MyDD :: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas?

A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas?

by Jonathan Singer, Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:31:08 PM EST

On Thursday night Insider Advantage polled 403 voters it deemed likely to participate in the Texas Democratic primary on March 4. Here are the results of the poll, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points, along with the latest Pollster.com trend average out of the state.

	Insider Advantage	Pollster.com
Clinton	48	48.1
Obama	41	41.6

This looks like it could be a heck of a race, with polling fairly consistently showing Hillary Clinton marginally ahead of Barack Obama -- but not overwhelmingly so (certainly not as overwhelmingly so as she appears to be in Ohio). And not only does the polling seem to suggest that this contest might be a tight one, the demographics of the Democratic electorate do as well. Back in 2004, the voting group participating in the Democratic presidential primary looked like this, according to exit polling: 52 percent White, 24 percent Latino and 21 percent African-American, with the remaining 3 percent either Asian-American or "other." Demographics don't mean everything, and the electorate in the state may look a lot different than it did four years ago. Nevertheless, there are multiple signs now pointing to the possibility that this could be a close contest, so definitely stay tuned.

Tags: Texas Primary, Democratic Primaries, Texas (all tags)

Permalink :: 164 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

That would really be a huge blow to Clinton, especially if it tightens over the next few weeks.

by rfahey22 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:24:14 PM EST

Re: Texas is a Red State (2.00 / 0)

Provide hard evidence or don't raise innuendo. Or, start throwing out the votes you don't like. That should really look good.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Texas is a Red State (2.00 / 0)

Are you sure that they (Republicans) are not voting for Clinton? They view her as easier to beat.

by antiHyde on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Texas is a Red State (none / 0)

The Republicans have been voting consistently for Obama.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

I would not be shocked for Obama to win this (and effectively end Hillary's candidacy).

by Cheebs on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:25:34 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 2)

In California, the percent of Latinos who voted expanded dramatically from 2004 to 2008. I expect similar trends in Texas. It may not affect the delegate race there too much, since delegates are allocated according to the 2004 vote (and there are zero delegates assigned based on statewide primary vote), but it should help Hillary in the popular vote.

by markjay on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:27:58 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

Well, is it delegates or popular vote that really counts? I reckon it's the delegate count, don't you?:

As it happens, the state Senate districts with the most delegates - Austin, Houston and Dallas - are all seen as prime Obama territory.

As a result of that and other quirks in the process, it is possible that even if Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote on March 4 - and declares victory that evening - Mr. Obama could actually come away with more delegates.

Ultimately, it just might depend on what your definition of the word "win" is.

Wayne Slater - Constituency groups hold key to Texas Democratic primary Dallas Morning News 16 Feb 08

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

But this time Obama is working the Hispanic population, and has the time to make some inroads. He's already got several key endorsements.

by Drummond on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 4)

IF Hillary doesn't take Texas by at least 20%, it's over.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:29:10 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

that is biggest bs i have ever hear!

by American1989 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:32:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Will PA and OH be enough to offset a NC/TX win for Obama? Assuming, of course, Obama can win or tie in TX?

by poserM on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

Not even close. Clinton needs to win and win big in OH, TX, and PA and pull out some other states if she wants to even come close to Obama in the pledged delegate count. People on this board seem to be oblivious to the fact that Hillary is very, very far behind right now if the pledged delegate count is the metric you're using..

by balloot on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Really? She needs to win TX/OH/PA by 25+ points to even have a shot of TYING the pledged delegate count of Obama. If she fails that, she's going to need to have a bit upset in somewhere like WI or NC. And I don't see that happening.

And it's becoming clear that the pledge delegated count is going to be what matters.

by EvilCornbread on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Pledged delegates are only part of the delegates. Hillary will be fighting hard for super delegates notwithstanding threats by Obama supports to split the party if she does. This idea that someone super delegates should be invalidated is ridiculous at its core. The Obama campaign seems to want to play the the rules as they are in MI and FL but not regarding super delegates.

I would suggest that Hillary supports start to threaten a strong outpouring of support for McCain should Barack be the nominee. If a Obama's campaign is willing to threaten a split I believe the Clinton campaign should respond in kind. Everyone (Media, Obama supports and his campaign) have had a talking point that Hillary will do whatever it takes to win (something she has yet to prove to me). If this is the case then the so called Clinton Machine should prove it and split the party if the game is changed by invalidating the play for super delegates.

by Wiseprince on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I respect your primary preference. But please, please, can we end the spin that the obama campaign wants to change superdelegate rules. No one I know of suggests changing or ignoring the rules. The argument is over how superdelegates vote. Period. No rule changes.

I do support changing these rules for future elections, but not this cycle. You don't change rules in the middle of the game.

by Glenn Smith on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

It's not spin. Hillary Clinton put a lot on the fact that Super Delegates could vote as they pleased. To now suggest that if she wins because of super delegates she is stealin the election is outragoues and disingenuous. That being the case I would advocate that if Obama wins because all of the super delegates are forced into vote as the states goes or any other arbitrary ruling the Clinton campaign take a strong look at splitting the party over this issue. Civil war within the party is certainly an option. That being said I would suggest to you that the "Clinton machine" that would do "anything to win" would not do that. I am not so sure that the Obama campaign would make that same pledge

by Wiseprince on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

You advocate that Clinton consider splitting the party in one sentence, but then suggest that she wouldn't actually do that? Care to reconcile those statements?

Anyone who splits the party will be an utter pariah and that person's political career will effectively be over. Neither candidate would do it.

Also, no one is talking about any "ruling". Both camps are arguing that the superdelegates should vote a certain way. That's not a rule change - I honestly don't know where you're getting that idea.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

You advocate that Clinton consider splitting the party in one sentence, but then suggest that she wouldn't actually do that? Care to reconcile those statements?

I am not a campaign manager or an advisor to the Clintons. By advocating that she spark a civil war I am not suggesting that she would. I don't think she would actually do that.

Also, no one is talking about any "ruling". Both camps are arguing that the superdelegates should vote a certain way. That's not a rule change - I honestly don't know where you're getting that idea.

