Articles and Analysis


POLL: Mason-Dixon Ohio

Mason-Dixon/Plain Dealer
(story, results)

Clinton 47, Obama 43



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" and voters are feeling "Buyers Remorse" with Obama. I love Jack Nicholsen



Oh Jon...lol...you remind me of Lady Macbeth..."out, out damn spot". The good news is after Tuesday, you will have plenty of free time to do laundry.



Me thinks Jon doth protest too much. I sure wish we could moderate his stupid comments away.


Jimmy Quinn:

This poll is complete $hit!

ANother Clinton publicity stunt and nothing more.

Obama will win all four states on Tuesday. Bank on it.




I'm surprised by Obama supporters trashing every poll he is behind in. Go get a life.



Isn't the issue "delegates"...no merely getting a majority in the State? But most estimates Clinton will need to win between 60-70% of the vote in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to win enough delegates to place her back in parity with Obama. That's because it's looking like States like North Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont and Oregon may go over that number for Obama. Thus she needs a substantial buffer...AND she needs to give the Superdelagates a reason to support her.

Simply winning a bare majority, a breaking even on the delegates will not do it.

Furthermore, the peculiar system of allocating delegates in Texas...where the delegates are allocated to State Legislative Districts on the basis of Democratic turnouts in 2004 and 2006 have biased them towards Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, and Beaumont-Pt. Arthur, rather than San Antonio and the Rio Grande Valley where turnout was disproportionately low vis-a-vis actual Democratic registration. They didn't get as many delegates as places where more people actually voted for Democratic candidates.

Obama can win more delegates by winning these districts with lower numbers. Even if Clinton wins a big majority of the Hispanic voters, if these are in the areas with low delegate counts they aren't really all that important.
Texas is sort of like a mini-Electoral College in dispensing their delegates.



Hey "Jon", the election is not handicapped. :) It doesn't matter how much money anyone spends, the results are the only thing that counts.


John Paul Telhomme:

OK... I am ready to announce my predictions. Two states for Obama, two states for Clinton. Texas goes for Obama (47.5 to 49) and Clinton following closely at about 42 to 45.
Ohio goes to Clinton (48%) with Obama coming in at (46%).
Vermont: It is a rout, an unmitigated thumping as it goes to Obama at 62 and Clinton in the mid 30s say 36. Rhode Island confounds me. It goes to Clinton (between 48 and 50) and Obama gets between 39 and 42.

I will be grand-master prognosticator if I come within 3 to 5 points in my predictions.




I'm surprised that you thought Jimmy Quinn was an Obama supporter. It's pretty clear that JQ's post was meant to make Obama supporters look bad and also raise false expectations. The notion of Obama winning all four states comes from the Clinton camp, not from Obama.



I see Obama winning Texas and Vermont, Clinton winning Ohio and Rhode Island.

The Clinton camp will see this as a victory.

Reality will see this as: please leave, now.


Jimmy Quinn:

Bit Jam, I assure you I am an Obama supporter. I am an undergraduate at Arizona State University and you can look me up on facebook to see who I support or myspace to. Nice try though. Mark is right. Obama will win all of them and send Hillbilly packing. I truly believe he will win all four states. What's wrong wtih that? He's leading in 3 of them, and RI doesnt have enough polls. A few big turnouts from Providence College, Brown, URI, and RISD will push him to a victory. Why are you a doubter?



Jimmy Quinn,

If you are trying to help Obama then you are doing a really lousy job. Pollster.com is for discussing the art and science of polling, not for partisan discussions and polemics. There are sites that welcome partisan discussions. I recommend the Huffington Post, but I'm sure there are many others.

But even if you move your partisan posts to a more appropriate site, I would still encourage you to refrain from juvenile posts like your first one above. It is very counterproductive because you make all Obama supporters look bad. Claiming a poll is bad simply because the results don't favor "your" candidate makes you look stupid, especially on a site like Pollster.com which is all about analyzing the numbers. It is also counterproductive to use derogatory names for the opponents of "your" candidate since you want their supporters to back "your" candidate should they win the nomination.

If I fell victim to Hanlon's razor and falsely accused you then I apologize.


richard pollara:

Just a comment about polling, blogging and expectations. Comparing the polling data in Ohio and Texas, Texas seems to be a statistical dead heat (RCP has Obama +0.8) with Clinton perhaps picking up some late momentum. In Ohio Mrs. Clinton is clinging to a tenous lead right at the MOE (+4.0) with Obama closing. But take a look at the Intrade numbers. Ohio is an almost 50/50 bet that pretty accurately reflects the polling data but Texas is giving Obama a 3 to 1 edge! When was the last time you got 3 to 1 odds for a coin flip? Maybe the smart money really does know more than all the pollsters but I am guessing that it is something else. A clue to what is going on can come from reading some of the posts on this site. In what is supposed to be a dispassionate discussion of polling methodology, the Obama supporters seem to be over the top. I am reminded of a Yankees/Red Sox discussion board from a couple of years ago. Hyperbole, irrationality and vitrol were the order of the day. Not to say that there haven't been some nasty posts from Clinton supporters, but my unscientific survey shows most of the worst to be coming from the Obama people. So what does this all mean? Only that "irrational exuberance" is a double edged sword. In some of the primaries we have seen it work to Obama's benifit (eg. SC and the Potomac Primaries) where he signicantly outperfomed the polls. But in others there has been a backlash (NH, Ca. Mass.). There is a whiff in the Texas air that such a backlash is occurring Tuesday. But no one, pollsters included really knows. But one thing I do know, when you can get 3 to 1 odds for a toss-up it is time to get your wallet out!



Richard Pollara:

I guess there isn't enough volume on intrade that it couldn't be subverted by obamaphiles. But if that was the case other people should be going in to take their money off them.

The price for Obama in Texas did fall yesterday, I guess on the back of good polls for Clinton.

It may be that intraders have inside information. My best guess is that they are consistent in both Ohio and Texas with thinking the polls underestimate Obama a bit. Because in fact on the polls Ohio should be a win for Clinton. So 50:50 Ohio and 75:25 Texas are more consistent with people on intrade thinking that the polls are maybe 2-5% against Obama, or that there will be a swing of that scale in the last few days.



It seems that the 3am phone call add will hurt Obama in Texas. I am starting to worry. Obama has had momentum up until Tuesday and now it seems Clinton is inching upwards.

I would suspect Obama has the better ground game, and that his voters are new voters, so they don't always are reflected in the polls.

For these reasons, I would give Obama an extra 5% in Texas and Ohio. It may not be enough for Obama to win Ohio, but it will give him Texas.


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.