Clinton 46, Obama 45... McCain 59, Huckabee 27, Paul 6
With all of the money Obama is spending, he better win all 4 states on Tuesday. This bad news for him that with all of the money and all of the states he won, he doesn't have the media created hype, "MOMENTUM"
Posted on March 1, 2008 11:27 AM
Jon...why does Barack have to win all 4 states on Tuesday...Clinton said that Ohio and Texas were her firewall states and yet keeps moving the goal posts. If Barack wins Texas, she can't cath him...and even if she does, it will be at a brokered convention, which will mean the Democrats will be splintered and weak heading into the general election.
Posted on March 1, 2008 11:39 AM
The notion that Obama needs to win the 4 states is just Clinton spin and playing the expectations game. If Clinton loses either Texas or Ohio (i.e. if she doesn't gain delegates over Obama) she's effectively toast. If she loses both she'll probably concede. If she narrowly wins the popular vote in both, which is probably the best she can wish for, she can hope in a little bit of momentum but she is still extremely unlikely to win unless she somehow manages to get within 10-20 pledged delegates by June.
Posted on March 1, 2008 11:57 AM
Don't worry about replying to JON. He/she doesn't care about the polls from a statistical, strategical, or even a historical point of view. JON's only point is to sow FUD among Obama supporters and create the buyer's remorse JON discusses elsewhere. If JON actually cared about the issues of interest to Pollster.com readers, JON would cite the historical trend of reversing 20+ leads to 4 point losses over less than a month. Obama's "weak" spot is Ohio where he is behind, but within the margin of error. There are still issues to discuss, and people to persuade on the campaign trail. The nomination is not lost by Clinton until the votes are counted. Pollster.com is one excellent lens to help us understand it all. But JON doesn't care, so wasting time trying to convince JON otherwise is probably unproductive.
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:00 PM
For some reason JON's statement looks almost line by line like Mark Penn's statement last night. I guess HRC is so worried that she is sending her trolls even to pollster.com.. Really pathetic..I have a feeling that HRC will be a really bad loser if she loses because she thinks its her birthright to get the nomination.. She should be lucky that BO didn't run a negative ad on her showing her three different faces in less than 48 hours last week..
1. I am so honored..
2. Shame on you...
3. drama queen..
I will be so scared if she gets the call in 3am . she will say "why do I always get the first question? ask someone else"
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:22 PM
And think Jon is right. I think when you watch the news it just seems like Obama is getting all the love and Clinton is just getting trashed in the media, so you would think that Obama should win Texas and Ohio b/c of that, so i think if Obama doesnt take care of business Tuesday, then it's probably a let down in my book.
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:27 PM
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:32 PM
What all of you conveniently forget is that Hillary won Michigan and Florida. Here in Michigan, our state party leaders have absolute confidence we will be seated, and so will Florida. There will be no repeat voting. Obama cannot whine about not having his name on the ballot in Michigan, because he voluntarily removed it, knowing he would lose big here. Hillary and three other candidates (Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd) kept their names on the ballot, in protest of the DNC's move. Obama is heavily criticized here for not standing up for Michigan voters, and instead making a self-preserving move to attempt to disenfranchise us. Obama's surrogates advertised widely to vote "Undecided" as a vote for him. Everyone in Michigan was well informed of that. It's Obama who is behind Hillary in the delegate count, despite the media distortion. Yes, Obama has to take all four states Tuesday to even be in the running for the nomination. The Democrats are not going to support someone who can't win in the big states that matter and turn elections: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, California, New York. He has to take Ohio and Pennsylvania by wide margins for the DNC to take him seriously. Otherwise, all we have is a candidate winning small caucuses in Republican states, that will go to McCain in November. The core party in the traditional Democratic, large states has rejected his candidacy thus far. He has to impressively turn that trend.
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:40 PM
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:43 PM
Let me get this straight:
If Obama wins:
Vermont Primary by 20 points
100,000 more votes on the day
20 more delegates on the day
and Clinton wins:
Rhode Island by 3 points
Then, net for the day, it's a win for Clinton?
Let's get real here. This thing is ALREADY over. After 3/4, Obama will win 6-8 of the remaining 12 contests, with one a split (Guam probably goes 2-2 in delegates). Clinton has only 4 really winable contests left (Penn, WV, Ken, and P.R.). She will continue to fall farther behind in pledged delegates, and the Superdelegates will put this away around March 6th by coming out, in a rush, for Obama.
Wouldn't surprise me if some combination of Gore, Pelosi, Edwards, and Jimmy Carter put this thing to bed by endorsing Obama after he wins (at least) both contests in Texas plus Vermont (and likely Ohio as well).
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:48 PM
1) Michigan and Florida WILL be seated because they WILL NOT change the nomination. They, like every other delegate will vote for Obama in the traditional, unanimous formality of nominating the guy who's already won.
2) They will NOT be seated in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY situation that they do change the winner.
3) If they ARE seated and DO change the nomination, there will be RIOTS IN THE STREETS. Chicago '68 will look like a picnic in July compared to what the young/AA communities will do to this country/party if the nomination is STOLEN.
4) BO is STILL ahead (WAY ahead) in pledged delegates EVEN if you seat all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida AND give Hillary fully half of the UNCOMMITTED Michigan delegates
5) His overall delegate lead grows daily, as he picks up Superdelegate after Superdelegate.
Posted on March 1, 2008 12:58 PM
I'm totally on board with Greggie. It's OVER. It's all about aggregating delegates and even if she wins the popular vote in Texas and Ohio she'll probably net at best a couple of delegates. The rest of the way looks good for him - even Pennsylvania at this point - so he'll have roughly a 150 delegate lead and close to a million vote lead after April 22nd. This garbage about Obama needing to win all 4 states by wide margins is just that...he's already won 11 in-a-row in every part of the country by 17+ points. Can the Clinton crowd lower any expectations any further?
Posted on March 1, 2008 1:01 PM
Greggie, You don't know your history of the DNC. There have been other times in the past where the DNC tried to unseat state delegates. It has never worked. The DNC can't possibly disenfranchise 2 million Democrats who voted in Michigan and Florida, without risking the loss of those states in November. Whereas other states Obama won held tiny caucuses of 20 to 30 thousand, the Democratic primary voters in Michigan and Florida numbered in the millions. If Obama can only win the nomination by deliberately suppressing the votes of over 2 million loyal Democrats, he's not a strong enough candidate to win in November. There will be no rioting in the streets. The newspapers in Michigan all indicate the the DNC is already caving in on the issue of seating us. Otherwise, they have a nasty floor fight at the convention on national TV. Why would any true Democrat riot to suppress the votes of other Democrats? Get some guts, Obamatrons. Your guy still has a ways to go to get the nomination. Media distortion has been a strong force on your side thus far. The truth is, Obama is currently trailing Hillary, especially because the news organizations are not counting the superdelegates in Michigan and Flordia, who are solidly behind her.
Posted on March 1, 2008 1:19 PM
Greggie, I forgot to mention that Obama's own Michigan campaign organization wrote him a memo two weeks ago saying they would not support any attempt by him to try to halt the seating of the Michigan delegates.
Posted on March 1, 2008 1:25 PM
1) They DID successfully unseat the Delaware delegates a few years ago.
2) Believe me, there WILL be riots if this things gets stolen.
3) Seating Mi/Fl to change the results IS stealing it.
4) If you want delegates, you get to re-vote.
Posted on March 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Greggie, Selectively omitting data (votes) unfavorable to you is the definition of cheating. It's Obama who tried to cheat by removing his name from the Michigan ballot, and then complaining that counting that vote is unfair. Face it, Obama lost Michigan and Florida. Only places like the Soviet Union hold elections again, when the govenment doesn't like the results. Gore lost the election because Florida votes weren't fully counted. Do you think any reasonable person can argue Florida shouldn't be counted now? You have a weak candidate who, so far, can only win in Republican states, or in states with more than 25% African American populations, primarily in the south. All of those Obama states are going to the Republicans in November. Obama hasn't yet demonstrated he's a credible candidate. So far, he's the big loser in the large, Democratic states that are needed to win in November. If he takes Ohio and Penn. by large margins, he may be a true contender. Otherwise, forget it. The guy is leading the Democrats to defeat. Concentrate your efforts on turning the tide in Ohio and Penn., instead of on suppressing Democratic votes to steal the nomination. There will be no re-vote in Michigan. It is impossible under Michigan law to hold another primary. You have to petition for a primary months in advance. The Democratic primary cost $10 million here. They aren't going to hold another one.
Posted on March 1, 2008 2:03 PM
MV: MI and FL suppressed their own votes, they were not supressed by others. When they indicated they wanted to move their primaries up, they were warned by the DNC, their own party, that if they did, their delegations would not be seated. They did it anyway. It's their own fault. They cancelled their own votes. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Posted on March 1, 2008 2:58 PM
MZ - Interesting you would mention the Soviet Union. It is indeed countries like Russia, with fledgling pseudo-democracies, where only certain names are on placed on the ballot, thus guaranteeing the outcome. If Michigan and Florida want to be counted and having another primary is too expensive, they'll have to hold caucuses (and we all know how that one will turn out..., uh,oh!)
Posted on March 1, 2008 3:04 PM
MZ -- your comments add nothing to the discourse on these blogs. MI and FL were removed NOT by Obama and his surrogates, but by the DNC. If you wish to argue your case for MI and FL at least direct your accusations at the right people, for goodness sakes.
As for Barack only winning "small caucuses in red states", I think you have omitted the "big" primaries Barack has one in solid "blue states" such as WI, MD, and CT and the victories in primaries in consistent "toss-up" states that we NEED: MO, and VA. Besides, SINCE WHEN HAS WINNING A PRIMARY PREDICTED THE FALL WINNER??
Thirdly, to report that most caucuses only had 20-30 thousand voters is totally misleading. Most caucus results are reported in "STATE DELEGATES ELECTED", not actual vote count. One caucus that actually reported total vote counts was Hawaii, where 23,000 people caucused. Now, HI only has 2 reps in congress, making its population equivalent to Idaho, and smaller than Utah (with 3). Since Barack won caucuses with significantly higher representation in congress, I can imagine his vote totals were significantly higher than 20-30K.
Please contribute to our discussion of POLLS and NUMBERS or do not contribute at all. Save your Hillary shrill for MyDD.
Posted on March 1, 2008 3:20 PM
Mary G., You're forgetting the fact that Obama, knowing the other candidates were not withdrawing their names from the Michigan ballot, CHOSE to remove his. That was a complete act of self-preservation, because he knew he would lose big in Michigan and he did. He alone is responsible for the names on that ballot. He is cheating by knowingly removing his name in a primary in a large, industrial state, because he knew he would lose, and then by pretending there is some sort of unfairness in counting the vote there. His act was voluntary. Remember OBAMA'S OWN MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN MANAGERS HAVE WRITTEN TO HIM DENOUNCING ANY ATTEMPT BY HIM TO SUPPRESS THE MICHIGAN VOTE. If the only way a candidate can win a nomination is by actively suppressing the votes of over 2 million loyal Democrats, you have a cheater on your hands. Goes along with his plagiarism.
Posted on March 1, 2008 3:21 PM
Mike in CA, I am contributing to the discussion of poll results by pointing out that most people are viewing the results through the lens of a whole month of media distortion, which selectively omitted the Florida and Michigan votes.
Posted on March 1, 2008 4:05 PM
ad hominem attacks do nothing to further the discourse, MZ. By maligning the character of another debater you effectively lay waste to any claim you intend to make. For example, your last post. "...media distortion, which selectively omitted..." By refusing to even consider the merits of your argument, you immediately attribute the entire debate over the MI and FL delegations to the media's immorality, thus making moot any point you intended to make. If you want to "convince" or "debate" people you've got to drop the ad hominem and other logical fallacies you employ.
Check this out:
We should strive to keep the discourse here civil, and focused. Enough about the MI and FL delegations and the tired old Clinton talking points. If you want to recite those talking points then you should canvass for her! Nobody on this site is going to even take you seriously if you keep attacking them.
Posted on March 1, 2008 4:14 PM
Mike in CA. I never said the media was "immoral." Distortion of results through selective omission can be unintentional. It is true that the national media has not published reports on the now great likelihood of seating the Michigan delegates. These reports, however, appear frequently in Michigan. The voting totals published, in the national media, if omitting the true, total state results, likely to be counted at the convention, present a half truth. I see no ad hominem attacks whatsoever in any of my emails. Please point one out.
Posted on March 1, 2008 4:55 PM
Oops! "Posted by" in above email should read "MZ," not "Mike in CA." Sorry for the typing error,
Posted on March 1, 2008 4:58 PM
Since were talking polls - Fox news showed Hillary rated 58% to 40% over Obama be Texas voters as to who is best qualified to be President.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:03 PM
"It's Obama who tried to cheat by removing his name from the Michigan ballot"
Aha! Let's attack Obama by calling him a cheater! No matter the merit of the accusations. As long as everyone knows he's a cheater.
Plain and simple, the media is distorting nothing. Per DNC rules (the governing body who ASSIGNS the delegates), MI and FL were stripped of their delegates. Plain and simple. If the news media WERE to report the results from MI and FL it would be a clear and obvious misrepresentation of the state of the race, indicative of a clear media Bias. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Rules are rules, and the media has an obligation to report the facts.
Besides, your claims all fall flat in the face of a new poll from Florida where 28% of respondents say they want a new election, and 24% say they want their results to stay. Not an overwhelming majority either way.
I'm sorry that you feel disefranchised. Blaming Barack Obama is just ridiculous. Blaming the media is worse. Blame Howard Dean.
This whole "media bias" thing is just nuts.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:04 PM
MZ - you are right, MI & FL will be counted. That comes straight from Party Leader Donna Brazile who said "I beleive they will be accomodated"
By the way, the Obama claim of winning the last 11 races does hold water anymore since Deleware & Alabama are both in a tie now - this in terms of Delegate count since thats what we are counting.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:09 PM
81% of people polled today by Fox News agreed that Obama has had a free ride - 19% said Hillary had. So I guess the majority disagree with you Mike.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:12 PM
That poll regarding the media bias that is.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:14 PM
Fox News? Really, John in Spokane? FOX News? No bias there. If any news station should be reporting on bias it's not that one. Besides, people are conditioned to think that the news is biased toward Obama because thats all they hear! From the news!
Nuts nuts nuts
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:16 PM
By the way, Delaware and Alabama were both held on Super Tuesday, so yes, 11 since then still holds. If we're really going to be that specific.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:19 PM
Im not sure thats accurate about the eleven but the point being is that he lost twp states and you heard basically nothing about it.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:22 PM
I sure hope you dont think CNN is reliable ?
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:25 PM
since your such stickler for the rules then you should certainly understand that you must have 2025 delegates to get the nomination. Bottom line is, Neither candidate will get that until the Convention. As much as the Pro Obama people are desperate for Hillary to just drop out - its not gonna happen.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:29 PM
Mike in CA, You accused me of making adhominem attacks on other people posting to this site. Obama is not someone posting here. I don't think it befits someone of Obama's stature to try to capture the nomination by omitting results from two states in which he had the option of competing, by putting his name on the ballot. I think it is a form of cheating for him to withdraw his name from the Michigan ballot, due to an anticipated loss, and then take the public position that it would be unfair to count the votes there. The most recent reports in Michigan are that Obama is now wavering on his initial position, opposing the seating of the Michigan delegates, after receipt of a letter from his own Michigan campaign organizers that they wouldn't support his position. I am disappointed in Obama's initial reaction, as was his own campaign staff here.
Posted on March 1, 2008 5:41 PM
Mike in CA,
What do you have to say about Obama's "NAFTA rhetoric" statement reported by CTV that was verified by the Canadian Government yesterday? As a matter of fact, Obama's own campaign NOW doesn't deny there was a conversation with an Obama campaign official, and won't deny they told the Canadians not to worry about Obama bashing NAFTA during the campaign, "it's only campaign rhetoric, don't take it seriously". WHAT A LIAR!!! Talk about saying anything to get elected, and this is the person who wants change from "old politics"? Give me Clinton ANY DAY!
Posted on March 1, 2008 6:26 PM
Stop being a troll. The statement was flatly denied by the Canadian Government, and then again by both Obama, and the guy accused of making the statement in the first place.
As for press bias, please refer here:
NY Times Finds No Meaningful Anti-Clinton, Pro-Obama Bias in Press
Additionally, Sunday morning NY Times has a whole piece on Obama-Rezko, and surprise -- finds nothing new, or damaging!
Press bias is a Clinton talking point.
NAFTA-gate is a ploy by the Conservatives in Canada to mess with the Liberals in Canada. Don't believe everything you hear, and for God's sake stop being a troll!
Posted on March 1, 2008 6:50 PM
Mike In CA,
I suggest you check your facts again. This WAS definitely confirmed by the Canadians. Stop drinking the Kool Aid and wake up to the coffee. Maybe it's time you started believing more of what you hear and less of what you WANT to believe.
Posted on March 1, 2008 7:16 PM
Mike In CA why even waste the time to reply to someone who thinks removing a name from a ballot is somehow cheating. I makes zero logical sense.
Posted on March 1, 2008 7:47 PM
"I can categorically say that no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador," said Canadian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andre Lemay. "None of our officials at the embassy discussed anything with the runners up in the presidential campaign. We realize that one of the Canadian networks mentioned yesterday that such a call had been made. The report is untrue."
I would normally just disregard your trollish behavior, but I hate letting things go unchecked.
Posted on March 1, 2008 7:56 PM
To all Obama supporters:
Instead of wasting your time on these blogs and wondering why the polls are wrong, make sure Obama wins on Tuesday by helping us get the vote out for him. Start making phone calls.
Also, stop watching SNL and Fox. Both have major anti-Obama agenda.
Posted on March 2, 2008 4:31 AM
Tulle, You've misrepresented my position. Obama's removal of his name on the ballot is not cheating. It was his decision to withdraw his name, and not compete early on in Michigan. However, his campaign in Michigan did roll out his supporters to vote "undecided." He lost in Michigan, and now won't let that loss be recorded. That's where the cheating comes in. I don't understand how people who are posting here, who I assume have math and statistical skills, don't understand the concept of improper manipulation of numbers by selective omission. Stop praying for Obama, brush up on your math, learn the science behind distortion through mathematical manipulation. Otherwise, you have nothing to contribute here on prediction through polling. All I see here is just wishful thinking.
Posted on March 2, 2008 2:42 PM
Obama getting the nod? Let's be real- the Clinton machine will not let it happen. As an insanely committed Democrat, I always thought I would vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. I am not quite sure now. On the all-important Iraq issue, I have no reason to choose HRC over JM as they both supported the original decision. Advantage however is to JM who is at least honest and steadfast in his commitment, no matter how much I disgree with him. HRC on the other hand seems to be trying to get the best of both the worlds. When the Ohio talk show host went on a tirade against Obama, JM showed his class even at the risk of hurting his chances with the conservatives. By contrast, when the 60 Minutes host (Steve Kroft?)asked HRC about the religious affiliation of Obama, her response or lack of it left me numb with disbelieve. She was clearly trying to get at least some mileage from this lingering question. I certainly like to see a woman installed as the President of the United States, but I am patient enough to wait for the day when that woman will earn the Presidency herself, and not in the coattail of a past president. So let's go for JM- Democrats for JM!!! Remember the Republicans for Kennedy in 1960?
Posted on March 4, 2008 10:57 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR