All Tied Up in Texas

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST

Via Marc Ambinder, here are the latest ABC News/Washington Post numbers out of Texas. I've posted them along with the latest Rasmussen and IVR surveys from the state and the Pollster.com trend, which includes all four new polls (including the one I just added), and the Real Clear Politics average, which includes the first three (but not the latest one I just added). (Update [2008-2-21 18:2:14 by Jonathan Singer]: I've also added a new KXAN poll released today that was conducted by Constituent Dynamics.)

CandidateABC/
WaPo		Rasm.IVRKXANPollsterRCP
Clinton4847504648.548.8
Obama4744454545.746.0

As much as national polling is important in terms of the media narrative and momentum, at this juncture it says a lot less about where the race actually stands than it did earlier in the cycle. More than half of the states have already voted, so while at this point the views of voters in those states aren't exactly irrelevant -- they aren't exactly meaningful in terms of determining who the Democratic nominee will be from this point on, either. Accordingly, these new statewide numbers, particularly in key states in which the vote has not yet been held, stand out significantly more in relation to national polling.

And looking at the numbers above, as well as the ABC/WaPo numbers from Ohio showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by a relatively narrow 7 points in the state, it seems like we have a lot of tightening in the states where such movement is important. Moreover, in Texas, where according to Chuck Todd of NBC News Obama has about a 5-point cushion (he can win more delegates even while losing the popular vote) due to the allocation of delegates across state senate seats and the additional caucuses held on the night of the primary, the fact that the race is now just within 3-4 points indicates, at least to me, that the race is a toss-up, with either candidate having the ability to walk away with more delegates.

Having said all of this, it looks like tonight's CNN debate down in Texas (after which you can listen to MyDD Blog Talk Radio and during which you can chat up your thoughts here on MyDD) is that much more important. So clear out a couple hours of your night this evening -- it could be interesting.




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

Display:
Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

i hope she can hold on to texas , I worry about texas , she would probably win ohio.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

What do you base that on?
A gut feeling?
Cleveland - Obama Country
Cincinati - Obama Country
Columbus - Obama Country
The Buckeye state - Obama Country

Be they Red, be they Blue, be they Caucuses or Primaries
The Big O does one thing:  
WIN


by gil on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Until November. (none / 0)


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Until November. (none / 0)

Even then.


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Until November. (none / 0)

Obama has pulled away ahead in the general election polls, no question.

But for me I view this like Hillary's early major lead in the primary -- once you look at the race and why someone has a big lead then in both cases the lead is meaningless.

I always thought the primary would be much harder for Hillary than the general and that she would be neck and neck with Obama.  Frankly, many Obama supporters expected the same thing.

Once the race is settled, the two nominees will hover close to each other, sometimes up, sometimes down.  I still think that in the long, hard slog that will make up the general election that Hillary can fair better than an Obama whose bubble might burst and whose army might grow bored.


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:36:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Until November. (none / 0)

That's a defensible position.  I just think that the number of tactical mistakes the Clinton campaign has made to date, combined with the high negatives, really would bode poorly for Clinton in this election.  She would match up well against Romney or Huckabee, but McCain would be difficult for her particular skillset.


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Looking more and more like this ends March 4.

And not a day to soon - I can't wait for ALL Democrats to set their targets on "Bush III".


by goodnbad on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:58:33 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

A big state, but a red state...

What will the narrative be?


by rfahey22 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:59:20 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

So, let's say Obama/Clinton wins the nomination.  The other person has millions of dollars dedicated to the general election, which I do not believe they can touch.  What happens to that money?  Is it refunded?  Is it given to the DNC or the Democratic Nominee?


by Tantris on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 05:59:45 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Yes. But Obama has very little general election money. He almost exclusively raised primary dollars.


by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

I believe Obama has over $5 million.  Not chump change.  It would really help the DNC, if it were handed to them.

You said yes, but you didn't say yes to which question.


by Tantris on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Money is returned.


by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (2.00 / 1)

How awesome is it that Democrats have a competitive race in TX? This is great for party building and energizing a moribund TX Democratic party. May the best candidate win!


by crazymoloch on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:13:08 PM EST

Off topic but useful (none / 0)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23276453/#st oryContinued

A summary of Obama's votes in the Senate.


by mady on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:19:37 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

2 Weeks out, i will go with these projections...

TX

Obama 50%
Clinton 48%

OH

Clinton 50%
Obama 48%


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:31:26 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

you won't last a minute in vegas


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:34:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

can primary funds be used for the general? just curious.
by supsupsup on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:48:30 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

No.  Federal campaign finance laws are written where the limit is "per election."  Funds collected up to each election's limit can only be spent on that election.


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

I think the answer is no, but:

can't Obama and Hillary spend the money allocated for the primaries and just spend the remainder on the time period from the time they clinch to the convention?

Let's assume Obama wraps it up in two weeks.  They have (let's say) tens of millions in surplus.  Can't they legally spend that money on ads/organization in swing states from Early March to the convention?


by ChrisR on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

When they sew up the nomination is irrelevant to what "election" we are in as far as the FEC is concerned.

They don't just have the -option- of spending the primary money over the summer, they -have to spend- the primary money over the summer.

The general election officially begins when each nominee says those magical words at their respective national conventions "I accept the nomination."


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Superdelegates (none / 0)

Jonathan says that the polling in states that have already voted doesn't matter because those states have already had their say.

I think that pretty much makes sense but here is an interesting question:

For all those people who say that superdelegates are morally bound to follow the "popular" will of their state what happens if Obama has a major slide for some reason in, say, Missouri and is 17 points behind Clinton consistently.  The "popular" will of that state could be said to have turned against Obama -- what obligation are the superdelegates under then?

Of course there is a remote chance of this scenario being acted out, but it is an interesting question.


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 06:50:19 PM EST

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

Interesting hypothetical scenario...

Actually, a more relevant scenario to consider currently (and one that does not require a hypothetical sudden slide in the preference for one of the candidates) would be the current situation of, for example, California, New York or New Jersey, which Clinton won handily on Super Tuesday. I have not seen polling post Super Tuesday for such States, but preferences are likely to have somewhat shifted in Obama's favor since then...

I tend to agree that this should not be the main consideration on any super-delegate's mind, but it probably is somewhere on the back of their minds...


by gustavoNYC on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Superdelegates (none / 0)

Yes, either or.


by rcipw on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:29:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is good news (none / 0)

Hillary just needs to win both ohio and texas by 1 percent.  That can start a good march, and end up winning the majority in all Primary states, WHERE EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE IN SECRET.

Let's Go. HRC.


by yellowdem1129 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:12:11 PM EST

Re: this is good news (none / 0)

No. A 1% win by Clinton might not net her any net increase in delegates.  

Carville said she would have to win substantially - 1% is not substantial.


by mainelib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:16:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is good news (none / 0)

1% would do her no good. If she wins each by 1%, then I'd be smiling as an Obama supporter.  If she wins Texas by 1%, Obama probably would get more delegates. She needs to win by at least 10% in each.


by mecarr on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is good news (none / 0)

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. And I really admire your tenacity as an HRC supporter in light of the bleak outlook for your candidate (I write this with no irony whatsoever).

It does feel like you are trying to redefine what "victory" means. I think there are pretty well defined objective criteria to define victory that were accepted by all the parties prior to the start of the primary. Per such criteria, the outlook indeed is not rosy for HRC. Just my two cents.

Respectfully.


by gustavoNYC on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

victory redefined (none / 0)

Doesn't that remind you of President's view of Iraq?

Yikes Sen. Clinton parallels Bush more and more...


by gil on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is good news (none / 0)

And TX and OH are not the only states that day. VT and RI also have races and I think Obama will likely win both.


by mainelib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Let's presume that Hillary wins one or wins both narrowly (and ends up with a marginal +10 delegate lead or so).

Does she have enough money to credibly battle on after Ohio/Texas?  Again, isn't she going to have to write off entire states to Obama, falling farther and farther behind in the delegate count?

I mean, a win isn't enough, right?


by ChrisR on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

I've wondered whether Hillary's campaign was actually worse than Rudy's.  Yes, Rudy did spectacularly badly, but Hillary blew through A CRAPLOAD of money before a vote was even cast.


by ChrisR on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Yeah but she has a much, much better $/delegate ratio.  Rudy's gonna' be in the Guiness Book of World Humiliations for a long time.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

Oh, and Obama has won a majority of primary states already.


by mainelib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST

Re: All Tied Up in Texas (none / 0)

This McCain affair  isn't helping the Clinton's cause either.  It just dredges up the sex-scandel of the end of Bill's presidency.  Bill is going to need to keep a low profile these next couple of weeks.


by DemonBlue on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:35:34 PM EST

March 4 isn't everything (none / 0)

The week after that, Mississippi and Wyoming vote, and one has to assume Obama wins both easily, based on similar states that have already voted.  Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas by enough to offset the 10-15 delegates Obama will net out of MS and WY.  And there is also Vermont on March 4, which Obama is probably favored in, and Rhode Island, which seems like a tossup (similar to both Connecticut and Massachusetts in demographics).


by Skaje on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:43:12 PM EST

Re: March 4 isn't everything (none / 0)

And the slow drip, drip, drip of superdelegate leakage continues daily.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Poll: Obama up 57 - 43 in Texas: 57 !!! (none / 0)

http://www.decisionanalyst.com/publ_data /2008/obama.dai

Obama leading Clinton in Texas, according to
Feb. 20 and 21 statewide survey by Decision Analyst

Arlington, Texas (Feb 21, 2008)-- Barack Obama has a double digit lead over Hillary Clinton in Texas, according to a statewide survey of 678 registered voters planning to vote in the March 4 Democratic Primary. The survey was conducted February 20 and 21 by Decision Analyst, a major national survey research firm. Decision Analyst projections indicate that if the election were held today Obama would win 57% to 43% over Clinton. The survey�s margin of error is 3 percentage points, plus or minus, at a 90% level of confidence.

...


by hrcisthemachine on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:47:32 PM 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.

Login
Username:

Password: