Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit Margin, in Ohio

Rasmussen Reports has new numbers out of Ohio from a one-day poll they conducted yesterday. The results, along with their previous numbers from about a week earlier, the Pollster.com trend estimate including this new poll, and the Real Clear Politics average not including it:

CandidateRas. (2/13)PollsterRCP
Clinton48 (51)51.051.0
Obama40 (37)39.741.0

Most interesting figure from this survey: "In Ohio, Clinton is viewed favorably by 81%, Obama by 70%. Those figures have changed little over the past week." As best I can recall, I haven't seen recent polling just about anywhere showing Hillary Clinton viewed significantly more favorably than Barack Obama among Democrat; generally the two have fairly similar positive/negative ratings among Democrats. So while Obama is seemingly edging up in Ohio, nearly cutting Clinton's lead in half over the last week in the Rasmussen poll (though that, of course, could be statistical noise rather than actual movement), perhaps Clinton still has an edge that goes even beyond the topline head-to-head numbers and goes deeper into voters feelings towards the two Democratic candidates.

Tags: Democratic primaries, Ohio, ohio primary (all tags)



media lunacy

I challenge anyone to imagine:

clinton wins ohio  54 -  46
clinton wins Texas 51 -  49

Prob. loses the delegate count in Texas, and wins +18 in Ohio, for a net of +12 for the day.

Are you telling me, delegates matter? I don't think so.

If she wins EVERY big state by even 1 vote. By April and June, the national dem nominaton polls will be  +6 Hillary over Obama.  The 10 state winning streak will be old news.  The delegate race will be 50.9 percent Obama to 49.1 Hillary.

No way, the superdelegates won't be able to chose her, as long as they demand Obama on the ticket.

True she has to start winning, but this idea that it's over is non-sense, until it is actually over.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

Sorry, red states don't matter despite their size.  Right?

I think you're right that she won't drop out if she wins those two states; but she won't catch up enough delegates to win the nomination by eking by.

You do realize that, even including the super-delegates, she's down by almost 90 delegates at this point?  She won't be able to just catch that up anytime soon, and certainly not with tiny wins in TX or OH.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

Clinton delusionals have their own delegate counter right here on myDD. On that counter, Hillary is still ahead. But it's the Obama supporters who need a reality break, right!

by marcotom 2008-02-22 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

If she wins TX and OH by small margins (both popular vote and delegates)and then wins or comes close in PA, something is going to have to happen before summer.  Those two are going to have to go into a room together and work this out, because a brokered convention will be political suicide for the party.  They are going to have to agree on a solution that is win/win for both, and that their supporters will swallow without open revolt...

by jarhead5536 2008-02-22 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

Under your scenerio, she still has to get to the total delegate count needed for the nomination.  I assume you think that she'll get there through winning almost all of the superdelegates who remain uncommitted.  I fail to see how that happens if Obama retains (1) a pledged delegate lead; and (2) a popular vote lead.  The only way she can overcome either of those leads is to win by much larger margins than you've postulated here.

Good luck with that theory though.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-22 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

Let's add MI and FL in there.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

Same result, actually.  Also, good luck selling the inclusion of Michigan's vote in particular -- where she and Denice the Menace were the only one's on the ballot.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-22 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: media lunacy

No, but the larger point of their being separated by a percentage point or two (or even less) in the delegate and/or popular vote goes to the superdelegates voting their conscience instead of being constrained by the fallacious meme that somehow they must go with Barack because he leads by two delegates or twenty.

I mean, considering all of the various factors (money, volunteer work, blogging) that have brought us to this point, I would think that the superdelegates are more thoughtful than automatically voting for someone who has a slight lead.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 11:28AM | 0 recs
Right now

In the delegate count, according to DemConWatch, it stands:

Obama: 1180
Clinton: 1026

Obama's lead:  154

Total handed out:  2106

Obama's lead:  7%

That's not just a percentage point or two.  Hillary would need to catch up by over a hundred delegates for that to happen, and actually, the bigger the pot gets the more she has to catch up.

It is very difficult to see this happening, especially in TX, where she could win the popular vote and STILL lose the delegate counts.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now

You know, I reject that count. I'll use the NY Times', as another commenter posts below. When you consider that delegate allocation for caucus states can change drastically from what the projected count is at the state conventions, then you (meaning me) might realize that it ain't over.

H: 1,112
O: 1,117

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now

The delegate counts will not change drastically between now and the convention.  This is a false meme that has been spread by Hillary hopefuls in order to garner a shred or two of hope out of a bad situation.  There's no historical precedent for it happening.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now

There's no historical precedent for what's going on now!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 01:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now

You're conflating two different things.  There's no reason to believe that the electoral process will be completely different this time then it has in the past, even if there are large amounts of new voters coming in.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Right now

I don't understand how this would happen. Is the idea that Clinton supporters would game the county or state conventions in order to achieve a better result than they got at the local level? Whether that's right or (far more likely) wrong, I don't see how they'd accomplish it.

by seand 2008-02-22 01:49PM | 0 recs
popular vote

from Primary states.

Those are the states where all people had a chance to vote.

I think by June she will have won a majority of the votes in states where everybody had a fair chance to vote.

Now imagine the reverse, that Obama was failing in caucus states, do you not think, they would discount caucus states?

So it is totally plausible.

We just need some hillary wins. Winning changes everything.

Delegates don't matter.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

You're the only one who counts the popular vote without counting caucus states my friend.  For your strategy to work, it's sort of important that someone other than you decide that ALL states without primaries don't count.  That's an especially hard sell when you're simultaneously arguing that Michigan and Florida DO count, even though no one campaigned there.

Again though, good luck with this argument.  Personally, I think HRC will probably have to actually, you know, WIN in order to win.  But maybe that's just old fashioned of me.

by HSTruman 2008-02-22 11:26AM | 0 recs
I challenge you to make an argument

as to why millions of voters in the military, in night jobs, sick voters, parents with families to take care of,

WHO CAN'T SPEND 2-3 HOURS dancing in a hall, should not decide who democrats want for President.

There's no answer you can say with a straight face.

This process wasn't set up to pick a president. It is to build up the party.

Usually, it is clear who willwin, so people drop out, no one actually counts these delegates. This is the first time in modern history.

It won't happen.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

Yeah, I'm thinking that in a situation like this where the stakes are so high and so much time, money and history are so involved, that something as unscientific and undemocratic as delegate allocation would determine who our nominee and potentially next president would be.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

My argument is simple:  those states made that decision, as they're entitled to do, and the candidates all entered into a process where they knew the rules.  

Also, your argument that delegates have never mattered is silly.  That's always been the focus, and in fact the superdelegates have never thrown the election to a party who wasn't already leading in pledged delegates.  Mondale, in '84, was - to my knowledge - the only one who required supers to get to the magic number.  But he was already leading in pledged delegates.

I mean, do you really think it's a credible argument to insist that every state that held a caucus doesn't count?  While, at the same time, arguing that Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised?  If you want to eliminate caucuses, that's great.  Hell, I'll probably sign on to that effort -- going forward.  But you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-22 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

The level of denial here is simply staggering.  Hillary Clinton has been one of the most  well known persons in the Democratic Party for over 16 years. Her husband was a 2 term President.  She was the closest thing we had in the party to an incumbent. There is simply no excuse for her not being competitive in those caucuses. She should have controlled all the levers of those state parties.

Give the caucus crap a rest.  If you really feel strongly, work to change the system in the future.  As for this year, that ship has sailed.

by swarty 2008-02-22 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

You don't have to spend hours caucusing.  In many caucuses, you can show up, write down your preference, and then leave.

Next tired talking point, plz

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

Yellowdem: Well--depending on what you mean by modern--it has happened before.  The real importance of March 4th is that it will either confirm that Obama is in OR it will redirect momentum to Hillary.  What those who ONLY number-crunch forget is that it isn't just one set of numbers.  They might want it to be--they might be pushing with all their will for her to quit--but, those voters on the 4th really have special leverage.  I hope that Hillary can bring it back and win on March 4th--and, after last night's debate, she has certainly taken a step in that direction.  For those who have studied government and politics and are aware of the process of the last 50 years, that win would then cause the cognoscenti to focus on Pennsylvania.  I am talking in "ifs"--because if it goes to Pennsylvania, and if she is successful there, the real issue will be the pressure on the Florida and Michigan votes situation.  So...at that point, the story will be pledged delegates, superdelegates, Michigan and Florida, and the good of the party.  Factor in the McCain situation and the Washington Post poll--which suggest that the perception of a several-months-from-now match-up has not (to date) favored the veteran Clinton as compared to Obama in head-to-head and which also show that Democrats support Clinton on the issues--you have a situation that is quite changeable.  Again, those who think all life (and politics) is a mathematical equation may not have included all the "unknowns" in what is not as deceptively simple as it seems.  Lets hold our breath, and see what happens on March 4th.

by christinep 2008-02-22 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I challenge you to make an argument

Yes, I agree to some of your points, but this race is not so much about momentum. You see, momentum enabled Obama to cut a little bit into Clintons voter base - that way he could win Wisconsin, which would otherwise have been a tie. But the fact is, it seems that Obama's voter base is a bit larger than Clintons and he is thus favored to win most of the upcoming states. Clinton somehow needs not only to regain her own base, but she needs to cut into his base to win. I don't see a way she could do that right now, I don't.

by marcotom 2008-02-22 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

No, you're right she does need to win OH, TX and RI. And she will.

But as far as dis-counting MI, tell that to Governor Granholm and MI Dem party chair Mark Brewer, who presided over Senator Stabenow's surprise win in 2000, Granholm's election and re-election in 2002 and 2006, and the Dems' takeover of the Michigan House and near-takeover of the Michigan Senate in 2006.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

Oh, yes, it's the argument from Taylor Marsh the other day:

Clinton's ahead in the popular vote* * ** ** ** *** **

*Through Super Tuesday
**Counting Florida
And Michigan
*Where Obama wasn't on the ballot
**And excluding caucuses
*And only counting democrats
***Based on exit polling

Hey, it's still possible for Clinton to end up ahead in popular vote, and if she does, I'll tip my hat and agree that she's got an excellent case to make for any superdelegate.  I just don't think it's going to happen, and trying to apply tortuous logic to make it so isn't helping.

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

How can anyone say, "including florida" as if it doesn't count.

There are 2 states not included. No matter dnc rules, candidate pledges,etc.


Caucus states disenfranchise people. So any "elected delegate" count is bogus.

Look at NM, where the race was within 1 percent. Are you saying, it doesn't matter what people who had to work wanted? people who are bed-riddena and sick? Too tired to sit in a hall? In the military?
Also, the idea that people "vote" in public is not serious.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

They are still people and voters; they just don't count for the purpose of picking the candidate.

And if they had a PROBLEM with that, the dem voters in the states could have raised a stink and gotten their dates changed.  They didn't, ergo, they have nobody to complain to.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: popular vote

So we should ignore the people who did go vote for their preferred candidate in a contest that was certified for and will count toward selecting the nominee, but give credence to those who selected from an announced non-counting contest with an incomplete ballot?

Okay.  Got it.

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 04:20PM | 0 recs
take a breath

and think that you said "90 delegates" as if that were 900 or 9000.

The media has brainwashed you.

Right now it is 51% to 49% in so-called declared delegates.

The system was never set-up to choose a president.

It won't this time either.  The party will use common sense.

If hillary loses ohio and texas, Obama wins.

If hillary goes on a winning streak. She will be the nominee. The delegate count up or down 150 or 200 out of 2000 won't matter.

Think how absurd your logic about 90 delegates are.

there are 2 -2 districts that didn't award delegates democratically.

Nevada and other states awarded delegates based on what happened in certain districts in 2004 and 2006.

Texas has a caucus/primary mix?

Washington had a caucus, and then a meaningless primary.


Obama if he wants to win, needs to win Texas.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

Hillary will win Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island.

And then she'll win Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and maybe Montana. And definitely Puerto Rico.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

Dream on.  Who's been drinking the Kool Aid now?

by NM Ward Chair 2008-02-22 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

The meme that Hillary and Barack need to be exactly equal in terms of pledged delegates for the superdelegates to vote their conscience is as fallacious as it is tiring.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

So you think it would be healthy for the party to override the wishes of the voters?  How do you justify superdelegates overriding elected delegates.  I did not like it much when the voters in Florida were overruled, what makes this different?

I understand trying to find a fair way to allocate FL and MI votes, but just ignoring delegate voting nationally, what makes that okay?

I would absolutely vote for Hillary if she won the pledged delegates but if what you are talking about was allowed to happen would simply leave the party I've been part of for 40 years and just not vote.  I mean, why bother then.

by mady 2008-02-22 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

What happens on March 4th when she maybe ekes out a win in Ohio but loses in Texas?  Does texas no longer matter?  Is it on to Pennsylvania? Do you burn Bill at the stake because he dared speak the truth?

You folks are really setting yourselves up for some serious disappointment in 11 days.  

by swarty 2008-02-22 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

If you say so!

With respect to TX, we will see.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 12:20PM | 0 recs
"We'll see"

meaning... what?  They'll count... if they vote in a particular manner?  If the turnout is demographically appropriate?  What?

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

I don't think it's 51 to 49.

The latest elected delegate counts that I've seen are the following (and this precedes results from the democrats abroad):

According the MSNBC, is 1168 (O) and 1018 (C). 53 remain unallocated, which yeilds a margin of 53.4 (O) to 46.5 (C)..

According the Open Left, it is 1189 (O) and 1027 (C), with 23 unallocated, which yeilds a margin of 53.6 (O) to 46.3 (C).

Also, the next two contests following March 4 would seem to favor Obama (caucus in Wyoming and primary in North Carolina), which would freeze any momentum she has out of March 4. So, if Obama just keeps it really close in TX and OH, then I think Hillary's chances are extremely weak, unless something like a video of Obama grilling kittens surfaces.

by DPW 2008-02-22 10:59AM | 0 recs
stop with this elected b.s.

first of all most states don't elect the delegates they are chosen at the state party convention later.

Second, they chose them based on formulas that have nothing to do with the popular vote.

That is how obama got more delegates out of nev. even though he lost, that is how he got more delegates than you would think out of ny because of party rules.

You go on believing in the fairytale of "elected delegates" it's just not true.

it is 51 - 49 in delegates, and they don't count.

Someone will drop out regardless of delegates, and if hillary starts winning, it will be obama.

if not it will be her.

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 11:27AM | 0 recs
I don't see Obama dropping out

If he's leading in delegates; I doubt he shares your disdain for the importance of their role in the designated process for selecting the nominee.

Perhaps a substantial majority of the superdelegates will share your view- in that case, Hillary might yet be the nominee. But I wouldn't bet on it, absent some very long odds.

by seand 2008-02-22 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: take a breath

"The delegate count up or down 150 or 200 out of 2000 won't matter."

That's ... an interesting argument.  I think they plan on actually counting all the votes at the convention before picking a winner, regardless.

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up,
Here is an interesting breakdown at pollster
by nogo war 2008-02-22 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

Obama just needs to keep it close, which he is doing.  Hillary needs landslides to "win." she will not be getting them.

by Socks The Cat 2008-02-22 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit
One point that has been consistent. A significant part of HRC's base has been less educated "whites".
It can be read that they believe HRC will best represent them. That she will be their voice.
However,; We have been made aware via both regular polls and exit polls that the higher educated have preferred/voted/caucused for Obama in higher numbers than Clinton. This appears to contradict the meme put forth by both the Clinton campaign and her ardent supporters that Obama supporters are somehow naive, kool-aid drinking, delusional fools who believe in the empty suit.
by nogo war 2008-02-22 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nogo-Totally missed up


You have totally misunderstood what everyone is talking about regarding Obama supporters.

Where in the world did you get the idea that the "Kool Aid" criticism had anything to do with one's EDUCATION ?

No one here or in the MSM has criticized anyeone about the person's education or lack of it.

The criticism is Obama fans are treating this presidential race like " American Idol".

Obama fans so into this personality, style & Identity politics. Very shallow on actual facts.
Its all feel good speeches &  feel good preacher talk.

If Obama was running to be pastor, he would be best ever.

Problem is we are talking about the Presidency of the United States of America.

You are a perfect example.

You could not even understand what the criticism was. You incorrectly assumed that people with a high school diploma were being ridiculed.

So how in the world can you understand the complexity of what this country needs.

All you see is the Americal Idol candidate.

I've been a successful business owner for over 20 years. I have businesses in 4 states.

In all these dealings with Big Corporations, I have never seen someone with very little experience jump into being a CEO of an major corporation. Even people with decades of experience fail when dealing with all the headaches of running big corporations.

It takes more than CHARM & a gold tongue.

Obama wants to run the LARGEST CORPORATION in the World (USA) with very little practical or proven experience.

Democrats supporting Obama are headed for a rude awakening with Obam.

Affirmative Action can work in hiring people. Affirmative can work with accepting minorities into Universities.

But when it comes to running the BIGGEST & MOST CHALLENGING position in the world, YOU CANNOT use Affirmative Action to promote someone who is not qualified. This guy is a disaster waiting to happen.

by labanman 2008-02-22 11:11AM | 0 recs
give me your assessment...

of how each candidate has run their campaigns?

by mboehm 2008-02-22 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Nogo-Totally missed up

You bringing up affirmative action in this context borders to racism. It has nothing to do with Sen. Obamas campaign and you know it. Pathetic.

As a matter of fact, he showed his superior skills as an executive person in the way he run his campaign.

by marcotom 2008-02-22 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

"Educated" and "naive" are not mutually exclusive.

by LakersFan 2008-02-22 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

College degrees have little to do with common sense and living knowledge.  You sound a bit too elitist.  That "we are smarter because we are so educated" meme has certainly not helped us before.  By the by, I have a few degrees including a J.D., and I have practiced law for 35 years; my husband has a Ph.D in political science; various other relatives are doctors, professors, what-have-you.  The point: Don't get hung up on who possesses the most degrees because that construct (the descendant of Adlai Stevenson) has been more of a bane than a boon for our party.

by christinep 2008-02-22 01:33PM | 0 recs
in-person appearances

Clinton has made several appearances in Clinton, while Obama has only been to Youngstown. People tend to react more favorably to local news coverage than national news or campaign ads.

by niq 2008-02-22 10:55AM | 0 recs
Clinton loses 1/2 her lead in OH

and Obama hasn't really started campaigning there yet.  Oh yeah, an 8-point change is just "statistical noise."  Baloney.  An 8-point swing is real, and significant, if the polling methodology is consistent.

Face the facts; Hillary is losing.  Sticking your head in the sand is not going to help your candidate, Jonathan.

by NM Ward Chair 2008-02-22 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton loses 1/2 her lead in OH

Hmmm, and you represent the "graceful winners?"

by Marvin42 2008-02-22 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

I'm in Ohio.

Regardless of what happens between Clinton & Obama  in Ohio- November will be ugly for Obama.

Even Gov. Strickland & Sen. Brown knows this.

White Ohio Working class Reagan Democrats will bury Obama in November.

Obama will do worst than even John Kerry did here.

Obama is competing now in the primary because of huge black support.

But come GE, it won't even be close !

People who say Obama will carry Ohio in the fall do not understand the culture of this state. White blue collar voters who carried Governor Strickland to victory will NOT vote for Obama.

Its already an open secret.

I will vote for Obama in the Fall.

But this state will not.

by labanman 2008-02-22 11:18AM | 0 recs
Obama doesn't need Ohio...

or Florida in 2008.  

All he needs are the Kerry states, New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado - all of which have recent polls which show him ten points ahead.  

Or he could swing Virginia instead of Colorado, or Nevada and some other western state (Montana?).  

Regardless, Ohio isn't needed for all of his paths to the nomination.  

by telephasic 2008-02-22 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...


First of all, every Republican in the last 40 years who has won the state of Ohio, has gone on & won the Presidency.

Secondly, you falsely make it sound like Red states IOWA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, VA are states that are waiting for the taking by Obama.

Do you truly understand how hard it will be for Obama to carry these states in November ?

You say he is up by 10 pts today? That ABSOLUTELY means nothing in February! John Kerry was beating Bush in Iowa by 12 points after his IOWA performance. Come November, he lost to Bush bigtime!

Bush carried every single one of the states you just mentioned ! This was against a White Veteran war hero.

Remember! This was with a UNITED, ANGRY Democratic party. And we still lost every single state.

These are still red leaning states in Presidential elections.

More Iowan democratic white voters voted AGAINST Obama than for him.

CO,VA,IA have HUGE Reagan Democratic white working class voters. All 3 have large White Senior citizens.

Obama fans have really bought this MSM myth that Obama will win red states.

In reality, he will have a difficult time just keeping Blue states like PA,NJ,NH against McCain.

He is certainly going to get wiped out in the entire South including Florida. He will lose Ohio.

So what's new? He will try another John Kerry run.

And Obama fans keep ignoring the FACT that there will be SIGNIFICANT white democrats who will vote for McCain. Rove & George Will think its going to be around  20%-25%. I think it can be anywhere from 15%-25% of white democrats.

That alone will destroy his chances.

by labanman 2008-02-22 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

Iowa is not a red state.  It voted for Clinton twice and Gore once.  New Mexico also voted for Clinton twice and Gore once.  To argue that Obama won't win either one is to argue he's a weaker candidate than Gore or Kerry, both uncharismatic, milquetoast losers (although Al Gore is far better now he isn't a politician).  

Virginia and Colorado will be harder, I admit, but they are both states the Democratic party is on the rise in.  

Anyway, check my diaries.  In a recent one I document 10 reasons why I think McCain is a startlingly weak general election.

I just don't understand the arguments of those who say Obama will have an uphill battle.  Head-to-head polls do prove little at this point, but there is not a shred of evidence to prove your point.  

by telephasic 2008-02-22 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

"milquetoast losers..."  Take a look at Kerry's record.  Take a look at his life.  That is such a stupid characterization.  He's spent his whole adult life in service to his country in one way or another. Can't you make your point without trashing good people.

by mady 2008-02-22 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

He shouldn't have put it the way he did but lets face it... You can call Kerry many things and you can call the "old" Gore many things. Inspiring is not on the list, neither is charismatic.

As to your assertion that Obama cannot win VA I will just say this. I have worked there for 1 campaign cycle (state level races,) and I know a number of other people involved in the process. The Democratic activists and voters in the state are highly motivated and it is trending blue. I am not saying it is an auto-win for Obama, but it is a lot more likely than you realize.

by JDF 2008-02-22 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

Yes, Bill Clinton carried Iowa twice. He also did carry OH,FL, NM, MO,WV,AR,TN,LA,GA,CO twice.

Even carried Montana & Arizona in 1996.

Obama is not Bill Clinton.

Obama will struggle not only in IA but in NH,NJ,NM & PA.

IA rejected Kerry.

NH rejecte Gore.

NM rejected Kerry.

Ohio rejected Gore & Kerry.

FL rejected Gore & Kerry.

You are relying on polls today while your candidate is in the SKY.

History, Demographics & voting patterns of people are better measurement than any poll today in February!

Why can't you accept that thought that millions of white reagan democrats & millions of senior citizens will simply not vote for Obama???

Why? because you never heard it on the radio or saw it on TV? Tell me, who MSM would ever DARE even say that??? any person who says that would be fired. Jesse Jackson would be crying racism.

Many of us Clinton & even Edwards supporters understand this. Liberal whites gungho for Obama refuse to see the real world.

Speeches of HOPE cannot erase generations of bias. Up to this day, they are still millions of whites who do not consider MLK a hero.

What, its been only over 40 years!

Thats the real world buddy! Sorry to burst your bubbles.

I will vote for Obama. But many liberal whites supporting Obama are so out of touch with reality.

by labanman 2008-02-22 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

Well, we're obviously coming from different frames.  

You, like many Clinton fans, seem to think Americans support a Republican "by default" and you need to trick them into voting for a Democrat.

I think that the Democrats have lost so many presidential elections because they've been too interested in nominating someone "electable" with a good resume and forgot that it's important to have a likable and/or inspiring candidate.  

And as for racism, it still exists, but the people who care that much about it are really Republican voters anyway at this point - or don't vote.  

As an anecdotal story, on another site I frequent someone mentioned one of their racist Ohio family members actually said he was voting for Obama over Clinton because he hated Clinton so much.  His rationale was "He's not black, he's half white, and I'm voting for the white half."

by telephasic 2008-02-22 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

I would be cautious about saying what state is needed or not in the fall--especially, if you start throwing out Ohio, Michigan, and Florida.  Be especially cautious about counting on some purple or red state that, historically, rarely produces.  (That includes Colorado--my home state.) When one gets into the "we don't need you" mindset, that is one step closer to losing.

by christinep 2008-02-22 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn't need Ohio...

Well pot, say hello to kettle.

The Clinton campaign has thrown so many states under the bus this primary season I can't keep track of them all.

When Obama is the presumptive nominee, the problems of Florida & Michigan will be solved by cooler heads.

by swarty 2008-02-22 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

Latest head-to-head polling for Ohio:

Obama -1, Clinton -2
Obama -3, Clinton -1

there doesn't seem to be objective fact to back this up.

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

Again, every single poll everywhere will almost always have Obama ahead.

Whether against McCain or Clinton.

How can he not? 10 straight wins. All Positive Media coverage. All journalist & TV host giving him All positive spins.

Of course, he will be ahead everywhere.

Wait until October. See what happens to his head to head numbers with McCain. it won't even be close.

NOT A SINGLE PIECE of NEGATIVE has hit the Obama camapign for the last 2 years now!

Wait until the Anti-Muslim, Racial, No Experience attacks start happening in September & October.

See how a significant enough percentage of white Democratic voters ( Reagan Democrats & Seniors) will go for the stable, experienced, veteran in McCain.

Its always the less of the two evils.

When the issue goes back to National Security & all the problems facing this country, Senior citizens alone will NOT vote for Obama.

His race will also be a HUGE factor in the Fall with White working class democrats & Seniors.

His supposed true religion will also be a huge factor. His No Experience to be president.

When $150 million is spent to focus on all this, you want to bet how much his numbers will go down?

by labanman 2008-02-22 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

I see this on Taylor Marsh all the time.

The threat that Obama might be a bad candidate because
a) people worse than those nice Clintons might come up with something worse than what the Clintons have found...

b) Racists won't vote for Obama, although it's offensive to say those who don't support him are racist.

c) National Security matters, and McCain will win on that, even though all polls show that the Bush/McCain vision of national security is loathed

d) Nothing negative has ever hit Obama, as proven by all that negative stuff in Wisconsin that actually increased his lead

e) People might believe a lie about Obama, although after 16 years of lies about Hillary, that only matters to him...

f) Here's a combination of DNC rules that should count, and here's some that shouldn't, and WOAH, my gal WINS THAT WAY, whoda thunk

g) They'll have all this money to throw at him! Too bad Obama has no means of raising funds.

Seriously, it just comes across sad. Love Hillary, hate Obama, whatever. But dignity, people! It's long ago left normal and is neck-deep in parody. But I love y'all! Come back to normal. It's nice here! We have crackers and juice.

by Lettuce 2008-02-22 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

" It's nice here! We have crackers and juice."

Don't forget the blankets for nap time. Some of the kids are getting really cranky and need their rest.

by swarty 2008-02-22 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

I agree form a) to g). And that even rhymes. What can I say, I hope a lot of myDD people read this and hopefully we can win this thing together in November.

by marcotom 2008-02-22 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: It does not matter-I'm in Ohio

>When $150 million is spent to focus on all this, you want to bet how much his numbers will go down?

I'd looooove to.

by Rorgg 2008-02-22 04:17PM | 0 recs
Hoodwinked, bamboozled

Delegate counts are very misleading since most operations use projections, not actual delegate counts. The NYT actually counts delegates:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-gui de/2008/results/delegates/index.html

O: 1117
H: 1112

Here's video showing Obama copying ideas for his speeches from various sources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_U sU

by Nobama 2008-02-22 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hoodwinked, bamboozled

Thanks for this!  This actually puts a fresh perspective on the delegate frenzy.

When I look at the NY Times page, for a lot of the caucus states that voted (for Obama), it clearly says, "to be decided." Now I understand the story that Clinton's team while try to poach these delegates at the state conventions. Pretty good strategy if you ask me!

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Hoodwinked, bamboozled

It's pretty easy to project when there are strong rules showing exactly how things are going to turn out.  The NYT is merely shilling for their endorsed candidate.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-02-22 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Hoodwinked, bamboozled

ah yes, good thing the superdelegates are not as delusioned as you and are actually looking at the projected delegate counts, even if they may be wrong +/- 2 delegates or whatever. Dream on.

by marcotom 2008-02-22 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting tidbit from ABC poll

PARTY TIME - Political allegiance also counts for much. Clinton leads among party
regulars in Ohio (55-39 percent) and Texas (53-42 percent) alike; Obama owes his
competitiveness to independents who intend to vote in these open primaries. He leads
among independents by 53-39 percent in Ohio and 53-40 percent in Texas. Those are similar to previous primaries this year: Clinton's won Democrats overall, by 50-44 percent; Obama's prevailed among independents, 53-37 percent.

You don't hear much talk about this in the media.

by njsketch 2008-02-22 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

Obama closing superdelegate lead, too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080222/ap_o n_el_pr/superdelegates;_ylt=Ap8deaHJA7UO SxDwkS4sDkes0NUE

by mainelib 2008-02-22 11:19AM | 0 recs
Another point Hillary will win Dems

since when should indepedents and republicans choose our nominee?

When the primarys are over you will see, that Hillary won the Dem vote.

Obama won the ind and rep vote.  All together that will be about 20-30% of the vote.

Democrats will and should reject the idea that others will choose our nominee.

This is another thing that doesn't make sense.

Why have a party nomination if people can vote and not pledge to be in your party?

by yellowdem1129 2008-02-22 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Another point Hillary will win Dems

Perfect point! Why even bother to call it a Democratic primary if anyone can select our candidate? If only registered Democrats could vote who were registered by the end of 2007, Hillary would already be the nominee.

If Obama wins the nomination, he will not be the Democratic nominee. Republicans can't wait to take the gloves off and rip him to pieces. Remember, we have a conservative-owned media now. They've been harsh on Hillary and really easy on Obama. Should Obama win, that'll change--quite dramatically so.

by Nobama 2008-02-22 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Another point Hillary will win Dems

Stop complaining about the system that is already in place. Work to change it in the future.

by swarty 2008-02-22 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

I, too, live in Ohio.  In fact, I live in the heart of what should be Clinton country (CD #9).  

I have been doing some phonebanking and what I am struck by is how little attention people have been paying to the race.  In fact, when asked if someone plans to vote for Clinton or Obama in the primary, most of them have no idea who Obama is.  

All that to say, it doesn't surprise me that as the race gets closer, it is tightening up.  This is really the first time that a lot of people are paying attention, and for your average democratic voter, at least in these very working-class part of the state, what appears to be "some random black guy with a funny name" isn't going to have a whole lot of name recognition or approval.  

I think that the race will change as the press attention to the campaign ratchets up.  Indeed, I think that change has already registered in the tightening polls.  

This is still a very fluid electorate.

by gilgi 2008-02-22 12:06PM | 0 recs
Wheel... Of... Delegates!

Okay! It's time to play the Primary Rules game! Where YOU decide how to decide the president.

(theme music)
Okay, hi, and welcome. Let's play the game!

1) If you believe the caucus states don't matter, because the "caucus" process discouraged participation, as opposed to holding a bona fide, ballot counting election, then give yourself one (1) point.

2) If you believe Florida and Michigan's votes should count, because those voters deserve their voices heard -- even though their disqualification discouraged participation, (in Michigan's case not even allowing voters to chose Obama if they wanted), give yourself one (1) point.

3) If you believe Superdelegates get to 'break the tie' so to speak, even though the very existence of "super delegates" many of whom are not elected officials somehow accountable to actual voters... give yourself one (1) point.

4) If you believe that the delegate allocation system needs to reflect political realities, and a nominee needs to win swing states or reliably democratic states, or borderline GOP states or only the big states, (which discourages participation in the General Election), give your self one (1) point.

5) If you believe that, like it or not, the DNC rules require the nominee to win caucuses AND primaries, require Florida and Michigan NOT have their delegates seated, and that superdelegates get to have their vote be whatever they want, and that even all 12 Idaho Democrats are valuable to the process of picking a National candidate... again, that these are the rules which both candidates signed up for and that's the game board they have to win, like it or not, please address changes for the 2012 rules committee....  then give yourself one million (1,000,000) points.

Anyone with less than 1,000,000 points loses.


by Lettuce 2008-02-22 12:41PM | 0 recs

1) If you believe the caucus states don't matter, because the "caucus" process discouraged participation, as opposed to holding a bona fide, ballot counting election, then give yourself one (1) point.

2) If you believe Florida and Michigan's votes should count, because those voters deserve their voices heard -- even though their disqualification discouraged participation, (in Michigan's case not even allowing voters to chose Obama if they wanted), give yourself one (1) point.

3) If you believe Superdelegates get to 'break the tie' so to speak, even though the very existence of "super delegates" many of whom are not elected officials somehow accountable to actual voters... give yourself one (1) point.

4) If you believe that the delegate allocation system needs to reflect political realities, and a nominee needs to win swing states or reliably democratic states, or borderline GOP states or only the big states, (which discourages participation in the General Election), give your self one (1) point.

5) If you believe that, like it or not, the DNC rules require the nominee to win caucuses AND primaries, require Florida and Michigan NOT have their delegates seated, and that superdelegates get to have their vote be whatever they want, and that even all 12 Idaho Democrats are valuable to the process of picking a National candidate... again, that these are the rules which both candidates signed up for and that's the game board they have to win, like it or not, please address changes for the 2012 rules committee....  then give yourself one million (1,000,000) points.

Anyone with less than 1,000,000 points loses.

by Lettuce 2008-02-22 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit


by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-22 01:27PM | 0 recs
The campaign is not a Mini Cooper

The Clinton campaign (and Obama's campaign too for that matter) are not little sportscars that can stop and turn on a dime.  

Absent some sort of insane March surprise (not looking too likely - the first meager opportunity slipped away last night), the movement of the electorate away from Hillary and toward Obama will continue.

We are watching the electorate slowly but surely coming to a decision.  

This notion of a massive switch back to Hillary is sheer folly.  They have taken their measure of her candidacy over the years. Obama looks like the better bet and they are moving accordingly.

by swarty 2008-02-22 01:53PM | 0 recs
Don't Forget...

Hillary needs not only to "win" both OH and TX...she needs to WIN by 30 point landslides in order to have a chance to catch up with delegates.  Anything short of that causes delegates to be split.

She needs 30 point LANDSLIDES.  These polls are as good as losses for her.  God help her should it get worse.

by a gunslinger 2008-02-22 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

And worse it will get. One quarter of Texans and a third of likely voters in Ohio are undecided. In Wisconsin, voters who made up their minds in the last month broke 2:1 for Obama.

He's going to continue to outspend her and barnstorm these states with 20,000-strong rallies. On March 5th, Clinton will graciously concede.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-22 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

I should also note that the poll is probably not a statistical artifact. An ABC/WaPo poll taken at the same time found Clinton at +7.

Intrade (a prediction market) considers Ohio a tossup at this point (50/50), but gives Obama a 70% chance of winning in Texas. Since the contract specifies a win of the popular vote in Texas, by the time the caucus results are in, Texas could deliver a huge chunk of delegates to Obama. I predict she'll be 0-4 in the March 4 contests, but even if she can poach one, I think she falls further behind in delegates.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-22 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-22 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

Ohio drives me nuts... I've lived here most of my life, and the people here are just stubborn as hell...

I'm amazed that Hillary polls so well here, both in primary polling and GE polling...  Ohio should not be friendly territory to her at all, especially after NAFTA...  But especially against McCain... McCain is one of those candidates that should be perfect for a state who really likes George Voinovich for being a reasonable republican...

Personally, I think we're just cranky and want to gum up the works for fun....  I don't really have any other explanation as to why Hillary's base here is so large and solid.

by LordMike 2008-02-22 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Up, Though by Single-Digit

Have you actually seen said base, or just had it described to you by spin doctors?

I don't think it's there. Clinton always polls well before the intense campaigning starts; it's her name recognition.

This lead in the polls will go the way of the one she had two weeks out in Wisconsin.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-22 08:48PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads