Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: FOX Texas and Ohio


FOX News/Opinion Dynamics
(story, Texas, Ohio)

Texas
Obama 48, Clinton 45

Ohio
Clinton 46, Obama 38

 

Comments
Michael:

seems very low for Obama in Ohio. I dont think there is that many undecides.

____________________

moeen:

The difference between this OH poll and the others shows how bad FOX/Republicans wand Hillary to win.

____________________

Jeff:

In all the other OH polls during the past week, undecideds have come in at 9% or less. The FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll script asks for a choice between Obama and Clinton but then does not try to identify "leaners" among the undecideds, as do many other pollsters. So maybe they're not pushing quite as hard, Michael.

____________________

Michael X:

Yeah, look like Fox poll didn't push people to make a decision as hard. The new Rasmussen poll has Clinton up by 2 in Ohio with 8% undecided. I assume there will be another one before Tuesday from SurveyUSA.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

If Obama wins in Texas by more than Clinton wins in Ohio, I think it will be over. If she loses both, there's no way for her to continue without hurting her political future.

____________________

:

I was under the impression she had to win both by substantial margins (20+). But that's just what the math says. Huckabee hasn't let that stop him.

____________________

richard pollara:

Just looking at the map I am wondering how Obama gets to 270 electoral votes without winning Ohio. If he has a poor showing there on Tuesday it casts real doubts on his ability to carry the state in November. Without Ohio and Florida (which it appears is not winnable by either Clinton or Obama) the nominee must coble together a combination of states from either New Mexico, Colorado, Tenn. Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia or Nevada. To get to 270 it will likely take winning 3 of the "toss-up" states that Mr. Bush won in 2004. It is, in the words of Bill Clinton, "a roll of the dice". So for those who would discount Ohio, I would caution that a Democratic candidate who cannot win there faces an uphill battle in November.

____________________

SOH:

Although I don't think this poll is correct, I am glad it shows Clinton ahead by a wide margin. The last thing Obama needs is for pollsters and media to raise expectation for him in Ohio and for Hillary to claim a come back even if she loses Ohio.

____________________

Steve:

richard pollara, I don't think the democratic primaries themselves indicate which candidate has a better chance to win a state in the general election. Most Democrats, no matter who they are for now, are going to vote for the Democrat in November, no matter who it is (regardless of the whiners saying "I'll switch to McCain if my candidate doesn't get the nomination, wahhhhhhhhhhhh!).

Really the only factor that could foretell something is which candidate is taking more of the independent votes.

____________________

Anonymous:

"Just looking at the map I am wondering how Obama gets to 270 electoral votes without winning Ohio."

So, so many ways. Kerry states plus:

1. Florida
2. Virginia and Missouri
3. Virginia and Colorado
4. Virginia and Iowa
5. Virginia and New Mexico
6. Missouri and Colorado
7. Missouri and Iowa
8. Missouri, Nevada and New Mexico
9. Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada
10. Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico
11. Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico
12. Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico

I would not completely rule out North Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona, Louisiana, Arkansas, and West Virginia for Obama, but if he gets any of these states, he's extremely likely to get one of the combinations above.

More to your point, it is a mistake to assume that Clinton beating Obama in the Democratic primary in Ohio necessarily means she is the stronger candidate to win in the general election against McCain. Different voters, different results.

I also would favor Obama's general electability over Clinton's because he is much more likely to carry all of the Kerry states. Clinton-McCain polling shows her way behind in states such as Wisconsin, Oregon, and New Hampshire, while Obama wins easily. Ohio won't help if she cannot win the Kerry states.

____________________

Lisa:

I just wanted to say if Clinton eeks out a win in Ohio of 1 or 3% it doesn't mean Obama would win Ohio or lose Ohio in November. And if he wins Ohio it doesn't matter either. Different opponents.

Another point I wanted to make is about electoral votes. How many more votes would Clinton need than Obama to still be in the race. I would like someone to ask the Clinton campaign how many more electoral votes would she need, after all the votes have been counted?

She can win the states and lose electoral votes like in Nevada, right?

What if she wins Ohio, but Obama nets 30 electoral votes more than Clinton?

____________________

Shawn:

To the person who posted just ahead of me: could you explain your theory of how Obama wins NC, TN, AZ, LA, AR and WV?

____________________

eponymous coward:

Just looking at the map I am wondering how Obama gets to 270 electoral votes without winning Ohio. If he has a poor showing there on Tuesday it casts real doubts on his ability to carry the state in November.

"Just looking at the map I am wondering how Clinton gets to 270 electoral votes without winning Wisconsin and Illinois. Her poor showings there cast real doubt on her ability to carry the state in November."

Fixed it for you.

____________________

Molly Zo:

If Obama doesn't take Ohio by a comfortable margin, it portends disaster if he is the nominee. Older voters in the midwest have been offended by the way he and Michelle were able to marginalize Bill and Hillary as "racist." I know of numerous older Democrats who say they will abstain from voting for the presidency if he is the nominee.

____________________

Patrick:

It's a long way to November and a lot can happen, but I think the most troubling signs for Obama, even in the midst of all this "momentum" and overwhelmingly positive media attention, are:

- According to Slate (hardly a big Clinton supporter), Hillary Clinton has thus far garnered almost 1 million more votes from people who identify themselves as Democrats than Obama. (See the link from DelegateHub.com). Obama has gotten a big % of his votes from Republicans and Independents (in the states that allow them to vote in the Democatic primary/caucus). Most of these people (virtually all the Reps and at least 1/2 the Independents who have always like McCain) will vote for McCain in November, not Obama. The fact that Republicans and Independents are in essence "hijacking" the Democratic nominating process is a good argument to the Superdelegates to consider Clinton over Obama (if it comes to that).

- Other that his home state of IL, Obama has yet to win a single BIG BLUE state (i.e. the heavily populated states with very large #'s of electoral votes that a Democrat needs to win 271 electoral votes). And Texas is a "Red" state perfectly suited to McCain. Obama has won a few "medium sized" Blue and important Swing states (and several small ones), but about half of his victores at this point have been in firmly "Red" (Republican) states that he simply will not carry in Nov.

- The 3 swing states that have determined the last several elections (and are almost certain to determine this one) are OH, PA, and FL. Obama lost badly in FL (and would have even if it hadn't been stripped of its delegates), will likely lose OH, and is behind in PA. Clinton would be stronger than Obama in those 3 states because they have a lot of "traditional"/older Dem voters (not to mention a lot of old fashioned racism; sad but true).

- John Kerry was running against a true conservative (and a pretty unpopular one at that) and he still lost because Ohio and Florida went to Bush. Gore lost (won really) because of Florida. Obama is just as liberal as Kerry and Gore (Republicans will argue he's more liberal), but he will be running against a true moderate who has always had a great deal of support from Independents. This does not bode well for Obama at all, esp. given the fact that he is far from "vetted" at this point (unlike McCain or Clinton) which will give the Republicans a much better chance to "define" him to the voters in negative terms for the next 9 months.

- If Clinton were to eek out the nomination, she would have no choice but to select Obama as her running mate (and he'd take it because the sitting VP always has the best chance at the next party nomination), which means all the Obama supporters would still vote for Clinton/Obama. But he will not select her (nor would she want it), so by selecting someone else (probably a white man), he will lose more of her passionate supporters (esp. women) than she would lose of his.

Given the "free ride" Obama has had from the national press (which has been so slanted and sexist against Hillary), and considering he's yet to get any real negative press (though he WILL get overwhelming press once he gets the nomination), I'm shocked Hillary is even still in the running this point. Or that he's lost or behind in the 3 most important states for a Democrat. Or that McCain is even with Obama in national polls (and ahead in FL, OH, and PA). It doesn't bode well for Obama in the long run at all.

____________________

Rasmus:

I don�t think that Obama has to win blue states in the primary to win them in the General Election.
Most of your post is really good, but when you look at the GE-matchups, Clinton doesn�t have any advantage over Obama in the blue states-
In California, both are leading McCain with about 20-25%, as far I remember, in NY with 12 (Clinton) to 10 (Obama), but he may win a LOT of purple or red states that CLinton will probably lose.
Maybe he will lpose in Massachusetts, but I am optimistic he carries the other big states- except FL, but Clinton will lose that one also.

In most states there were no GE-matchups made yet, but just take the following ones:

New Mexico: Obama +15, Clinton +5 (and there are polls showing McCain ahead of her)
Minnesota: Obama +15- Clinton +4
Oregon: Obama +1 (and there are polls showing a lead out of the MoE), Clinton -7
Virginia: Obama +6, Clinton -3
Iowa: Obama +10, Clinton -11

and so on and so on.

Clinton will never get the 270 electoral votes just with the blue states, without winning the purple ones- for Obama it will also be hard, but easier than for Clinton.

____________________

Dr. TD:

These 'disaster' general election narratives are all premature, absurd, and clearly motivated by thinly veiled candidate preferences. Based on what we know now, there is good reason to believe that Clinton and Obama would have to employ different state strategies in a general election: Clinton is more likely to run better in FL and OH, and Obama has a better chance of picking up VA, CO, and/or IA. In any case, anecdotal evidence of Democrats 'promising not to vote for the other candidate? will mean nothing 7 months from now. Let's save these ridiculous scenarios for when we are commenting on the state polls in September - and then someone can call for a sample of ?Democrats who are still pissed off about something that happened back in February.?

I also don?t understand how people who examine polls otherwise insightfully can believe that any of these head-to-head McCain vs. _________ polls have any credibility during a competitive primary.

____________________

Steve:

Lol, Patrick, after I read the first paragraph of your post I knew it had to be your biased, faulty logic.

____________________

mike in ohio:

It really is silly to try to handicap the November results by looking at ANY primary RESULTS, let alone primary POLLS. IF, for example, the Ds get 4x the turnout than the Rs in the primary, does that translate to a 4 to 1 advantage in November? Never has.

Let's try to figure out the current election before we traipse too far down the road.

____________________

Thatcher:

Here is an interesting analysis of the General Election match-up using current polling, 2004 outcome, contributor database, etc ....

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/26/183555/011

It does show a 55.2% chance of Obama taking Ohio in November (compared to Clinton at 55.0%).

____________________

Thatcher:

And for those of you in Florida demanding your delegated be seated "as is" - Mason-Dixon poll shows only 24% of FL Dems want the delegates to be seated "as is".

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/437352.html

____________________

Richard Pollara:

Re: The comment which showed the different combos without Ohio. The two state scenario that you reference assumes a win in either Florida, Virginia or Missouri. Virginia and Missouri are very unlikely and as recent poll suggests Florida seems to be completely out of play. More likely a Democrat who does not win Ohio will have to put a three state combination together to win (as you showed in your post). It is a dicey proposition. The presidency used to be determined on the I-4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando. Now it runs from Akron to Columbus to Dayton. One other comment: If Mr. Obama is the nominee the election will be about the war and national security. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee the election will be about the ecconomy. In my lifetime Democrats have only won one presidential election where war and national security were the issue (1964).

____________________

Richard Pollara:

Re: The comment which showed the different combos without Ohio. The two state scenario that you reference assumes a win in either Florida, Virginia or Missouri. Virginia and Missouri are very unlikely and as recent poll suggests Florida seems to be completely out of play. More likely a Democrat who does not win Ohio will have to put a three state combination together to win (as you showed in your post). It is a dicey proposition. The presidency used to be determined on the I-4 corridor from Tampa to Orlando. Now it runs from Akron to Columbus to Dayton. One other comment: If Mr. Obama is the nominee the election will be about the war and national security. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee the election will be about the ecconomy. In my lifetime Democrats have only won one presidential election where war and national security were the issue (1964).

____________________

Texas Grandma:

Wait for the vote on Texas, we don't vote like they tell us to.

____________________

Molly Zo:

Patrick, I agree with your sound analysis. Obama is leading the Democratic party down the road of defeat in November, if he is the nominee. If he isn't the nominee, he's still ruining the Democrats' chances by dividing the party, with little time to heal before the general election. The Democratic core is rejecting him and unhappy that Republicans and Independents are chosing the Democratic nominee.

____________________

James:

Molly Zo, "The Democratic core is rejecting him..." I think you need to wake up. The Democratic core is embracing Obama, as we have seen over the last few weeks a growing number of highly esteemed Democrats placing their support behind Obama, let alone the 1 million plus lead Obama has over HRC in the popular vote. I think we know who the Democratic core is rejecting and her name is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She needs to remove herself from the race after she loses on Tuesday.

____________________



Post a comment




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.

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