MyDD :: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio

Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio

by Todd Beeton, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:41:27 PM EST

Listening to the Stephanie Miller Show on Air America on my way into work every morning used to make me happy. Now it's become the "all news is good news for Barack Obama" show. The perfect example was this morning when Miller announced with great confidence that Obama had taken the lead in Ohio. Well, yes, Stephanie, he's way ahead in a world in which the same poll that showed Obama up by 13% in California is the only poll out of Ohio, but the overall picture, ya know, reality, looks a lot more favorable to Hillary Clinton 1 day out from voting.

Candidate	Rasmussen 3/2 (2/28)	Suffolk 3/1-2	PPP 3/1-2 (2/23-24)	Survey USA 3/1-2 (2/23-25)	Reuters/Zogby 2/29-3/2 (2/28-3/1)	Quinnipiac 2/27-3/2 (2/18-23)	RCP 8-poll Ave.
Clinton	50 (47)	52	51 (50)	54 (50)	45 (47)	49 (51)	49.3
Obama	44 (45)	40	42 (46)	44 (44)	47 (46)	45 (40)	42.9

There have been some concerns about the validity of the Suffolk University poll that I think are warranted, considering it seems to project an 88% white electorate tomorrow, but I think the Survey USA and PPP polls are likely more reflective of reality (they project 16% and 17% black turnout respectively.)

What we're seeing in both of these polls is that Clinton's base levels of support are holding and even gaining and some of Obama's traditional bases of support seem to be letting him down.

From PPP's analysis:

Obama has not seen the same level of support from young people in Ohio that he has benefited from in other states. He leads Clinton only 49-46 among voters aged 18-29 and trails 48-44 with respondents 30-45.

Although he has the same high level of support from African Americans that he has tended to enjoy (75-18), his gap among white voters is considerable. Clinton has a 59-34 advantage with that group. [...]

A particular problem for Obama is limited support among male voters, who he has dominated in states where he has done well. In Ohio he leads that group just 47-46.

Survey USA has some interesting analysis about one of the reasons for her resurgence and the geographic dynamics of her support in the state:

In SurveyUSA's data: the 16 minutes that Clinton spent arguing with Obama about health care at this week's NBC News debate appears to have paid off. Slightly more voters now name health care as the most important issue, and among those who do, Clinton today leads by 24 points, up from a 7-point lead last week. In greater Cincinnati, Clinton had trailed in two previous SurveyUSA tracking polls, but today leads by 19 points. In greater Dayton, the swing is smaller, but also to Clinton. In Southeast Ohio, Clinton has always led, but now leads overwhelmingly. If you combine these 3 regions and draw them on a map, they form a horseshoe, and trace the Ohio boundary that touches red-state Indiana on the West, red-state Kentucky on the South and red state West Virginia on the East. At this hour, that horseshoe is functioning as Clinton's firewall.

Considering all of the above polls include Sunday in the polling range, I wonder if her enormously appealing appearance on Saturday Night Live could have also been a factor. It will be interesting to see after tomorrow.

But I was particularly taken with this graf from PPP's analysis of their final Ohio poll, which may explain the confidence we're seeing out of the Clinton camp today:

"It looks like the Clinton campaign stepped up with their backs against the walls," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. "This is the first key state PPP has polled in where Clinton did better the weekend before the election than she was doing ten days out."

If Clinton does indeed win Ohio by 8-10 points tomorrow, gone will be the meme that Clinton's support is tenuous, based almost entirely on name recognition and establishment support, and that all Obama has to do is campaign somewhere and people become enlightened and flock to him.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, ohio primary, hillary clinton, barack obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 86 Comments :: Post a Comment

If an 8 point Clinton (none / 0)

victory will destroy that 'meme,' where do you think the line is? Would a five point victory kinda be a wash, meme-wise? A two-point victory?

by BingoL on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM EST

Sidebar: The McCain Nader Connection (none / 0)

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2990.ht ml

The McCain, Nader Connection

What is the motivation behind Ralph Nader joining the 2008 Presidential race now and why John McCain welcomes the idea.

People are saying that Ralph Nader's motivation to run this year hints that he hopes to help his longtime allies the Republicans, namely John McCain to whom he owes one big favor. That "favor" began four years ago when the Republicans spearheaded by John McCain a former member of the Federal Election Commission, urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify, in hopes to draw votes from the Democrats.

He also sent his own lawyer down to assist the Nader in Tallahassee to fight for him in court.

What a guy!

Republicans and activists also gathered signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican lobbyists and special interest donors sent generous checks to his campaign.

The Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain's backing in the case and the Bush campaign also asked McCain to get involved.

Nader subsequently sent a letter to McCain thanking him for his support.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/200 8/02/29/mccain_nader/

excerpt

In 2004, Nader asked McCain to help his campaign -- and the senator rushed to his side. Is the consumer advocate now returning the favor?

Feb. 29, 2008 | Irritated Democrats -- and everyone else who feels that we have heard more than enough from Ralph Nader -- cannot help wondering why he would be running for president yet again, at the risk of becoming a permanent national joke. Is he stroking his own ego, as some critics complain? Is he motivated by principle to offer voters a different choice, as he will insist? Both those explanations may still be plausible, although between 2000 and 2004 his support fell from 3 percent to 0.3 percent, which is not exactly an ego boost nor an endorsement of third-party politics. Even in 2000, when he made his strongest (and most disastrous) showing, he fell far short of his own 5 percent target.

But the evidence suggests another possible motive for Nader to run this year -- namely, that he hopes to help his longtime ally John McCain, to whom he owes at least one big favor. Nader is already focusing his fire on the Democrats, with his Web site featuring dozens of press releases attacking Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while none voice the slightest criticism of McCain. In his latest round of television appearances, Nader trained his fire directly on Obama.

Nader's proclivity to boost Republicans and blast Democrats has been a matter of historical record ever since the Florida debacle eight years ago, when his 97,000 votes probably deprived Al Gore of victory in that crucial state. Although the consumer advocate and his supporters continue to deny any such culpability, Republicans clearly feel that his presence on the ballot works to their advantage. As Mike Huckabee noted on hearing of Nader's impending announcement last week, a Nader candidacy tends to siphon votes away from the Democratic presidential nominee. "So naturally," said Huckabee bluntly, "Republicans would welcome his entry into the race."

Actually, Republicans have learned to do more than merely "welcome" Nader. Four years ago, Republican officials and activists in certain swing states helped gather signatures to gain ballot access for Nader, while several major Republican donors sent generous checks to his campaign. And no Republican spoke out more forthrightly on his behalf than McCain, who in 2004 urged the authorities in Florida to put Nader on the ballot there despite his failure to qualify -- and who sent his own lawyer down to the Sunshine State to fight for Nader in court.

McCain launched that intervention from his perch as chairman of the Reform Institute, a Washington think tank funded by corporate soft money and liberal foundations and staffed by McCain staffers and partisans. On the surface, at least, the Arizona senator was pursuing a principled defense of open ballot access, and he recalled how establishment Republicans had used legal technicalities to block him from the New York primary ballot in 2000. He sent Trevor Potter, a prominent attorney and former Federal Election Commission member who has long represented him, to assist the Nader forces in Tallahassee. It was an inspiring story of shared democratic values that crossed the ideological spectrum.

But as the New York Times reported on Sept. 17, 2004, there was a political back story behind McCain's assistance to Nader. According to the Times, "Mr. Potter said that the Nader campaign first sought Mr. McCain's backing in the case last week and that subsequently the Bush campaign also asked him to get involved." (Candidate Nader and his running mate, Peter Camejo, issued a statement thanking McCain and the Reform Institute that is for some reason no longer available on the Nader campaign Web site.)

That tantalizing sequence of events suggests McCain's motive in backing Nader may well have been partisan as well as principled, since the "maverick" senator had only weeks earlier sworn his fealty to George W. Bush on the dais at the Republican National Convention. Certainly the Bush campaign would have felt reassured knowing that Nader would be on the ballot again in Florida, like a lucky rabbit's foot.

The Naderite connections with McCain go back many years to the era when the Arizona senator displayed real maverick tendencies in jousting with corporate interests in the tobacco, telecommunications and automobile lobbies, as well as his strong support for campaign finance reform. Nostalgia for the old McCain may explain why Joan Claybrook, who directs the Nader-founded Public Citizen organization, stepped forward to defend him against the Times exposé of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Meanwhile Claybrook, Nader and other reformers have said little or nothing about McCain's gaming of the public campaign finance system while voicing sharp criticism of Obama for waffling recently on his commitment to accept public financing.

Nader may occasionally tweak McCain over the war in Iraq or the Canadian healthcare system, but they both know that that won't matter. Watch while Nader blisters Obama or Clinton and McCain smiles. Wait to see whether McCain tries to insist that Nader, whose support is minuscule and shrinking, deserves to appear on the debate dais with him and the Democrat. Look for Republicans to prop up Nader with ballot signatures and campaign cash.

by dearreader on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Enormously Appealing? (none / 0)

To you, maybe.

by HatchInBrooklyn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST

Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

attacks on Obama. And all of that whining (the "sympathy card") is probably helping as well.

As a result, she will do well tomorrow in both OH and TX (but probably not well enough to put any serious dent in Obama's 160 pledged delegate lead; she need +60 PD gain tomorrow, but she'll probably only get around +10PD tomorrow. spreadsheet), but that doesn't mean that she didn't have the huge advantage of name recognition out the gate: she led by 20-30% margins everywhere not long ago and by double digits in both TX and OH just a couple of weeks ago.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

Well wow, so you are saying that negative campaigning actually works? And, we can't expect that from the GOP at all. We certainly can expect that if we tell the American voter- those nasty Republicans are being nasty, that will win the day for us come Nov. This is all good against the hated Clinton,b ut this schtick will be problematic against a candidate that the American people actually likes and will want to vote for in the form of McCain.

by bruh21 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

Negative campaigning ALWAYS works. Or at least nearly always, Obama bucked the trend largely so far but perhaps he hasn't this time.

by MNPundit on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

yup. Negative campaigning works. Hillary has been on the negative for some time now and the results are starting to trickle in.

I for one do not appreciate them but such is politics.

the thing is, if she survives past tomorrow she'll need to get even more negative. I see no other way of her getting back into this thing.

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

Negative campaiging - which one?

by indus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

gee, i don't know. about all of it now. The past two weeks has been about what Obama isn't and what he can't do. Saying she and McCain are "experienced" and Obama is just a 2002 speech.

both have turned more negative. Hillary much more so as she's had to. Her campaign has become much less about her and much more about him. She's trying to break the spell America has on him and to do so, she's needed to talk less about her and more about him.

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

err. I'm a horrible writer. Should reread before hitting "post".

anyhow, the message comes across, me thinks.

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

isnt right. BHO is not experienced. He just came to the senate 3 years back. He has said he does not have washington experience and considered himself an outsider.

I dont want my state senator with 3 years of being in the US senate to run the country. I would need someone to understand first how washington works and then to make the changes from within.

by indus on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 02:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons campaigned hard and employed negative (none / 0)

Hmm, think she'll fight this nasty against McCain?

by MNPundit on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 11:36:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: barf (none / 0)

well, in terms of positive campaigning, the only credible source I've seen regarding this info (Wisconsin Ad Project) shows Obama running 100% positive message on t.v. Hillary was positive 90% of the time.

I'm assuming you know as well as I do where the real dirty campaigning happens right? by the campaign teams. If you think that Obama has been running a "nasty negative campaign" from the start, I'm sure you'd happily concede Hillary has been a two-headed monster, no?

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Response to negative attacks in the primary (none / 0)

and the general are different from a strategic POV and it also depends on the state of the race. Team Obama will probably reassess the situation as it stands on 3/5 and adjust their course as necessary.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:27:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Response to negative attacks in the primary (none / 0)

Team Obama needs to be on the offensive with negative attacks if they are our nominee from the start. They shouldn't be waiting around to defend against negative attacks. Do it with surrogates. Do it with whatever, but it should be done. Waiting around for the GOP to act is what kills us. Attack, attack, attack so that they never have a chance to consolidate, and never have a chance to attack Obama with any concerted effort because if we don't they will, and we can not be guaranteed as you seem to hope that the American people will rise above it by not believing the negative attacks. Exhibit A: The swiftboating of kerry.

by bruh21 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My preferred approach to campaign strategy (none / 0)

is like this: fend off false attacks, demonstrate the negativity of the person peddling those attacks and from there, pivot onto the positive message we want to get across and win on that basis.

Such an approach takes agility and managing the flow of communication swiftly and adequately, but that's how I would run a campaign if I ever do.

Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers

by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My preferred approach to campaign strategy (none / 0)

I just think there should be no rules other than don't lie. Everything else, so long as its true, is fair game.

by bruh21 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 07:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

"If Clinton does indeed win Ohio by 8-10 points tomorrow, gone will be the meme that Clinton's support is tenuous, based almost entirely on name recognition and establishment support, and that all Obama has to do is campaign somewhere and people become enlightened and flock to him."

Huh? Considering just 2 weeks ago these looked like 20 point Clinton blowouts, I'm not sure a 10 point win does as much as you think to that "meme".

by leshrac55 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:55:09 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

So closing a 20+ point lead to, in your hypo, 8 points would dispel the idea that Obama can close when he has the chance to campaign somewhere? Not sure I follow. Both Ohio and Texas looked like slam dunks for HRC two weeks ago. Now, she's in a dog fight in Texas and - at best - will probably win OH by 10 points. From an expectations stand point, HRC has done a good job. But I didn't think folks at MYDD generally were into buying that kind of spin.

by HSTruman on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:56:27 PM EST

Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Todd,

Back up the time machine a few months and consider how pathetic Hillary's scenario is at the moment. Her staff is triumphantly pointing to the fact that she is hanging on
to an 8-point lead in Ohio, a state that was totally in the bag for her just a short while ago. They have moved the goalposts so many times that I'm not sure that they are still in the stadium anymore.

What I keep asking for is a realistic, viable set of numbers that explain to us how Hillary can go into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates. Nobody ever answers. That tells us that her campaign is hoping that the superdelegates are somehow going to come over to her side. We all know the shit is going to hit the fan if that happens. Why do we continue to play out this fantasy, when it spells nothing but trouble for our Party?

by global yokel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:58:06 PM EST

Neither candidate can win with pledges alone. (2.00 / 1)

The mechanism has pledged delegates as only one factor. They are only a part of the equation.

by ineedalife on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither candidate can win with pledges alone. (none / 0)

But the supers are leaving her and they are not going to come back unless something really unexpected happens.

by marcotom on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither candidate can win with pledges alone. (none / 0)

As the above poster said:

"We all know the shit is going to hit the fan if that happens."

And, again, you didn't address his question. How's Clinton going to go into the Convention with a pledged delegate lead? And if she doesn't, how's she going to win the nomination without utter chaos within the Democratic Party?

I'm waiting for an answer.

by EvilCornbread on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither candidate can win with pledges alone. (none / 0)

The chaos theory! Never going to happen.

One of the two candidates will concede before the Convention.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither candidate can win with pledges alone. (none / 0)

The only candidate that's going to concede before the Convention is Clinton. There's no way Obama's going to concede with a pledged delegate lead, and Clinton's got no way to take that from him.

by EvilCornbread on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

According to Mr Beeton, "Hillary not getting beaten to a pulp" = ''Massive Victory For the Comeback Kid".

In states that she led by 20 pts in a month ago.

I have no idea how the likely outcome tomorrow (a wash)can be spun as a positive.

by Johnny Wendell on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM EST

The only poll that matters is tomorrow (n/t) (none / 0)

by ineedalife on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:20:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Here's a positive for you - Obama has not been able to crush her completely. In spite of his impressive wave of popular support, she is still competitive, or better, just about everywhere. Momentum has been going in his direction since January, yet she has not been shoved off the stage, she is holding her own...

That's pretty good in my book.

No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...

by jarhead5536 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I think the real question on everyone's mind is: "But what does Taylor Marsh think?"

