA vote. what it failed to note was how much of their sample was AA, and what % of texas's population is AA? presumably, they know the answer to the first, else how would they carve that % out of the total?

    nope, not particularly impressed at all. if this is the basis for people suggesting she drop out, it's no wonder she's ignored them, they're idiots.

    Nationally (none / 0) (#65)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:37:08 PM EST
    the CBS/NYTimes poll is saying Obama has surged ahead by 16 points among Democratic voters.

    In each contested state Obama and his team repeat the same thing, turning around large deficits into victories. I think this is being reflected in Texas already and is starting to show in Ohio. H. Clinton was the default favorite and a lot of her early advantage was because Obama was unknown. It looks to me that the trends are in Obama's favor, and that if H. Clinton manages to hold onto Ohio, it won't be by enough to make a difference and Obama now looks to win Texas outright.

    polls are all over the place (none / 0) (#81)
    by tree on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:03:38 AM EST
    If you look at recent polls they are all over the place. Several have the two candidates neck and neck and others have a large margin for Obama. Who knows which is right, if any of them are.

    The most recent Texas polls (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:40:40 AM EST
    are all bad for Hillary....She is down in most of them or at best ahead by only two points....All the Texas polls show dramatic movement for Obama.....

    It looks to me as if (none / 0) (#68)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:46:14 PM EST
    they may have undersampled 50+ voters, if previous elections are any guide at all.  Sample was 42% and I'm not sure I buy that.

    In the sample, 61% of the voters were from north and east Texas.  That figure won't hold to the end.

    The positive to this is (none / 0) (#72)
    by thereyougo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
    should she prevail, and hangs in there,it will be
    a test of what she's made of. She can't wilt when the going gets rough. The office of the presidency is not a walk in the park. Just look at GWB, that guy looks pasty and beat up and we're sick of him too.

    Hillary has to get tournament tough as they say in tennis.

    they're both good candidates and mcjoan was saying at Dalykos that people view them equally good choices. Its a media lore that she's not liked. It was like a rumor that spread by the MSM. People I know just don't exactly know why Hillary "ísn't liked "

    Why Hillary is not liked (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:43:31 AM EST
    Her rant against Obama, shouting "shame on you."  Her ridicule and mockery of Obama and his supporters in a tone of voice mimicking televangelists ("and the heavens will open")....Very offensive...She can't inspire so she tries to tear down....

    EXCUSE ME. (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 01:04:13 AM EST

    Her ridicule and mockery of Obama and his supporters in a tone of voice mimicking televangelists ("and the heavens will open")....Very offensive...

    How many times do I have to point out that Obama himself is the one who does this over-the-top evangelical nonsense in his stump speeches?

    When he took the stage he said, "At some point in the evening, a light is going to shine down and you will have an epiphany and you'll say, `I have to vote for Barack.'"

    From Seeing the Light in South Carolina.

    Do you just continually behave like you're blind because you are, or do you just actively choose not to see reality?


    oh stop the nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:10 AM EST
    fer chrissakes
    Obviously he was having some fun with the whole thing. Which mean she was being not only sarcastic, but dishonest.

    You telling me that you REAALY beleive he said that with a straigt face? If so, then it is you who have a real problem discerning reality, and that might account for some of the opinions you have offered here.

    And besides, your response to the commenter is wholly besides the point. The comment was simply pointing out why Hillary comes off in a manner that surely turns off more voters than it attracts. What Obama said is irrelevant to the point - whether what she said was totally true, or totally false is also irrelevant. The question is how did it sound when she said it, and how did viewers react.


    don't you ever tire of this? (3.00 / 2) (#124)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:36:28 AM EST
    Trolling again, Tano (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    You post yet more deliberately provocative comments in support of a previous post that was itself provocative.

    Anyone who watches more than a few clips of both candidates could not possibly conclude that Clinton's style of oratory is "over the top" while Obama's is not. The opposite is patently true most of the time.

    So how can you possibly argue, as you try to above, that "what Obama said is irrelevant"? It's not irrelevant, it was the whole point of the response.

    If you can't present an honest argument, please stop being so argumentative.  


    stop with the insults (none / 0) (#157)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    What Obama said is irrelevant TO THE POINT BEING MADE. The point being made was about the tone of certain specific comments by Hillary. The hectoring, scolding, shame-on-you rant - something that looks very unpresidential. It makes no difference what subject she was addressing at the time, or whether the substance of her argument was valid or not. The issue being addressed is her tone and the way it came across.

    My comments are an honest reflection of how I see things. That you find them provocative is your problem, not mine. More than half of the comments on this blog are provocative under the standard that you seem to employ. This is not a Clinton fan blog, and you don't have the right to tell me to shut up.

    Your conception of what people could "possibly conclude" or what is "patently true" is a rather telling assertion on your part that you simply cannot conceive of anyone seeing the world differently than you do. I can assure you that I have never seen Obama react in such an unprofessional ranting manner as Clinton did in Cincinatti. I have never seen a serious presidential candidate mocking another in such a childish manner as Clinton did with her "heavans opening up" speil.

    The original comment in this subthread struck me as an honest attempt to explain why it is that some people do not like Hillary. They may do so for reasons that you just don't see, and I am sure you wish it all weren't so, but it is so, those are reasons why some people don't like her. It is quite unseemly for you to charge people with dishonesty for simply making points that you don't understand.


    OK, I give in Tano. Black Is White. (none / 0) (#158)
    by cymro on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:59:20 PM EST
    Why could I not understand that?

    I wonder if the Clinton camp (none / 0) (#93)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:28:18 AM EST
    isn't going for the numbers. The way I read the primary rules, the delegates will be awarded not by numbers of voters, but by a skewed system of alloting an enhanced number to regions that voted in bigger numbers in the last election.  That seems like a terrible hurdle to overcome for Hillary.  However, if she is able to win the popular vote in Texas, she may be able to make the case that the superdelegates there owe their allegiance to her.

    Their numbers for ideology (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:55:05 PM EST
    are bizarre for Texas, 22% liberal and only 14% consevative?  That's certainly not the Texas Democratic party.

    And PA (none / 0) (#82)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:05:40 AM EST
    is closed--only Dems, right?  So if she does stay in, PA should be very good for her.  And she mentioned TX, OH, and PA at the SOTBU event.  

    Maybe she'll stay in just to prove she's her own women and  doesn't listen to all of her husband's advice :)

    (sorry, OT, but HRC on C-Span now)

    Does anyone know how many delegates (none / 0) (#83)
    by NJDem on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:07:15 AM EST
    RI and VT have?  I would suspect that RI has slightly more--am I wrong?

    I think it is 32. I saw a poll with her leading (none / 0) (#96)
    by hairspray on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:31:44 AM EST
    there in double digits. I don't know when their primary is though.

    same day as TX and OH (none / 0) (#98)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:34:01 AM EST
    dels (none / 0) (#97)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:33:27 AM EST
    RI - 21 pledged, 11 super
    VT - 15 pledged, 8 super

    If Hillary loses Texas... (none / 0) (#128)
    by sar75 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:28:55 AM EST
    ...it's over.  This is basic math. Clinton really needs to take Ohio and Texas with 15-20 point margins and then do well in the rest of the states to eat into Obama's delegate lead.  It's increasingly unlikely that she'll win with those margins, without which she'll lack any momentum to carry her in the coming states that favor Obama, like Oregon and North Carolina. As it is, the trends in Texas look terrible. If she loses there - as her husband said - it's over.  She should then do the right thing and work to unify the party behind the candidate who won fair and square.

    I think it's perfectly legitimate for Clinton to fight through March 4, and don't for a minute buy the arguments that she should bow out now. But having staked so much on these two states, if she loses one and can't pull off a decisive win in the other (Ohio, which I think she wins by less than 10), she should wrap it up. I think she will, because she's a good Democrat and team player.  And she'll also be thinking of her own legacy, which will be cemented by bowing out gracefully.

    If, though, she wins both Texas and Ohio, she should fight on.

    How important are these polls? (none / 0) (#129)
    by barryluda on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:35:40 AM EST
    More important is that HRC is now really taking it to Obama effectively.  She's no longer holding her punches and -- speaking as one who prefers Obama slightly more than Clinton in this election -- it's working.  So it'll likely come down to the last debate.  If she continues to go after him, she'll hold Texas and the momentum will turn back to Clinton.  There are a lot of democratic voters like me, who really like them both, so I'd think it can swing back and forth fairly quickly.

    why yes, yes i do. (none / 0) (#135)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:51:22 AM EST
    You telling me that you REAALY beleive he said that with a straigt face?

    simply put, i'm beginning to think sen. obama has drunk from the endless well of his supporter's (you included) magic kool-ade.

    i found the above very interesting, with regards to the texas primarycaucus: according to this hispanic female, her male counterparts are all basically neanderthals, who won't vote for sen. clinton solely because she's a she, and might somehow harm their personal macho image.

    hey, i don't need to make this stuff up folks, it's there for the taking.

    We are a week out (none / 0) (#139)
    by mgm35 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:11:05 AM EST
    and Obama is arguably ahead in TX and around 5-9 down in Ohio.   The headline that most voters see everyday is that Obama is the frontrunner - these additional national polls, while of seemingly little practical impact, just solidify the narrative.  

    Most voters, those on the blogosphere notwithstanding, are not as wedded to a candidate as polls might suggest.  Polls have consistently shown that most voters would be happy with either candidate.  If this is truly case then, inevitability, momentum and "being on the winning team" matters.

    Given the current polls, it appears likely that Hillary Clinton will lose TX outright and perhaps get a 1-2% win in Ohio - though recent polling seems to suggest an increasing rate of slippage.

    Even if Clinton does get a win in Ohio it will not be enough to change the narrative and she will have no other "game changing" event until April - expectations will be well cemented in voters minds by the time the PA  primary rolls around.  She has to win both states decisively.