CNN/Opinion Research Corporation
Obama 50, Clinton 46... MCain 56, Huckabee 31, Paul 9
Doesn't look good for Billary! Are all the Billary supporters going to cry and ask for their money back? Too bad you wasted it on a LOSER! hahahahahaha
Posted on February 25, 2008 4:43 PM
wait untill they relaese a photo of Obama Wearing a yellow Pantsuit singing "clap clap point point"
Posted on February 25, 2008 4:57 PM
The muslim guy has won it looks like. too bad for you john "I call asians gooks" mccain will win. well, i'm off to my kkk meeting. see you guys.
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:01 PM
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:02 PM
I know these comments aren't moderated, but by any chance can we flag comments for abuse and subsequently have them deleted? All three comments above are ridiculous...
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:04 PM
On a non-racist note,
I think the TX Dem primary tracking page has this poll mis-entered. It's in the average as the old 50-48 Clinton advantage, which puts Hillary back in front. If you average it in as 50-46 Obama, I think he's pulled ahead.
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:07 PM
My comment appears to have been eaten, so I'm trying again. Sorry if it gets double-posted.
Did nobody tell CNN that Texans have been voting for almost a week? The article says nothing about this, even though according to SUSA an estimated 25% of the votes have been cast. This means some of the people they talked to have already voted, and I'd sure like to know who they voted for.
After all, people who already voted are much more certain to vote than people who tell a pollster they plan to vote, and much less likely to change their minds. So the statement "I voted for Clinton" shouldn't just be lumped in with "I think I'll vote for Clinton."
wrt trash comments, it seems there are some people who would defecate on the sidewalk if they could do it anonymously.
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:26 PM
With the numbers dictating that she's already lost, is there alterior motive for her trying to sabotage Barack for the general election? Read on:
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:41 PM
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:44 PM
Posted on February 25, 2008 5:46 PM
cnn is always wrong with these polls in Texas.
everyone else have her up and only CNN and ARG, two Republican org. have her down. Hispanics love Hillary. TX is like CA, no way I believe these polls.
Posted on February 25, 2008 6:01 PM
Believe the polls. Here's why:
1) There are a lot more blacks in Texas than there were 4 years ago. Why? Katrina.
2) Check out the early voting #s.
In 2004, 166,000 early votes were cast in the Dem primary in 12 days of early voting, and 840,000 total. This year, in the first 7 days of early voting, 350,000 Democratic votes have been cast.
In the first 3 days of eary voting in 2004 vs 2008:
Harris County (Houston):
Bexar County (San Antonio)
Tarrent County (Ft. Worth):
Travis County (Austin):
Collin County (N. Dallas suburbs- Republican stronghold/Obama country w/ lots of latte liberals):
El Paso County:
Notice that the more heavily hispanic areas are WAY up in turnout (El Paso, Bexar, and to a lesser extent Travis). But the more heavily black areas are up by A MUCH LARGER PERCENTAGE (Harris, Dallas, Tarrant). These are the areas that have increased black populations since Katrina. And we have been seeing Dems generally and black Dems specifically winning a LOT of local races there in the past 3 years. And the White Latte Liberal area (Collin) is up the most.
Annecdotally, my polling place reflected this. Mixed race area of Dallas. Waited 45 minutes to EARLY VOTE yesterday.
There is no polling model anywhere... none... zip... zero... that will be able to predict the Obama turnout accurately here in Texas. he will outperform his poll #s by 8-15 points, barring a major gaffe.
Mark it down, folks. The fat lady is warming up the vocal chords.
Posted on February 25, 2008 6:31 PM
I've seen those numbers, Georgie (actually, I posted some of them here a few days ago) but I'm puzzled by one thing. Turnout in Harris is hugely increased, but still rather low, below the state average. Dallas is about the state average (through 3 days, I haven't seen up-to-date #s). El Paso and Travis are rather high, IIRC, but Hidalgo County is through the roof, almost 6% of registered voters.
This makes it seem that turnout is still heavier in Hispanic areas, the ratio is lower because for some reason Hidalgo had very heavy early voting in 2004.
The other issue is--if the election is totally by Senate district, does it matter that much if turnout in Houston is heavy? It will still only have a fixed # of delegates, right? So marginal turnout within a district is relevant, not so much overall turnout for the district. Or maybe I'm missing something.
Posted on February 25, 2008 6:47 PM
The early voting numbers have been causing all kinds of polling issues this year. I think the best example of that was Cali. IMO the reason the polls didnt match the vote was because so many votes had already been cast before election day.
As a philosophical question, we will have to re-address the wisdom of early voting in general, as for so long candidates and issues have been keyed to try to peak in the days before the election.
And, as a society -- does it really help to have a large segment vote and then get "buyer's remorse."
I dont know the answers at all.
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:03 PM
1) Hidalgo always has a very high early turnout (don't know why). But it is up by a smaller percentage than Houston/Dallas. It is the one are she will be very strong (along with El Paso). But the numbers in black areas are through the roof, historically speaking. Look at Tarrant county- nearly a 16 fold increase vs El Paso, a 3-fold increase. It's those El Paso #s in particular that would worry me if I were a Clinton supporter. They are out of line to the low side with the other large counties.
2) Delegates are awarded by Senate district, you're right, but 2 key things factor in here:
(a) Winning the popular vote would have a deadly effect on the PR race for Obama. It would kill her. Where as a narrow win (even if the delegates go to Obama) allows her to continue to spin her narrative that he can't win big states in an attempt to sway Superdelegates.
(b) The key to how this turns out in terms of delegates is how the splits fall in the various State Senate Districts. The problem for Hillary, is that if both camps see strong turnout among their core voters in their stronghold areas, it HEAVILY favors Obama. Many of her strongholds are 3-delegate districts, making 15% the same for Obama as 49.9% (1 delegate). She also is a slight favorite in a 2-delegate district and some 4-delegate districts. These will probably split 50-50 on delegates even if her base turns out in stronger force. Meanwhile, Obama is strong in districts with 8 delegates (one in Travis), 7 (One in Harris) and 6 (In Dallas). Strong turnout from HIS core supporters promises the chance of getting extra delegates from these areas- perhaps taking the aforementioned districts in Travis 6-2, Harris 5-2, and Dallas 4-2 or even 5-1. He also has an advantage in a few 5-delegate districts (in Tarrant, Dallas, Bexar, and Harris), and high turnout here could get him those extra delegates.
Add on to that the fact that this level of enthusiasm has to be giving the Clinton folks the shakes with regards to the Caucus. His ability to pull bonus delegates out of the caucus in urban areas may overwhelm her in the overall Texas delegate fight.
On top of that, she has not done well AT ALL this year in states without established Democratic Party machines to churn out "regular" voters for her. Texas has NO Democratic party establishment. The campaigns will have whatever GOTV machines they build themselves, with none pre-existing anywhere (except in the Obama strongholds of Houston and Dallas which are in his corner). This is a huge obama advantage.
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:16 PM
>>The fat lady is warming up the vocal chords.
What does your husband have to do with this Gregory?
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:26 PM
I have no idea how reptuable these pollsters are,
but these guys : http://www.decisionanalyst.com/Index.dai
have Obama up by 14 in Texas and UP by 8 in Ohio.
Posted on February 25, 2008 8:36 PM
Thanks for the detailed respnse, Greggie. I'm still not totally sure what to make of the high (in absolute terms) turnout in the Valley.
I agree that the popular vote is critical in anabling people (esp. the media) to see clearly what has happened. Some people find it very hard to get out of the Electoral College winner-take-all mindset.
One county I would find especially troubling if I were Clinton is Travis, where the very high turnout surely reflects a great deal of enthusiasm among both the naive young and latte-drinking Prius-driving set.
Posted on February 25, 2008 9:43 PM
New SurveyUSA agrees with CNN and ARG.
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:05 PM
"New SurveyUSA agrees with CNN and ARG."
It does, but I think there is some glimmer for the Clinton camp. She is down 4, but she leads 51-46 among the 25% who have already voted.
Also, even with "just" 28% of the turnout being hispanic, and favoring her just 52-39, she is within 4%. I think the actual hispanic turnout will be higher (the state's population is 35% hispanic) and I remember polls showing a similar inroads for AZ and CA hispanics that never materialized. If the turnout of hispanics is 30-31% and she can get to 55-35, I think she can win by a few percentage points there.
Again, not sure how to interpret the 51-46 lead among those who've already voted, given that the early voting started on 2/19 when Obama was (already) riding quite high.
The number that I do *not* believe in the SUSA poll is her lead among white Democrats. I think it's too high...way too high. My prediction is that she wins hispanics by more than projected, but the white vote is much closer.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:51 AM
I think your assumptions are correct but unlikely, given the movement toward Obama and away from Clinton in a number of key categories, including Hispanics. In making the gains you say she'll need to make, she'll have to reverse some considerable momentum and she has yet to find a way to do that, at least since New Hampshire, or maybe Super Tuesday, if you believe that's what she did in NJ and CA. Still, I think it will be very tight, at least in terms of the popular vote in Texas.
Posted on February 26, 2008 5:44 AM
The 51-46 early number reflects the point i made about turnout in Hidalgo and El Paso being much higher than in Houston and Dallas. The question is, do we expect the final turnout to reflect this? Or can we expect the areas that show the higher percentage increases to catch up, i.e., has Clinton already spent her bulltes?
Oh, and the MoE on a sample under 200 is pretty big.
Posted on February 26, 2008 9:28 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