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:04:31 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

If she does win both Ohio and Texas the media can not and will not spin that as bad news for her, regardless of the margins, and gone goes the meme of Obama's huge momentum swing. The media is intensely anti Clinton and pro Obama, but what would excite them more than anything is getting this back to a more competitive race. While the Matthews and Russerts will spin that this isn't enough and it's meaningless, most in the media would get back into horserace mode.

The point isn't how much she wins Ohio, it's winning both Ohio and Texas. Unless she wins Ohio by 20 and loses Texas by 1 she really needs to win both.

by Christopher Lib on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:05:18 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

You're right, it certainly can't be spun as "bad" news for Clinton... BUT

The media WILL be asking whether it will be enough to overtake Obama's delegate lead... and the analysis will remain the same: No, she can't.

by leshrac55 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

The meme that the media is pro-Obama and anti-Clinton is been proven wrong by last weeks coverage - they media is pro-underdog, whoever the underdog appears to be.

by marcotom on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

If she does win both Ohio and Texas the media can not and will not spin that as bad news for her, regardless of the margins, and gone goes the meme of Obama's huge momentum swing. The media is intensely anti Clinton and pro Obama

How in the world can you type those two sentences next to each other?

11 straight wins, with huge margins, eliminated by tiny losses in 2 states. And the media is anti-Clinton? Really?

If the media was really anti-Clinton they'd be pointing out that there's no way for her to gain the delegate lead. So far only political sites are beating that drum -- it's virtually nonexistant in the MSM.

by EvilCornbread on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I have to echo everyone else here, she was about 20 points, he cuts it to 8 and now it is a triumphant comeback woman a la NH. Shed a tear, get angry, etc and polls trend back. I'll be honest, I'm an Obama supporter, because I think his plans actually have a chance at making it through Congress. Her plans, universal health care, yeah not going to happen no matter how much we wish for it (And I want it as much as the next Dem). The Clinton name prevents GOP from crossing that line. She cannot help red state democrats, Obama has that opportunity to help them win. And we need those victories to get anything done, ie Iraq - notice what the majority has done for us lately? Nothing, becasue you need a super majority. Hillary will polarize the electorate, it is as simple as that unless people have some radical wakeup call - I'm one of the Obama people that would gladly vote for here but I am a realist if I have to cast that vote

by MChav06 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Excuse any grammar spelling errors - iPhones are not that great

by MChav06 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but Stephanie Miller is not part of Air America. I believe her show is produced by Jones Media or an affiliate of it.

by Clancy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 2)

"Listening to the Stephanie Miller Show on Air America on my way into work every morning used to make me happy. Now it's become the "all news is good news for Barack Obama" show."

You know its funny, looking at Jerome's posts and the recommended diaries every day, I feel the same way about MyDD and Hillary Clinton.

by AC4508 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Are you suggesting a pro-Clinton bias at MyDD? Shocking! But seriously this is one of the last bastions of pro-Hillary support on the web. Hopefully tomorrow ends this thing and we can see a respite in the animosity towards the man who is in all likelihood to be the Democratic nominee.

by JCarlFinn5 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (1.00 / 1)

How about going to the Dailykos to hear how BHO is the new Messaih

by indus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I am still shocked that the great mydd.com, pioneer of the netroots, is pulling for Hillary, that DLC-IWR Status Quo Democrat with Massive Negatives.

by Oregonian on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Obama will win Texas tomorrow. He has blanketed the area with advertising and it will push him over the top.

by agpc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:18:05 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I'm not a big fan of oversaturating a market with ads. I believe it can be negative at some point.

With that said, any Texas Obama supporters on here who are sick of his ads?

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I think what Obama does show us, is that if you spend $15 million per state, people learn your name. They also might even have positive impressions of you. To me, that is not necessarily "momentum" - that is the advantage of a political upstart with $50 million to blow against someone with huge name recognition advantages.

But if Clinton can still win in OH and maybe even TX, that would show us that the American people want to see more than commercials and speeches to decide this race.

I live in the Houston area and from everything I have seen, we have been bombarded - I mean absolutely bombarded - by an all-out Obama ad blitz. I have seen probably 20 Obama TV ads (thank you DVR, for letting me skip them), some well-placed online Obama ads (including the newspaper site), and received 6 very nice Obama mailers - compared to 1, count 'em - 1 mailer for Clinton. I have not seen any Clinton ads. And the mailer for Clinton was not even from the Clinton camp - it was from a "Vote Tejano" group. Clinton has done a lot of appearances here - including Bill / Chelsea.

I am a Clinton supporter but it is hard for me to see how Clinton could possibly improve from her initial 58-42 type of spread in these situations. She gives up name recognition and does not have the money to match Obama - at least not everywhere.

So, I agree - a victory in the popular vote in TX would be HUGE for her. A victory of anything beyond a few percentage points in OH will also be impressive.

by mikes101 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I don't disagree with your post, but I'd take a step back and add that the reason Obama has more money and more troops on the ground right now is because he had the better campaign strategy. Hillary thought the primary would be decided on Super Tuesday, and has been under-prepared ever since.

by End game on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Well, he had the better campaign strategy and demographics for post Super Tuesday... thus far. And he understood that he could raise a lot of money online first.

But I think Clinton has caught on pretty quickly. She just had over 50k donors in the last 72 hours alone, and should this race go on, I would expect her to raise around $40-$50 million per month. Before February, her campaign was not managed properly - I will give you that. But unlike most, perhaps, I will also give her credit for changing course. Whether it is too late is now the question.

by mikes101 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

There has been a slight up tick in Hillary Clinton's polling in almost every survey that includes a weekend sample. I believe this has been true of most every race so far. I would be shocked if the numbers didn't show tightening tomorrow and given Obama's momentum it is likely they might even show some additional strengthening on his part relative to the pre-weekend polls.

by JCarlFinn5 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I feel the same way about MyDD and Hillary Clinton.

I'm so ready for this primary to be over. Two democrats fighting tooth and nail for the nomination while McCain is literally having off-the-record bbq's with reporters is not a good sign of things to come.

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:24:41 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

if she continues after tomorrow, is there any way the remaining states (and possibly fl and mi if the whole redo thing gets traction) move their primaries to the same day as penn to get finish this up as soon as possible? for either candidate, if this continues past tommorrow, having the race going past april 22 would be bad. i say use frontloading to fix this.

Being Normal is for the Mediocre.

by Doug Tuttle on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I would not be surprised to see Clinton win Ohio by as much as 8 points but by 10? I think if she wins by 10, I can gather she picked up her swagger.

still, this does nothing to address the problem that a 10 point win still means a 10 point swing to Obama in the last 14 days. nor does it change the fact that a day that was supposed to be very kind to her (looking forward a few weeks back) will perhaps turn out into another day of delegate losses. The norm of the campaign.

I'll stand by my predictions from 2 weeks ago. Obama by 5 in TX and Clinton by 5 in OH.

by alex100 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:24:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

"enormously appealing appearance on Saturday Night Live"...did I miss something? Enormously appealing? give me a break!

by mecarr on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:32:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

To me, the phrases "enormously appealing" and "Hillary Clinton" are polar opposites.

by Oregonian on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

The Clinton fans hear seem to be constantly oblivious to the delegate situation that their candidate is in. A small victory in TX and Ohio will do her little and Obama will still have over a 100 point delege lead.

by mecarr on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:34:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Sorry Buddy. Mi and FL will have to be seated

by indus on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

i doubt it..

by mecarr on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

This is an assertion which is unbacked by logic or evidence.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Logic: they've already voted.
Evidence: they've already voted.

by Zeitgeist9000 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Neither of those are either logic or evidence, but non sequiturs, not relevant to the question of whether or not they actually will be sat at the convention.

You might realize this if you knew what 'logic' and 'evidence' actually meant. But you Hillary supporters are way off in left field these days, not caring about either of those points.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Weather prediction for Ohio tomorrow is REALLY BAD all over the state. Working class voters are far less likely to have the energy to struggle out to overcrowded polling place and stand in long lines to vote. I'd say extremely bad news for the Hillary campaign.

Weather's going to be lousy here in Vermont tomorrow, too, which should mean Obama will win bigger here than he otherwise would have.

by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:48:07 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

Man, what a load of wishful thinking. Yes, the weather will be bad but that sure won't keep away the working class who know nothing but hardship. They're tough and used to it.

by Nobama on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

That's the best argument I've heard yet for "turning the page". Clinton's 35 years of experience are going to pay off for working stiffs. Any day now. Promise.

http://www.yawnmccain.com

by enozinho on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

The people who will be turned away will be the ones who have to a) work most of the day or b) not very strongly support a candidate.

While I don't think this kills Hillary's base that much, it does hurt her in her peripherals.

Wiz in Hussein Wis

by Wiz in Wis on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

It's funny... I bet if you asked your average working class voter about their life, they wouldn't give you a sob story about nothing but hardships. That sounds like the kind of clueless glorification of 'the little people' that that certain people fall into at times.

by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Ohio only matters if the weather is good! If the weather is bad, it will alienate everyone who isn't an activist, and essentially turn it into a caucus. Now only Rhode Island matters!

by stuckinsf on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:07:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

The latest polls are very heartening! What a relief! Obama's support is slipping away and rightly so. Axelrod performed very poorly on This Week against Wolfson. His whole NAFTA thing blew up in his face. The Rezko trial is starting and there are questions about the $10,000 kickback to Obama. Too many unanswered questions but this is nothing compared to a full force frontal assault by the GOP.

Obama cannot be the nominee! The only way forward is with Hillary and the sooner the rest of the Dems realize that, the better. Obama has nothing going for him but hot air and that seems to be cooling. About time!

by Nobama on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:48:31 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Barring a horrible tragedy or a Huckabee-like miracle, Obama will almost undoubtedly be the nominee. The question tomorrow will likely answer is when, not if.

by leshrac55 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Where do you get the delegate count garbage? Hillary is only 91 delegates behind Obama. Hillary can close the gap somewhat after Pennsylvania. This contest is far from over.

As time goes by, it will become abundantly clear that Obama cannot, must not be the nominee for if he were to get there, he'd lose the GE. That's what the SDs are for. As more comes out about Obama, it'll become imperative for Hillary to be the nominee despite whatever lead Obama has in pledged delegates.

We can't afford to lose the November election! Obama will not stand a chance against McCain but Hillary does. Obama supporters may not believe that now but they will.

by Nobama on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:06:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

From Demconwatch.blogspot.com :

Clinton is behind 153 pledged delegates; and ahead by 47 Superdelegates. This gives Obama a net lead of +105 delegates.

by Cycloptichorn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

RealClearPolitics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com

Obama is up by 113 overall delegates, and 155 pledged delegates.

Please show me how Hillary can close that gap after PA.

by EvilCornbread on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I'll tell you this. Whomever is the one talking about delegates tomorrow night is the one that's lost.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 04:55:11 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

If Obama loses, you are right, it will be all about the delegates he already has. If he wins, he will also talk about delegates, the ones Clinton cannot get and will never get. Why would Clinton talk about delegates if she loses?

by marcotom on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

What baloney. Bill Clinton didn't look to win the nomination in 1992 until June. This is only the first week of March and there are lots of primaries ahead. Why the rush? I can guess. The more time we have to look at Obama and his record, the less likely he'll be the nominee.

Losing 11 small states is irrelevant, especially the states no Dem would win anyway. Hillary is winning the states that matter the most to winning in the GE.

by Nobama on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:12:35 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

Look, if Obama wants to win - then win. It is very simple - get the 2015 delegates or whatever. Until then, nobody is going to hand you the nomination on a silver platter - sorry.

by mikes101 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:25:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Bill pretty much swept Super Tuesday and was the clear frontrunner from that point on. By mid-March he was up 7-1 on Brown.

Saying that he didn't "look to win the nomination in 1992 until June" is simply not true.

by EvilCornbread on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

A Democrat is much more likely to win TN and AZ than UT. In fact, the winner of the general election has won TN since 1964. Plus, the west is what Democrats should be looking at and where we stand a chance to gain, not in Republican Rocky Mountains and Midwest.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:38:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm confused. (2.00 / 0)

What do you consider to be the West? Arizona but not Utah? And Colorado, Montana, etc., are in the "Republican Rocky Mountains" but not the West? Do you mean the Midwest is Republican, too?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm confused. (none / 0)

Are you trying to be an ass? I think you succeeded. Stop trying to be stupid because you know exactly what I meant by the West. I'm talking about AZ, NM and even CO. And yes, I know Obama won CO. Have a primary and I bet she would have won.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm confused. (none / 0)

I should add NV to that list.

Restore America's Strength.

by RJEvans on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it was a sincere question. (none / 0)

I didn't understand your regional groupings or what you were suggesting strategy-wise.

But I now see you're terribly eager to start a little flame war, so I'll just ignore you.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (2.00 / 1)

I'm amazed that anyone supporting ANY Democrat would parrot this horrid talking point. This "Let's Crap On 45 States" Strategy is one of the most misguided, damaging arguments I've seen.

No Democrat should ever make it part of their electoral strategy to insult states as being insignificant.

If the talking point was that Hillary has a better organization in larger states, or can win battlegrounds like Ohio, or whatever, then that'd be perfectly legit. But to simply turn up your nose at every state that isn't California, New York or Ohio is absurd.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:40:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They're already out. (none / 0)

here

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:34:06 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

It's amazing that two weeks ago Hillary has pushed home the message as she has done in recent days. She is great at policy making and actually putting forth a plan that has substance. Look at Obama's record in the senate, not very impressive - while I think he is fresh and very exciting to watch, let's not create a halo around his head and not hold his feet to the fire. "Everybody hates Hillary" is chant that is old and tired. Just because you choose to support Obama, does not mean you have to make-up or turn Hillary into the enemy. Obama seems to lack the skill in policy making that is required. I have news for you, if you think those old WASP (white Anglo-Saxon males) in D.C. are going to lay down their weapons just because he smiles and speaks of "change" - I have news for you - THEY WON'T. Match them up on record, where they have voted, and the results to date. Take the media hype and flush it down the toilet. All that glitters is not gold and the tires have not met the pavement in regards to Obama and his capability and capacity as a leader that can get results through policy.

by zanepath on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:39:40 PM EST

Neither... (none / 0)

Has an impressive record actually if you look at them. Yeah, both have sponsored and co-sponsored lots of stuff, but everyone does that. Virtually nothing they've co-sponsored has actually been passed, one or two bills each.

by Brillobreaks on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

Poll analysis time...

Suffolk is trash - look at the crosstabs. 18-35 voters are 6% of the vote. 18-45 voters are 16% of the vote. WTF?

PPP is trash - their average MOE this cycle is 8%. They happened to be less wrong than most other pollsters in Wisconsin, but still off by 8.

Zogby is also trash - don't think I need to explain myself there, we're getting close to ARG territory these days.

That leaves a pre-weekend Quinnipiac poll showing positive Obama momentum and weekend Rasmussen and SUSA polls showing Clinton momentum. Clinton has generally polled better on weekends and holidays. Rasmussen is comparing to midweek, SUSA is comparing to 2 weekend days + a Monday.

I'd bet Clinton will hold on in OH. I'd also bet that it won't be a 6%+ victory.

by Nissl on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I guess if you are virtually the only progressive website still pushing Hillary's inevitability, you're analysis makes perfect sense. I find it amusing that when Hil was up 20+ points, her backers were more than gracious to Obama and the rest of the competition. Now that her fate is all but decided, her partisans are nasty, petty, whiners with no class and even less of a grasp on reality.

by randron on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

It looks like Clinton will pull out a win in Ohio, though not by my vote.

Texas is still close, but Obama may still manage to pull it away from her.

Still amazing considering how far ahead Clinton was earlier in the cycle.

by RussTC3 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:16:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton Showing Strength In Ohio (none / 0)

I think the petty brats are those individuals who do very little to actually allow the full competition to take place. If Obama was down in delegate you would be on the counter. I hope she pulls out a win, because that would make her and obama on the same ticket - a dream team for November. He has the beauty and charisma and she has the gutts to dig in and fit - it's a pretty exciting time for America!!!

by zanepath on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 09:28:55 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.