The Obama campaign has been going to the media suggesting that if Hillary wins because of super delegates she will split the party. That is my complaint. This is an open threat by the Obama campaign.

As far as I can tell if Hillary wins the nomination Obama will find some way to contest it

by Wiseprince on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Neither candidate has said that they will contest the nomination after a nominee has been decided upon. Also, I think most around here would agree that the party would be split if the superdelegates awarded the nomination to a candidate who lost the pledged delegate and/or popular vote. That's not a threat but an observation. Over 15 million people have voted in the Democratic nomination to date, and their votes could be nullified by a couple of hundred party members? Yes, I think it's safe to say that many could be po'd by such a move.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These are the rules (none / 0)

and the Obama campaign is feeding this anti super delegate wave. It's ridiculous. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the two potential leaders of the party. If they were to push the legitimacy of the super delegates this would not be an issue. Instead you have Hillary pushing its legimtimacy while Obama has been creating a revolt against the idea of their independence. As a result, we are in a scenario where even if Hillary carries the majority of the major states (CA,MA,NY,NJ,OH,TX,PA) and is pushed over the top by the super delegates her win will be seen as tainted and the White House will be in danger of going to the Republican again.
This is the doing of the Obama campaign and it should never have been played in this manner

by Wiseprince on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

Advocating that the superdelegates vote a certain way is not advocating the abolition of superdelegates. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the distinction.

Also, with respect to MI and FL, I take it that you know one of Clinton's top aides actually voted to deprive those states of their delegates?

Per NBC:

On Florida and Michigan, the campaign again said voters in those states should not be "disenfranchised" and that the states were important to the Democratic Party's fortunes. Ickes also said Clinton didn't vote on the DNC rules.

But Ickes did. And he voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.

"There's been no change," Ickes said, adding that he was then acting as a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee "not acting as an agent of Sen. Clinton. We had promulgated rules -- if Florida and Michigan violated those rules" they'd be stripped of their delegates. "We stripped them of all their delegates in order to prevent campaigns to campaign in those states."

In fact, however, that was not why Florida and Michigan were stripped of their delegates. They were stripped of their delegates because they violated party rules by moving up their contest dates before Feb. 5. A pledge to not campaign in those states did not come about until one was put forward by the four early states allowed to go before Feb. 5 by the DNC -- Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Clinton was the last to sign this pledge.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/02/16/671358.aspx

I expect all Clinton supporters to contact her campaign and demand that Ickes be terminated over this outrage.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Yes, anything under a 25 point win should be interpreted as a horrible defeat for Clinton.

by Drummond on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (1.00 / 1)

Maybe you should take a math course.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:50:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

20 points, this has to be the funniest comment yet in this entire primary season, if not dumbest.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:05:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Perhaps you find it amusing, but alas math does not have a sense of humor...

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:58:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas (2.00 / 3)

Teacher: What is 7Q + 3Q?

Student: 10Q

Teacher: You're Welcome!

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:29:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas (none / 0)

LOL

Why was six afraid of seven?

Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!

by John in Chicago on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

It's not me saying it. It's the math.

If you do the math, she must win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania by 20 points to catch up.

Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.

by Walt Starr on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 07:05:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Does the math also suggest that no one will win this without super delegates?

by Wiseprince on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:45:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

I think the race will go for Clinton, because Hispanic voters are for her and AA are for him; whites "split", but as other southern states have shown, the white vote goes for Clinton. VA is a border state, so I do not count that as a Southern state.

Finally, Insider Advantage is a terrible pollster. They had Edwards winning IA; so, I don't trust them. McClatchy, SurveyUSA polls are better metrics.

by American1989 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:34:27 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

If they split the white vote, he getting white males, she getting white females in equal numbers, and she wins Hispanics by the margin she got in California - which his worst showing among that sector - then he will win the State by virtue of his overwhelming black support. There is no way she will get the Hispanic vote to go over 65% because of the generational divide. He can easily pull in 80% of the black vote. I think he looks real good in this contest.

by Piuma on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

It's not just Inside Advantage. there are some other close results.

Rasmussen C:54 O:38 --> +16C
InsiderAdvantage C:48 O:41 --> +7C
TCUL/Hamilton C:49 O:41 --> +8C
American Research Group C:42 O:48 --> +6O

by poserM on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

However when you look closely at it, there are 3 polls which show Hillary with a lead of between 7 to 16 points, while only ARG has Obama with a 6 point advantage. ARG has been mostly horrible this primary season, with a few exceptions. Therefore if you took the mostly discredited ARG out of the equation, the combined total of the other polls would give Hillary around a 10 point lead. And whether you accept that ARG is discredited or not, you would still have to accept that their findings are presently an outlier, as they differ markedly with the 3 polls that came out last week, and an earlier Texas poll which also gave Hillary a 10 point lead.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Look for Survey USA's poll. They have gotten pretty much everything right this primary season.

by Toddwell on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Survey USA has hit on almost everything this primary season, and called Cali perfectly 52-42. I agree they have been the best so far, however they are not perfect, as they had Hillary winning Missouri, which effectively ended in a tie, with a slight advantage to Obama.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

ARG is crap, but they're always crap in favor of Clinton. if ARG has a pro obama poll, he'l win, ust like if a zogby poll shows clinton up, she'll win. of course a lot will change between now and medium tuesday.

Being Normal is for the Mediocre.

by Doug Tuttle on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:00:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

ARG is not always pro Clinton. ARG had Obama winning big in New Hampshire.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:20:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

A 16 point lead is close?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

These numbers are not frozen in amber. After Wisconsin, there are 2 weeks before Texas. Obama will hit the state and the numbers will get even tighter.

VA is a border state? Well, there is a town called Appomattox there. That qualifies it as southern in my book.

by swarty on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Capitol of the Confederacy, home of Robert E. Lee, is a border state?

by antiHyde on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

VA is a border state, so I do not count that as a Southern state.

Um, have you ever lived in Virginia?

MD, WV, MO, KY... those were border states. In Virginia, they celebrate "Lee- Jackson- King" day (only way they could get MLK day through). That's a day for:

Robt. E. Lee
Stonewall Jackson
Martin Luther King, Jr.

...all rolled into one! (I hope the first two are a-rolling in their respective resting places.)

Texas is its own very special place, so I'm not sure how the voting will go there, either, but I would see the Virginia results as VERY telling.

by Lyrebird on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent Analysis, Jonathan (none / 0)

I agree that Texas will be competitive. The Latino vote also seems to skew younger in Texas than in some other states.

Another complicating factor is the double voting. Texas has both a primary and a caucus on the same day, and both determine delegate allocations. It is entirely possible that one candidate wins the primary and another wins the caucus, and we could enjoy the spectacle of the media declaring a "winner" and then madly backtracking. There can also be wildly divergent results between the popular vote and the delegate outcome.

It's also a state that can suck a campaign treasury dry. Advertising is expensive, and the campaign jet keeps busy shuttling the candidate across the vast distances. El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Wichita Falls aren't exactly close to each other. The campaigns must incur these costs for basically a full month since there's a long run-up to March 4th.

The state will be a huge challenge for both candidates.

by BBCWatcher on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:36:32 PM EST

Re: Excellent Analysis, Jonathan (none / 0)

The caucus is worth 30% of the delegate count! It occurs at 7:15, after the general polls close. I expect that Obama will do very well in the caucus, which may provide the crucial boost he needs to swing the state. However, I'm not sure the caucus delegates will be announced that night... anyone know? In any case, I doubt the pollsters are taking this into consideration, and like Iowa, little reason to think that the caucus could be polled accurately, anyway.

by cwreno2001 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:41:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent Analysis, Jonathan (none / 0)

The caucus delegates won't be announced election night. Precinct secretaries are asked to mail them to their county chairs and the state party BY FRIDAY!! Sign-ins at precinct conventions will determine the numbers, more or less, but they don't become officials until the state convention in June.

The campaigns will no doubt get reports from their precinct captains that night, so they will have counts. That probably won't even begin to happen until after 9 p.m. or so central time. And, of course, there will be nothing official about them.

by Glenn Smith on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Al Giordano over at the field has posted that there are indications of a generational split among Latinos in Texas - younger Latinos seem to be (at least among elected politicians) supporting Obama, with older ones supporting Clinton. The generation gap, and the fact that Texas is a comparably young state, may make a bigger impact on results than the Latino vote. I wouldn't be surprised if Latinos in Texas don't vote for Clinton in numbers much higher proportionally than whites of the same economic background and age.

This, combined with Obama's momentum in the endorsement race down there, means I wouldn't be surprised if Obama ends up winning Texas narrowly (say by four points). This would effectively mean the end of Hillary's run, although Ickes is now indicating that the campaign will continue onto June regardless.

by telephasic on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:38:06 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

This may explain why Hillary is leaving WI early. She can't afford to loose TX.

by poserM on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:44:32 PM EST

Obama is leaving at the same time (2.00 / 1)

Obama is "abandoning" Wisconsin at the same time. Maybe he is in panic mode?

by ineedalife on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:37:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama is leaving at the same time (none / 0)

No, he has an event scheduled in Beloit on Monday night. He's just leaving to do an event in Youngstown, Ohio and then coming right back.

by dmc2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Change in position? (none / 0)

"I told President Clinton that I thought it was really important that pledged delegates be the deciding factor. And he agreed with me."

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), quoted by Tulsa World.

Could be Boren's talking out of school here - or that WJC will say Boren misunderstood him. But really, does this surprise anyone?

If one of the candidates is ahead in pledged delegates, the supers will use their judgment to crown that person the winner.

HRC can still win the nomination - but she has to at least tie BHO in the pledged delegate count. That's been one of the oddest things about the past week and a half - there's so much talk from the campaign about whether she can win by virtue of the supers. Shouldn't she be aiming to win a majority of the pledges and popular vote? There's been almost no talk of that as the goal - as though she's conceding it. That's really not where you want your campaign to be.

by TL on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:52:19 PM EST

Re: Change in position? (none / 0)

It seems that mathematically, it will be next to impossible for her to overtake the pledged delegate count at this point, barring something truly bizarre happening in the race. I think both campaigns understand that... the best she can probably do is come close to parity.

by cwreno2001 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:44:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

This state should be very competitive. There are twice as many blacks here as California and the Hispanics here are quite a bit different than in California. Also, Obama is helped by the fact that the Republican race is pretty much over, meaning Republicans and Independents can come in and vote for him.

by Toddwell on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:53:55 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

So tell me why do republicans want Obama to be the democratic nominee? Do you think it's possible that they think he is the easier candidate to beat, or do you think republicans just want the democrats to have what they believe, in their republican judgement, to be the best possible candidate. I know what I think the answer is.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:00:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Voters do not think like pundits. Republicans, this may be a shock to you, LIKE Obama. Many of them want Obama to be our next president much like many democrats voted Reagan.

by Cheebs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:02:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

So you think republicans, who are basically pro war, against abortion, generally more racist, and sexist, and believe in all sorts of anti people ideas like Obama. Tell me why is that so?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Do you really believe the sentence you just wrote?

"republicans . . . are basically pro war, against abortion, generally more racist, and sexist, and believe in all sorts of anti people ideas"

And are you suggesting that all republicans are like this? because the once who are not can always vote for Obama if they think the republican nomination is over.

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Where have you lived for the past 8 years?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

So, you honestly believe that republicans are racist, sexist, and believe in all sorts of anti people ideas?

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Yes.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I have news for you, just as the Democrats are not one monolithic voting block, neither are the Republicans.

This assumption that all of the Republicans that are voting for Obama (or Clinton) are doing so in some mysterious strategic attempt to pick an easy opponent in November has no basis in fact.

by kjblair2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

YOUR statement is WAY more prejudiced and than the average Republican. There are a lot of Republicans that hate Bush (you can't get sub-30 approvals without losing a significant part of your own party) and there are lots of Republicans that hate McCain, too. Are there Republicans that are racist, sexist, warmonger pigs? Yeah, sure, of course, there are more than there should be, but to characterize ALL Repubicans that way is totally unfair. It's not like Obama is getting a ton of support from Republicans. He's winning Republicans that are voting in Dem primaries by a large margin, but it's a very small part of his support and a tiny sliver of Republicans.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:33:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Tell me why you think a pretty good number of them voted in Virgina Dem primaries and overwhelmenly went Obama?

They don't look at him on the issues. They like him because he is inspirational. It's pretty simple.

by Cheebs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:34:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Or those Virginia Republicans saw him as easier to beat in the GE

by cath on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:36:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Then they're incredibly stupid, because it would be much easier to unite their party in opposition to Clinton, whom they've hated for over 15 years.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Fat chance. Most Washington Republicans are terrified of facing Obama, including the NRCC chairman, who thinks the lower Republican turnout would cost Republicans another 20 seats.

by Toddwell on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I think they realize he is the easier candidate to beat. So tell me you think it's fair that the republicans vote in the dem primary? I'm a Yankees fan. I would like to vote on who plays for the Red Sox this year.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

So now Clinton supporters are trying to invalidate the popular vote totals, too? I guess that's why everyone's so gung-ho over superdelegates, because pretty soon that's all Clinton may have left. Don't you ever get tired of whining?

I would love to see a poll where Republican votes accounted for the total difference between the candidates. I had no idea that every time Clinton's been clobbered by 20 or 30 points over the past month, that entire group was Republican voters.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

A lot of Republican voters prize "character"-associated values more than they do policy specifics. Obama appeals to that particular instinct - they just like the guy, even though he doesn't support their positions (just like a lot of Democrats apparently like McCain, even though they are diametrically opposed to his positions). Clinton, for better or worse, has been slimed for so long that she doesn't really appeal in that way, whether or not that's fair.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Bingo. Obama meets that character threshold a lot of republicans have.

by Cheebs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Republicans who voted twice for a criminal regime have a character threshold? Republican voters who stood by idly while the republicans stole elections have a character threshold? Republicans who are anti choice, and pro war have a character threshold? Republicans who have been involved in scandals from Florida to Wyoming have a character threshold? Republicans who cheered when a CIA agent was unmasked have a character threshold? Do you live in some kind of alternate universe?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

We all hate Bush and his policies and what he's done for the county, you don't have to argue that.

To win an election, you need to get more people on your side than there are on the other side. That's the game. There's nothing wrong with courting disillusioned Republicans. In fact, that's what we need to do to win. You can't write off the 62 million people who voted for Bush last time. You fight for every vote, and you don't give any away to the other side for "free." That's how you lose.

Also, the idea that Republicans voting for Obama are doing so because they think he's easier to beat--that's ridiculous for two reasons. One, Obama is polling much better against McCain right now than Clinton is. Second, most people do not vote strategically. Only a very small and perhaps insignificant percentage vote in the other party's primary to elect a candidate "easier to beat." Look at Michigan exit polls, Independents and Democrats voting in the Republican primary went for McCain, not Romney, even though surely Romney would have been easier to beat. Most people don't think like that.

by College Progressive on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

So if even one Republican votes for Clinton, your whole argument is invalidated? You don't make a lot of sense.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

My parents are both Republicans. The last democrat they voted for was Jimmy Carter. However, they both voted for Obama in the democratic primary in GA rather than voting in the Republican primary. They weren't trying to "swing" the election in GA. They simply really like Obama. They also really dislike McCain and have already said they would vote for Obama in the general election. However, they will not, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary. They simply cannot stand her.

by godemsin08 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

George Will made it clear in his last column that Republicans who cross over are doing it because they just hate Hillary and want her to go away... even though Obama is the stronger candidate in Will's eyes. He seemed rather annoyed by it, since he was very candid in preferring Hillary as an easier opponent to beat in the general. Polling seems to agree with him, with Hillary way behind in most states where Obama has a nice lead.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:03:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Many Republicans like Obama.

by Toddwell on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Don't forget that the African American population has increased, especially around the Houston area, because of the large migration out of the area ravaged by Katrina. Either way, Clinton needs to win this state by a comfortable margin to stay competetive with the delegate race.

by mecarr on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:54:57 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

If this is how Texas plays out in two weeks, Clinton's done.

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."

by fugazi on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:00:20 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

Mind boggeling. These polls show Clinton with a lead. So if this is how it plays out, how is she done?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Because if she wins by only 5-6 points then chances are they will tie in delegates.

by Piuma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:08:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

She will be done because she needs to win ALL of TX/OH/PA by over 25 point to even have a shot at tying Obama in the pledged delegate count. And that's assuming that they tie in the remaining non-TX/OH/PA states (which is unlikely, Obama probably has the edge there).

It's becoming more clear by the day that whoever has the pledged delegate lead is going to get the nomination. If she fails to win ANY of TX/OH/PA by 25 points then she's basically got no shot at it barring some massive upset somewhere like WI/NC.

Basically, she needs to win, and win big on March 4th or she's done.

by EvilCornbread on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:58:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

That's just not true -- if she wins those 3 states by 25 points it will net her 123 delegates.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Even though Clinton has a lead now, it should worry her that it isn't bigger. Obama has, in just about every primary so far, been able to close the gap. I can't think of any race where Clinton performed better on voting day than she was polling at a few weeks before. Most important though is that Clinton win enough to get a get amount of delegates. Winning by 5% ain't gonna do it. She needs to win by 15% to get a good chunk from texas.

by mecarr on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Did you ever hear of a state called New Hampshire?

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:16:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Clinton was way up in New Hampshire until several days before the primary.

by dmc2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Hey Obama supporter, you asked where the the polls got tighter for Hillary at the end. You are beginning to sound like a red state republican. Be careful distortion is a republican tactic. I don't think that's the kind of change democratic voters are looking for...

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

How about California?

A large diverse state with big latino and african american populations, where Obama started to pull ahead -- he had all the newspaper endorsements, big political endorsements, huge momentum...

I remember the obituaries being written about Clinton because of her impending California loss.

Oops.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:45:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

How about California?

A large diverse state with big latino and african american populations, where Obama started to pull ahead -- he had all the newspaper endorsements, big political endorsements, huge momentum...

I remember the obituaries being written about Clinton because of her impending California loss.

Oops.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

You forget that a few weeks before the California primary Clinton was up by like 30%. Obama closed the gap significantly.

by mecarr on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

And Clinton netted >40 delegates.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 0)

You are all assuming this is correct in a poll of 403 likely voters?

by americanincanada on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:14:26 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Sigh...

All polls use a similarly sized samples. The study of statistics shows that only very small samples are needed, as long as they are appropriately random.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Not all polls use similar sizes. The size number is what generally determines the margin of error.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Nothing wrong with the sample size, but running a one day poll on Valentine's Day may not have been the best idea.

Texas Economics

by IVR Polls on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:08:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The real issue is how (none / 0)

many delgates will Hillary net? Remember - 1/4 will be allocated by caucus that night and not on the primary.

I have seen several analysis that suggest she will net less than 5.

Hillary needs to net 25+ delegates at LEAST to close the pledged delegate lead.

I don't think people realize how bad the delegate math is for Hillary if you subtract Michigan and Florida.

by fladem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:45:20 AM EST

Re: The real issue is how (none / 0)

25+ delegates?

Hillary is behind by 130 pledged delegates.

by hrcisthemachine on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:08:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real issue is how (2.00 / 1)

LOL, minus Florida and Michigan. I don't think you realize how bad the math will be for the democrats in November if you disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. It's simple, however, without Michigan, the democrats don't win.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real issue is how (none / 0)

They disenfranchised themselves.

by antiHyde on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real issue is how (none / 0)

Disenfranchised themselves?

The Republican legislature moved the primary up in Florida.

The only person who disenfranchised himself in Michigan was Obama (by taking himself off the ballot). But that did not stop him from campaigning to get folks to vote "undecided." That would not only take out Edwards, but Hillary.

Other states, including SC, moved up their primaries. But they didn't get disenfranchised.

by cath on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The real issue is how (none / 0)

You're losing. And cheating won't help, not this time. People are starting to see the real Clinton, a pampered brat from Park Ridge who starts throwing things when she doesn't get her way. Obama has class that she'll never have.

by antiHyde on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Let's not forget that there will be two debates from now until March 4th, and Obama is going to have to answer specific policy questions. Either the moderators will ask him or I suspect Hillary will do it herself. She has to...letting Obama get away with not answering specific policy questions and providing answers about change and hope has gone on long enough.

Also, the electorate has been very volatile and we could see a big swing towards Hillary when people get to see in person that Hillary is about solutions and Obama is about empty promises.

"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger." ~Hillary Clinton

by EightMoreYears on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:53:42 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

she is the better debater but the problem is: the idea that he cant answer specifics or say anything other then "hope" "change" is a talking point and absolutely false.

what will happen if more specifics are demanded? he will go into them. she cant attack positions because they agree in most areas, and to be overly aggressive could easily backfire.

he doesnt need anything from the debates, she does. it will be interesting, at least ;)

by falseintellect on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

If that's all there was to his candidacy, he wouldn't be the frontrunner right now.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Fire Mark Penn, Now! (2.00 / 2)

Penn is damaging Clinton with yet another of his stupidisms:

"Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8551.html

Please don't work too hard to try to wrap your brain around that one. He's an incompetent idiot and needs to go.

by BBCWatcher on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:13:49 AM EST

Re: Fire Mark Penn, Now! (none / 0)

I guess only the superdelegates count now. Someone needs to muzzle that guy.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:29:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fire Mark Penn, Now! (none / 0)

Politically it's not the best quote, but it is true.

You can't point to wins in various states as proof that there will be general election support there.

by rcipw on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Other than hope what else does Barack offer? And why is he running behind McCain in Pennsylvania? Last time u checked that was a blue state.

by nzubechukwu on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:06:25 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

a) a lot of Rethugs are going to flirt with Obama, but not vote for him in the general. No VP for Mc Cain has been announced, but it will probably be a younger guy.

b) Obama has to win PA and Ohio in the general. I see no signs he can do that. His general election numbers in Pennslyvania are very troubling.

by bigbay on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

The most recent polling out shows Obama beating McCain in PA and only one point less than Hillary in Ohio.

"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"

by LordMike on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:06:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Show me that poll.

The poll shows Clinton beating McCain in PA and McCain beating Obama by 6 pts.

In all swing states, Clinton is stronger. Show me a poll which says otherwise.

by Sandeep on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

How many do you want?

Nevada (2/14, Rasmussen)
Obama 50%, McCain 38%
McCain 49%, Clinton 40%

Colorado (2/13, Rasmussen)
Obama 46%, McCain 39%
McCain 49%, Clinton 35%

New Hamshire (2/13, Rasmussen)
Obama 49%, McCain 36%
Clinton 43%, McCain 41%

Missouri (2/13, Rasmussen)
McCain 42%, Obama 40%
McCain 43%, Clinton 42%

Ohio (2/14, Quinnipiac)
McCain 42%, Obama 40%
McCain 44%, Clinton 43%

Florida (2/14, Quinnipiac)
McCain 41%, Obama 39%
McCain 44%, Clinton 42%

Pennsylvania (2/14, Quinnipiac)
Obama 42%, McCain 41%
Clinton 46%, McCain 40%

In Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire, Obama is significantly out polling Clinton when they are matched up with McCain. In the other 4 states, there's no signficant difference between the two except in Pennsylvania where the difference is slightly in Clinton's favor. (It's also the only state where none of the candidates have actively campaigned.)

I have a hard time seeing how someone can say Clinton is decidedly better than Obama in swing states.

by kjblair2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

It's a Ramussen poll from 2/17. (See the post later in the thread.)

by kjblair2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

Rasmussen has a new GE poll out of PA today
Obama: 49%
McCain: 39%

McCain 44%
Clinton 42%

Sort of shoots a hole in that theory doesn't it?

by godemsin08 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:17:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

crickets

by mecarr on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

you got it backwards.

Honestly, I don't like the Clinton's very much at all.

But a good chunk of Democrats have lost their minds and logic. Obamania feels like a revival, with crying , fainting, etc.

by bigbay on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:36:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Of course McCain's running mate would be a younger guy. Where in the hell would he find an older one?

by godemsin08 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 05:19:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tan, Rested, and Ready (none / 0)

Viagra pitchman Bob Dole?

by BBCWatcher on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:17:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Of course it will be a younger guy. He's the oldest politician in DC!

by swarty on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:44:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come to Appalachia (2.00 / 1)

No Republican will win PA this November. GE polling in PA now is like GE polling in other states last year. Lots of folks don't know who Obama is in PA - yes, it's hard to believe, but many Americans in states that haven't yet voted know virtually nothing about Obama and are probably scared off by his name. I live in a state that Obama ignored - Tennessee - and have found many Democrats who voted for Hillary only because they had no idea who Obama was and saw him either as a quasi-Muslim or a Jesse Jackson negro.

I don't know if Obama will win OH or PA in the primary but he will certainly close the gap considerably. And in doing so Independents in those states will gravitate toward Obama. Working class white Democrats will vote for Obama in the GE. And I bet working class white Democratic MEN in OH and PA vote for Obama in the primary too.

This said, Obama needs to campaign throughout Appalachia. No region has been more troublesome to him than Appalachia. He got killed in East Tennessee and western Virginia. I live in Appalachia and it has nothing to do with "style over substance" and everything to do with voters afraid of his bizarre-sounding name and background. But like Kennedy in West Virginia, Obama can tour this region and let voters know who he is. They got over their anti-Catholic prejudices in 1960 and can get over any lingering racist sentiment today. Talk to us about mountaintop removal, jobs, health care, rural development, etc. Come to Knoxville, Bristol, Beckley, Charleston, Roanoke, Morgantown, Fairmont, Huntington, Clarksburg, Johnson City, Ashland, Chattanooga, Asheville, Johnstown, Altoona, Cumberland, Boone, Middlesboro, and North Georgia. He will win over many voters in Appalachia if he comes.

by elrod on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 1)

Rasmussen has Obama up over McCain by 10 points in PA:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylva nia_2008_presidential_election

by Nagual Haven on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:23:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Exactly, but bear in mind the republicans can pick a woman for veep, Hutchinson of Texas, or Whitman of New Jersey. They would be in line for millions of women votes, especially those who feel that hillary was treated unfairly. It could become a 40 state republican blowout, with a lot of coatails

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. -- David Friedman

by pollbuster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Is this matchup, who will the democratic candidate choose for VP?

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Please tell me the last presidential race in which a VP candidate made the slightest bit of difference? Granting that it may be a more reassurance issue with McCain, because of his age.

by Glenn Smith on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs _obama-244.html

Obama hasn't been behind McCain in a head-to-head in PA since MAY. This doesn't even include the Rasmussen +10 released today.

Moreover, the only reason that PA is even close right now is because the Clintons' viciousness has made this primary race so nasty that 20-30 percent of each candidate's support in the primaries has said they won't vote for the other in the general. When the party comes back together (which, the longer the battle goes on, the more it requires BOTH Obama and Clinton on the final ticket), this won't last. PA will be a 15-20 point blowout for the Dems in November regardless of whether it is Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama on the ticket. If an empty suit like Casey can beat an incumbent Senator by 20 points, there's no chance a Republican will carry the state in the fall.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:48:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

C'mon - I fully expect this response to be fueled by Jager and vino on a Saturday night. I CAN NOT wait for Obama to rip JMcCain apart in the debates -
Do you want more ...

failed Middle Eastern strategy w/o peace in Isreal?
no engagement with our stated enemies?
no nuclear disarmanent?
continued lobby-driven bills through congress?

The good people of PA will recognize the future ... and vote blue.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I lived in PA for quite a while, and though I do agree that it will vote blue in 2008, I don't think it's as much of a sure thing as you suggest.

There's a reason why many people who live there, including relatives of mine, refer to the state as "Pennsyltucky". It really is two blue cities with a big red state wedged in between.

A fair number of people in the middle will simply vote for the guy they've heard of (McCain) instead of "the black guy who might be a Muslim" or "that annoying Hillary."

(And no, this is not meant as an insult to Kentucky. This really is how I've heard people who live there now or know the state very well describe PA.)

The Cost of Energy: Higher than you think

by Lou Grinzo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I grew up in Reading, on the fringe of Pennsyltucky. The people in the middle of the state are Republicans and won't vote for any Dem. Philadephia is obviously prime territory for Obama. He will get record turnout in the city between the AA community and the 5 major universities. Plus, the Philly suburbs are rapidly bluing with former Rockefeller Repubicans turned off by that party's warmongering and wingnut religious stances. These people face a tough decision because they are still more in line with McCain's "low tax low spending" economic policies, but will agree with Dems on social issues and the war. However, more and more are becoming repulsed by the Repug wingnuts every election. There's no possible way this state goes from booting out an incumbent Senator by 20 points in 06 to voting GOP for President in 08. No possible way.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylva nia_2008_presidential_election

Pennsylvania 2008 Presidential Election
Pennsylvania: Obama 49% McCain 39%; McCain 44% Clinton 42%

Not sure why you think that Obama can't win PA, latest polls show him well ahead of McCain while HRC is behind him.

You have to remember that while her support is strong among dems, she is very polarizing. I could see her losing all the swing states in a GE.

by kajpin on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

A note complete off topic -
I raise my Budweiser can to the good folks of Kosovo. Tomorrow, they plan on declaring independence from Serbia, w/o UN or Russian authorization. Regardless of what we feel of the boy prince (of the US) politics, this encapsulates what Jefferson wrote on self-determination and inalienable rights. I am proud to welcome them into the global community.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:28:48 AM EST

Newspaper Momentum (2.00 / 1)

Obama's going for a clean sweep of Texas newspaper endorsements. Two to go:

The Houston Chronicle - OBAMA
El Paso Times - OBAMA
San Antonio Express-News - OBAMA
Austin American Statesman - OBAMA
The Dallas Morning News - OBAMA
BURNT ORANGE REPORT - OBAMA
Al Dia de Dallas
Fort Worth Star Telegram

by Piuma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:35:19 AM EST

Re: Newspaper Momentum (none / 0)

Just like he swept Ca's newspaper endorsements. They really don't matter very much anywhere

by cath on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 3)

A picture is worth a thousand words:

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:02:22 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Hillary's going to win Texas and win big. I'm a lifelong Texan...I know how we think. Plus, finally the air is being let out of the Obama balloon, and just in the nick of time.

She will win big in OH, TX, and PA....enough to get an insurmountable popular vote lead. So even if she can't quite win enough enough pledged delegates to overtake Obama, with the popular vote win and MI and FL still outstanding, she will win the nomination with the superdelegates.

Just saying...this is how it will go down. Prepare yourselves.

by Scan on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:09:05 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Exactly, Scan!

The media has been trying for weeks to push Obama over the top, but it's not going to happen.

He is all rhetoric, no solutions. He doesn't have 35 years of experience and a proven record of bringing change. His has been obnoxious and arrogant, saying that Hillary can't catch him. I am so glad to hear you set the record straight.
Chelsea has been in the state, as I have read, talking sense to the folks at the colleges and Bill has been telling the real story to thousands of others. Now Hillary is there and she will remind people of who will be ready to lead from day one and build a coalition that will bring us all of the things we've been dreaming of for so long.

I'm prepared for a monumental victory for Hillary on March 4th! Thanks again for the great news!!

"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger." ~Hillary Clinton

by EightMoreYears on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 2)

Funny, as another lifelong Texas who regularly travels between Dallas and Houston I'm seeing the opposite.

I'm finding Hillary folk in the all white suburbs but Obama people in any location that is not economically . . . well off (and not minorities!) I'm also on college campuses regularly and I can tell you the kids are going to show up to caucus on March 4 for Obama and are more likely than not to stay home for Hillary (decent number are saying they would vote for McCain, I see them staying home as the campaign occurs).

Also, Dallas, something I'm a bit more familiar with right now, is pretty hard core in the Obama category. Denton is leaning Obama it seems with North Dallas/South Denton (areas of those with economic advantages) leans Hillary.

Remember, there is no Texas Primary. There are 31 state senate primaries and 31 state caucuses. Downtown Austin, South Houston and South Dallas are the 3 most valuable locations.

by Trowaman on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

"His has been obnoxious and arrogant, saying that Hillary can't catch him. " When did Obama say that?

It's Obama supporters who have been merely pointing out the MATH that makes it nearly impossible for her to catch up to him in pledged delegates.

Last I heard Math was an important subject to understand in order to have a grip on reality.

by CB Todd on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:04:29 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Sorry, that was a typo.

I was saying that his campaign has said that Hillary can't catch Obama, specifically in regards to pledged delegates. It was said on a conference call with the media last week after the "beltway primary."

Here's the facts...Obama is currently leading Hillary by about 130 pledged delegates (there are differing numbers floated by media outlets, so I'll go with the generous number). Are you seriously saying that Hillary could not wipe that out with the big wins she is expected to have in Ohio and Texas and, further down the road, in Pennsylvania?

The idea that Hillary is behind and in no way can come back is ridiculous. She is going to show everyone on March 4th. And let's not forget Rhode Island and Vermont.

"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger." ~Hillary Clinton

by EightMoreYears on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:59:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

If you look at the number of delegates available from the remaining contests, she needs to win by close to 3:2 to close that gap. Given Texas' peculiarities and the fact that he's actually likely to win the Western states and North Carolina handily, it's very unlikely that she can come back in that regard.

by PantherDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

And don't forget WV, KY, and IN.

by texantimm on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:23:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

or NORTH CAROLINA (the forgotten state with 115 delegates)

it seems that I have have to keep reminding everyone of the state with the most number of delegates after TX, OH,and PA.

We should all remember that NC has more delegates than other so-called big states "that matter" such as NJ (107 delegates) and MA (93 delegates).

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

I was at Sharpstown Mall in Houston yesterday. I was one of the few white people there. It seemed pretty much split between Hispanics and African Americans. There were a number of young people there asking people if they were registered to vote. EVERY young black person I spoke to said they were voting for Obama. The Hispanics were almost entirely for Clinton. I know this is just about dozen young people, but I though I would mention it. They said the Obama people should not assume that just because they are young, they will be voting for him....

by texantimm on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:21:26 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (2.00 / 2)

It has been repeated many times - the ONLY way for Hillary to overcome a 130 pledged delegate deficit is to win ALL the remaining primaries by at least 55% - that includes WI and Hawaii.

Blowouts in OHIO, TX and PA would have to be in the 65/35 range to do it. Nothing in the current polls suggests that is possible in Texas.

That's the MATH. It's not arrogance to make that known. But it is slick for Hillary to make it seem otherwise - if you're not reading the fine print.

They know they are can't catch Obama on pledged delegates. They just don't want her supporters to know it yet.

March 5th everyone will know it. Then the question will be whether her supporters will support a convention fight that will likely split the Party.

by CB Todd on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Does this math account for a NC win for Obama in the 65/35 range?

(sorry, making it my mission to remind everyone about North Carolina since they have 115 delegates and therefore, presumably, "matter")

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

You forgot to mention that Rasmussen has Clinton up +16, 54-38 over Obama at the current time. IF you take ARG out of the equation, her lead is double digits on average. If you put ARG in her lead is around 6-8 points.

She leads in more regions of the state than he does, and I don't see Obama doing much to reduce those margins in South Texas, West Texas and North Texas. She will more than hold her own in metro Dallas, metro Houston and San Antonio. Greater Austin will probably favor Obama by a good margin.

by khyber900 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:47:23 AM EST

Upcoming big state votes (none / 0)

Texas - 193 delegates
Ohio - 141 delegates
Pennsylvania - 158 delegates
North Carolina - 115 delegates

What are the predictions on who wins which and by how much?

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST

Re: Upcoming big state votes (none / 0)

My predictions based on current polls (i.e. no movement in numbers)

Texas: H:97 O:77
Ohio: H:76 O:52
Penn: H:82 O:57
NC: H:46 O:58

That's for a net gain of 58 delegates for Hillary

However, there are three things to keep in mind.

First, these numbers are likely to get tighter. they usually have in previous primaries this year.

Second, Obama is probably going to get a net positive count of delegates from the smaller states

Third, Obama already leads by 100+ pledged delegates and the net gain is a lot less than 100.

In other words, even if Hillary takes TX, OH and PA, she'll have to pick-up the smaller states to top or come close to Obama in the pledged delegate count.

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:03:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

texas two step makes polling difficult (none / 0)

because the Texas delagate race will be determined by the primary and the caucus/convention on the night of the primary.

Many will not come back to the caucus that night after voting. So likely primary voters will only determine 67% of the delagates and the remaining third will be determined by the caucus that night. Adn those results will not be fully known for at least a week later.

So if anyone is going to decalre anyone the winner that March 4th night is not reality based. With 1/3 of the delatgates determined outsinde the primary, Texas will not be decided for a while, so get ready!

The polls really mean nothing in Texas!

by wdmosely on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST

Re: texas two step makes polling difficult (none / 0)

A caucus held later in the evening has to be considered a strong Obama buffer.... but what kind of delegate margin can he expect out of it?

by cwreno2001 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: texas two step makes polling difficult (none / 0)

Burnt Orange Report has the best analysis of this

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=4972

by wdmosely on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: texas two step makes polling difficult (none / 0)

I live in SD 9 and I think that given the excitement and national Obama people here working the SD 9 and 10, I do not think it wil be that close. They may not split the delagates in these districts and Obama could take them all, and that will make Obama up 8 to 10 delatages in the end.

by wdmosely on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A Near Clean Sweep (none / 0)

Add the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram to the all the other Texas newspapers endorsing Obama:

by Piuma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:54:08 AM EST

Re: A Near Clean Sweep (none / 0)

See my post above. He did the same thing in CA with the newspaper endorsements.

It didn't matter.

by cath on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Clean Sweep (none / 0)

They don't guarantee a win, but of course they mean something. Obama may have lost California, but that loss now stands at 9.2% (and Obama just picked up another delegate there - see Calitics article). He closed a major gap and in Texas he's starting out from less far back. The newspaper endorsements, especially at this stage of the campaign, add to feeling of momentum that he is on an inevitable path to the nomination.

by Piuma on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Near Clean Sweep (none / 0)

FWIW, add Corpus Christi Caller-Times

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An Observation (none / 0)

It seems that taking into account the polling in Ohio. The States with well functioning 'Old Guard' Democratic Machines (New York, Ohio), seem to be coming down in Hillary's column.

Those States with weaker 'non-battleground states' Dem Machines (Wyoming, Idaho, Wisconsin) seem to be going to Barack.

I know that this is not 100% true but I sense a trend there.

Texas is in a rebuilding process of its Party machine, Obama seems to be closing the gap. Interesting.

by NvDem on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:08:53 PM EST

Two weeks! (2.00 / 1)

Look at the polls in many Super Tuesday States Two weeks out. They tightened dramatically and he didn't get to visit many of those states.

You guy act like these numbers don't move. The only thing that could keep expanding Hillary's numbers in Ohio & Texas is if he does something so monumentally idiotic in those debates as to collapse his support.

There is nothing I have seen so far to convince me that is going to happen. We have been witnessing the slow erosion of her base of support since Iowa, with pockets of resistance along the way.

That trend will continue in the March 4th states.

by swarty on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST

Re: Two weeks! (none / 0)

Yes, and as support erodes the excuses and rationalizations are beginning to proliferate.

by rfahey22 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

The thing with this so-called delegate "math" that speaks to Obama's inevitability of Obama as the pledged delegate winner is that it doesn't account for two things:

First, Michigan and Florida. Those two states have to be counted somehow whether by a re-vote (though who would pay for that, I have no idea) or by allowing the votes that have been cast to count (not entirely fair and I say that as an ardent Hillary supporter).

Second, Puerto Rico. Yes, Puerto Rico. The territory has 63 total delegates that are not allocated proportionally. In other words, its winner-takes-all.

by katrinareyes on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:50:03 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Puerto Rico is a caucus, right?

by poserM on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:58:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

It is a caucus and the popular governor of Puerto Rico endorsed obama a couple days ago.

by mecarr on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Puerto Rico is not winner take all, it's proportional like all the rest.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.p html

by snaktime on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:46:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Yes, technically, it's proportional representation.
But look at the article below (I realize now though that with governor's endorsement, its less likely that all delegates will be awarded to one candidate. Nevertheless, its still possible).

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/ 2/6/puerto-rican-poll-power.html

by katrinareyes on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 12:12:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in NY? (none / 0)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/new s/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932. htm

Looks like NY could tighten significantly as well.

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST

ARG has hillary up in Wisc. (none / 0)

Since people took their texas poll serious,

take this serious too.

Hillary 49
Obama 43

by yellowdem1129 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:44:24 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

ARG shows Hillary trending down and Obama trending up. Remember ARG had Hillary up by 9 ten days ago before Potomac et al. So the race in WI is also tightening.

by CB Todd on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST

Re: A Tighter than Expected Race in Texas? (none / 0)

Those numbers are will change by the 22nd. Hillary needs to win by a decent margin and 7 pts wont cut it

Obama '08
Obama T-Shirts to make a donation to his campaign
http://stores.ebay.com/MyHoodLLC

by Tblitz25 on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 06:55:57 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.