Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

The Clinton campaign's March 4th firewall strategy entails winning both Texas and Ohio. We've already seen the first half of that strategy go by the wayside, with Hillary Clinton now trailing Barack Obama in the Lone Star state. Is the second half of the strategy in jeopardy, too? Taking a look at the latest Rasmussen Reports poll from the Buckeye state, it sure looks like it. Here's that Rasmussen poll, along with the latest Fox News poll (.pdf) from the state, as well as the Pollster.com and Real Clear Politics poll of polls (neither of which contains these new surveys):

CandidateRas.FoxPollsterRCP
Clinton474649.847.8
Obama453842.442.8

As you can see, not every poll puts this race within a couple points like Rasmussen -- though for reference, a Zogby poll from Ohio did also show Clinton up by just two points today (but then again, that's Zogby...). Indeed, it seems that Clinton still might hold a 5 or 7 point lead in Ohio four days out from election day. That said, a candidate never wants to see a shrinking lead at this point in an election cycle -- particularly one that approaches just 2 points in two separate polls -- so I wouldn't necessarily be putting money on Clinton in Ohio just now (even as I would refrain from putting money on Obama there, too, but maybe that's because I don't bet on elections...).

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

Comments

42 Comments

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

First!

by lucky monkey 2008-02-29 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

first reply!!! YES

by supsupsup 2008-02-29 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Automatic troll rating...

by pastor john 2008-02-29 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

I haven't seen much on the ground game in Ohio.  Are there any good references to give evidence that one campaign has a better infrastructure than the other in Ohio that might lead one to believe that that particular campaign will outperform the polls?

I have seen lots written about Obama's campaign in Texas and the expectation that they will do well there, but nothing on Ohio.

by jbsloan 2008-02-29 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Time says he has a big advantage.

This was published Monday, 2/25

by zonk 2008-02-29 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns /69838/The-Air-and-Ground-Games-in-Ohio. htm

"Ground Game: Everything Plus The Kitchen Sink

Obama's Get Out the Vote (GOTV) team is larger than Hillary's. Word is he is going to try to turn out votes in precincts with large numbers of Republicans and Independents as each can request a Democratic ballot by Ohio primary rules. Hillary's smaller team will be focusing only on primarily Democratic regions. Obama is also unleashing a massive vote early campaign that will in theory help turnout high numbers of voters who are often considered unreliable to show up on Election Day due to job demands, lack of transportation etc. Obama has also been holding massive rallies at arenas throughout Ohio. 5000 people were turned away from a rally in Akron! He hit the University of Cincinnati and Wright State University (in Dayton) on Monday February 25. Massive efforts at canvassing are being undertaken by Obama's grassroots ground up approach to campaigning. Obama's team of volunteers are also phone banking in huge numbers.

Hillary's ground game is based upon star power more than sheer numbers. Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill Clinton are crisscrossing the state. Hillary's phone calls have come in the form of pre-recorded messages from her rather than a live volunteer. This has its strengths and weaknesses as volunteers can fumble, but pre-recorded messages are less personal. Ohio's governor Ted Strickland along with John Glenn add to the local appeal of Hillary's campaign. This is not surprising because Hillary's general election plan was to make a huge effort to win Ohio in November. These rallies have not been as large in scale as Obama's, but due to the roots Hillary laid down in Ohio throughout 2007, they may be equally effective. Hillary seems to have both a higher than average ceiling in Ohio and a high floor of support. If Obama can turn out and pick off enough voters, he can overtake Clinton, but the recent polls show it is perhaps a taller task than in Texas. Then again the polls in Wisconsin underestimated Obama's support by 10-12%."

by NJPolitico84 2008-02-29 09:40AM | 0 recs
No worries for Clinton...

... as we now know from her campaign that unless Obama sweeps all four states it will count as a loss for him.

(I wish that statement was snark)

Has anyone has put together a timeline of statements on the importance of TX/OH from the Clinton campaign? It would be interesting to see the shifting rationale laid out in one place.

by Purplepeople 2008-02-29 09:39AM | 0 recs
Howard Wolfson

I think, really is auditioning for the role of Baghdad Bob.

by zonk 2008-02-29 09:43AM | 0 recs
Wow...

... I sense a mashup in the making. ;)

by Purplepeople 2008-02-29 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Singer

I used to think of you as an Obama supporter who still had the ability to be objective. Now you're like the Frank Rich/Maureen Dowd of the blogosphere, where you only write for the sole purpose of finding a negative angle on Clinton

by world dictator 2008-02-29 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Dude, its a poll, in fact its the most recent poll, its Rass, so you can discount it that way, but seriously man chill.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-29 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

I'm not upset. I'm just pointing out that Singer pretty much posts soley to bash Clinton.

by world dictator 2008-02-29 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

How does posting a POLL bash Clinton?

He is just posting what he sees as out there... and considering the number of Clinton people here who are completely unwilling to be objective I would that throwing this stone is kinda pointless.

Oh..and don't even start whining about DKos. This is not DKos.

by JDF 2008-02-29 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

He used to post about things going on with Hillary that would be construed as being positive for her. The problem is that those stories are few and far between now.

by desertjedi 2008-02-29 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

The absense of much in the category of positive happenings in Hliary's campaign doesn't make the reporter biased anymore than reporting on a tornado makes the meteorologist anti-Kansas.  We went through this with the reporting on Iraq.  When there is a disproportionately large amount of bad news to report, reporting it doesn't make the media biased.

Sorry, when reality isn't in your favor the folks who see it are realists, not operatives.

by lockewasright 2008-02-29 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

sort of like Jerome posting to bash Obama. It evens out.

by godemsin08 2008-02-29 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

How do you post a poll showing Clinton's lead shrinking and find a positive angle for it? Or you mean he should only post polls if they show Clinton gaining?

by mattw 2008-02-29 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Analysts in Washington were stunned Friday when the soul of Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) switched its support from her to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

"This was a very hard decision to make," Clinton's soul said during a brief statement to reporters. "Hillary Clinton is my friend, my collegue, and the moral vessel within which I inhabit."

Clinton's soul is only the latest longtime supporter and Democratic National Convention superdelegate to jump ship to Obama, following on the heels or Rep. John Barrow (D-GA), Rep. John Lewis and Hillary's own heels.

"Hillary would be a great president," Clinton's heels said during a telephone interview with the website Politico.com. "But 11 victories in a row, with a steady rise in the polls should convince her that now is the time to bring the party toegether."

Asked whether the announcement was timed to influence the upcoming March 4 elections in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont, her soul demurred. "It was time," it said. "Once I heard about contesting the Texas caucuses... and following that whole 'this state is too small' or 'that caucus shouldn't count' and 'gotta seat Michigan' stuff... there's only so much I could bear."

This marks the first time more than two body parts have ever supported their Democratic body's opponant. However, the record is much harder to beat on the GOP side, when in December of last year, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's left leg, spleen, gall bladder, sternum and cocyx all declared their support for former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"He just gives us the creeps," Giuliani's gall bladder said in a posting left on its Facebook page. "I know his bile better than anyone. You don't want it near the White House.

by Lettuce 2008-02-29 10:06AM | 0 recs
Obama advantages

are he targets Republicans and Independents and he has spent lots more money....on ads about NAFTA and his Harry and Louise mailers.

Those ads and mailers, th emailers in particular, are lies about her position.  he is spending twice as much as she is in order to lie about her.

Oh I know Barack Obama doesn't do that....but putting words in quotes that are not words actually said would meet that definition.  Implying her haealth care has no subsidies is another untruth....

I have alwsys, my entire political career, thought that party primaries should be closed.  I still feel that and if Barack Obama wins it will not be that he won with non Democratic vtes.

by debcoop 2008-02-29 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama advantages

Thought Hillary was supposed to be the tough one who could dish it out as well as she could take it? I thought it was Obama who would get crushed if he faced a real threat.

If Hillary can't beat Obama with her 'A Game' then she shouldn't be the nominee. If she's not bringing her 'A Game' against Obama, she shouldn't be the nominee. If she can't get the support of the electorate, using whatever arcane or seemingly unfair rules that are already in place and aren't going anywhere, then she shouldn't be the nominee.

by Lettuce 2008-02-29 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama advantages

The essential facts are true. Hillary has said she may garnish wages to enforce a mandate on health care, which her plan has. She did support NAFTA publically, most notably in her 2002 DLC speech. Yes, Obama used a bad quote from Newsday, but the sentiment - Hillary was for NAFTA before she was against it - is true.

If it were Obama, I think he'd say, "Would you rather have a president like George Bush who doesn't ever change his mind, no matter how wrong he is?"  But Hillary didn't admit she would take back her AUMF vote until debate #20; it seems to me like she has a very hard time admitting a mistake. (Perhaps because she fears it chips too heavily into her experience narrative)

by mattw 2008-02-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Feel whatever you want

HRC has run a miserable campaign. Just plain miserable. She had overwhelming advantages and managed to blow them.

If this is how she'll run a Primary campaign, what could we expect in a GE campaign? A win on the margins - at best.

Obama has shown he knows how to fight and win. He has built GOTV operations in every State, not just those with big electoral college votes. He is on course to completely revitalize the Democratic party, enough so perhaps to provide a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

The Democrats objective should not be to win on the margins. The 50-State strategy is the new Democratic/Obama calculus. Winning on the margins is old school/DLC thinking. When we compete everywhere we are eventually going to kill the really poisonous crap that gets spewed by the GOP. It won't even get aired. The GOP will get to a point where they abandon the wackos on the fringe of their Party and move towards the middle. The ideology of the country is going to shift left, and Obama is going to create a plethora of new Democrats.

This race ends Tuesday. After that we will welcome you to the table.

by johnnyappleseed 2008-02-29 02:21PM | 0 recs
If Barack Obama doesn't win 6 out of 4 on Tuesday

there's a problem.

/snark

by Walt Starr 2008-02-29 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates
Offered only as a point of information..draw your own conclusions through the prism of your individual bias..
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
by nogo war 2008-02-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Can we maybe..kinda agree..
There will be no demonstrated Clinton statement one way or the other on March 4.
If Obama "wins" one or both by a small margin what does that mean?
If Clinton "wins" one or both by a small margin what does that mean?

We have two candidates.
Don't get me wrong..I wanted Edwards to go to Denver. When he suspended, there was a hole.
However,; neither Clinton/Obama wants to make a difference more or less than Edwards. If, and it remains a big "if", Clinton were to lose both Texas and Ohio is her desire any more/less than Edwards?
She deserves to be our nominee no more or less than Edwards. Edwards has already made a decision that she will face after 3/4.

What I am encouraged by is that BOTH Clinton/Obama are raising millions outside the established perameters...this is a good thing.

by nogo war 2008-02-29 11:23AM | 0 recs
The story of dem '08

This is the most consistent story of '08. Clinton starts with a big lead, and as the campaigning continues, Obama eats into it.

I do not mean for this to be a vitriolic question, just as a matter of fact-seeking - but has there been a state where Hillary outperformed where she was polling two weeks before the vote? It's pretty amazing how consistently Obama eats into her lead.

by mattw 2008-02-29 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The story of dem '08

No there hasn't been. Clinton supporters will point to NH, but she had a big lead in NH two weeks before they started to vote. Clinton's campaign has been like a sinking stone ever since Iowa.

by mecarr 2008-02-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
why I said two weeks

I know about NH, which was a nice pullout for Hillary, but yeah - she only bucked the trend at the last minute. The same thing happened in CA to some extent. Zogby aside, the Field Poll only had Obama down 2-3 a day or two before Tuesday and that was off. But go back two weeks, and he was down a lot further than he finished.

by mattw 2008-02-29 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The story of dem '08

New Hampshire.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democrat ic_primary-194.html

The last three polls before the wo week mark were O +2, O +2, and Tie.  You have to go back about 6 weeks to find Clinton polling consistently above her final margin.

That's the only one I could find in the RCP averages.  This phenomenon I think is more just Obama getting over the familiarity deficit that he starts with everywhere moreso than a reflection on Clinton.

by NJIndependent 2008-02-29 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

And yet, Bush won in 2004. We simply can't afford to rest on our laurels, even though electing McCain would be madness.

by mattw 2008-02-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton will win OH

The question is going to be TX. His comments on NAFTA are going to make his charges on Nafta against Clinton look hollow. So he is done in OH.

by bayareasg 2008-02-29 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton will win OH

The fraction of the electorate which possesses the interest and the time to educate themselves on such an obscure scandal, yet lacks the basic reasoning skills needed to recognize it as manufactured garbage, is too small to have an impact on the race.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-29 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton will win OH

Really! Nafta is the TOP issue in OH.

by bayareasg 2008-02-29 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

New U of C poll, not at Pollster:

Obama 48
Clinton 47

This war reported in US News & World Report: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/camp aign-2008/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-in-de ad-heat-going-into-texas-and-ohio.html

The same poller had the race very differently in a 2/21-2/24

Clinton 47
Obama 39

(http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php)

That is a NINE point swing in 5 days. Amazing. It's all tied up.

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-29 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Errata: "Was" not "war."

by EMTP democrat 2008-02-29 12:00PM | 0 recs
OT sort of, Rockefeller endorsement

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/02/29/rockefeller-gets-behind-obama/

Jay Rockefeller endorsed Obama today.

by mady 2008-02-29 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

(((((((((( 30,000 DONORS METER ))))))))))))

Go to www.hillaryclinton.com and Support Our Next President....

...Please, she needs your help....

by Check077 2008-02-29 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates
eh, clinton will win Ohio by 5. do people forget that Ohio has early voting as well? no way in hell that Obama can turn that around.
by alex100 2008-02-29 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Zogby's tracking poll out today show's a dead heat:

Obama 45
Clinton 45

Yesterday Clinton had a 2 pt lead. This tracking poll seems to confirm Rasmussen's poll.

Where is Georgep the guy who had all of the poll spinning for Hillary? Have not seen him recently.

by BDM 2008-02-29 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates
zogy is wrong. early voting will put this easily in the Hillary column.
by alex100 2008-03-01 05:06AM | 0 recs
I did put money on Hillary in Ohio

I mentioned that the other day. And I've continued to do it. The Intrade price is basically even money. It was just shy of 60/40 a few days ago. Others were buying Hillary contracts but now the recent polling has shifted the price downward and I wouldn't be shocked if Obama becomes the favorite.

I still like the situation. Give me the Seattle Slew-lead and fundamental reasons for that lead, and force the other side to run me down late.  

If I lose, well, I lose hundreds of wagers every year. Value and an edge. Neither one is any good without the other. You can't sit around waiting for absolute certainty at 10/1 odds.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-02-29 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen: Clinton Lead in Ohio Evaporates

Should be "Volume and an edge." Not value. That would be synonymous. I really wish this place had edit capability, especially since I'm always sampling here at last stop of the night, and wobbly.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-02-29 09:59PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads