Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Ohio Dems


Rasmussen Reports

Ohio
Clinton 47, Obama 45

 

Comments
Anonymous:

Which is the most credible of the two poll released today for the Ohio primary, the Rasmussen one or the Fox news one?

____________________

Shane:

Anon,

My guess? Neither?

____________________

RS:

SurveyUSA's report card for all pollsters through Super Tuesday suggests Fox News is among the top pollsters - only 3 contests polled, though, with an average error of 4.0 (whichever method SUSA uses now!)
Rasmussen (22nd overall) and Zogby (23rd) both say Clinton +2 in Ohio, while ARG (26th) says Clinton +5. Of course, these 3 have polled 17-31 contests, much more than Fox News.

Split the difference and go with ARG? ;-)

____________________

Brad K:

I wouldn't buy any of these polls individually, but collectively they tell a pretty consistent and compelling story: Clinton clinging to a narrow lead (2 to 8 points in the last 6 reported polls), with the trend clearly toward Obama who trailed last week by 10 or more and two weeks ago by 20 or more in virtually every poll. The question, then, is whether Obama can close the remaining gap by Tuesday. Projecting out current trends it looks like he can, barring some major development that blunts his momentum. He's already edged past her in Texas in most polls, but again very narrowly. That's presumably why the Clinton campaign launched their fear-mongering "Red Phone" ad today, a last, desperate "Hail Mary" attempt to derail Obama and hang on to a campaign that's rapidly slipping away from them.

____________________

Jake:

Brad K doesn't understand the midwest industrial state voters. Michigan overwhelminingly rejected Obama, and so will Ohio. His adoptation of the style of a southern baptist preacher doesn't play well in manufacturing states. We Michiganders have the sharpest memory of the prosperity of the Clinton years -- and so do our Ohio neighbors. The voters here also reject the way Obama and his wife were able to smear the Clintons as "racist." I know personally of hundreds of loyal Democrats who will, under no circumstances, vote for Obama if he is the nominee. He will lose a general election, because he will never take Michigan and Ohio. Young voters blew the election of Gore, by voting for Nader. And they're blowing the election of a Democratic this time around by pushing Obama.

____________________

Adam G:

Jake - "Michigan overwhelmingly rejected Obama."

What? He wasn't even on the ballot!

And yeah, the day any democrat in this election year loses Michigan, it will be quite chilly in hell...

____________________

Steve:

Jake, what is clear is that the more people become familiar with Obama, the more support he gets. That has been a very consistent pattern. Obama did not campaign in Michigan, his name wasn't even on the ballot. Michigan should not be used as an indicator of anything.

And BTW, the prosperity of the Clinton years was largely due to the internet/tech boom, which he had nothing to do with. Ohioans also know that the Clintons bought about NAFTA, which has hurt Ohio and other industrial states. Yet another error in judgement by the Clintons.

____________________

Jake:

Adam G, Don't believe that whining from Obama that he wasn't on the Michigan ballot. We know the truth here in Michigan. Obama voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, because he knew he would be creamed in Michigan. All voters in Michigan knew that voting "uncommitted" was a vote for Obama, since instructions to vote that way by Obama's people were distributed in newspapers, local TV, and internet. Face it, he lost Michigan. He's going to lose Ohio. And he's going to lose in November if he's the nominee. He's winning in states that historically go for Republicans, and will go that way in November. He has no stronghold in states that traditionally go to Democrats.

____________________

RS - Assuming that the varied results stem from the varied construction of the samples... it seems like when you get down to that level taking the average is meaningless because you're comparing apples to oranges to figs, or whatever.

What I'd find interesting would be a comparative scheme that looks at the different sample models - in other words, "if the sample is constructed as xx% latino, xx% age 18 - 25, and so on, you get this result" compared to "if the sample is constructed as (etc. etc.) you get that result". Or perhaps compare sub-group by sub-group across different pollsters - say, ARG has latino voters candidate preference at xx/yy, Zogby has latinos at xx/yy"... assuming the samples are large enough to do that, I guess...

I know some of this info is disclosed along with the poll, but surely there's a way to show it in chart form so lazy people like myself could see all of it in one place without having to do any work.

Making things easier for lazy people being a key element of Mark's mission, of course. ;-)

____________________

RS:

"I know personally of hundreds of loyal Democrats who will, under no circumstances, vote for Obama if he is the nominee."

Ummm... if they won't vote for the Democratic nominee, then by definition, they aren't "loyal" Democrats, are they?

And in other news, the Clinton campaign threatens a lawsuit over the Texas primary/caucus system... If you can't win it, sue the heck out of it. And the "insult 40 states" strategy continues....

____________________

RS:

Hey Ciccina:
Are you bent on undermining the methodology employed by Pollster.com and RCP? ;-)
RS

____________________

Jake:

RS, I'm talking about Democrats who are party and union organizers here in Michigan who would never vote Republican. Yes, they are "loyal Democrats." They are offended by the way Obama and Michelle seized on innocent comments by Bill and Hillary and swiftboated Hillary as "racist." They also can't stand Obama's phoney assumption of the identity of a southern baptist minister. What's that about? The guy was born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia, and schooled at Harvard. This is also a region of the country where people respect work and solid accomplishment. Obama has nothing to show for himself. He said in one victory speech that he was a "flawed vessel." In Michigan, all we see is an EMPTY flawed vessel. Trust me, he'll be a real loser in the general election.

____________________

Adam G:

Jake - "Michigan overwhelmingly rejected Obama."

What? He wasn't even on the ballot!

And yeah, the day any democrat in this election year loses Michigan, it will be quite chilly in hell...

____________________

Michael X:

From a mathematical standpoint, the logic that if Candidate A

____________________

RS:

Jake:
Are you saying that just because Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, studied a while in Indonesia, and went to Harvard, he can't have either (a) been influenced by going to a Black church for 20 years; or (b) have a natural knack for... artistic delivery?
That's got to be the lamest argument ever. I think recently someone compared the singing of different candidates, and came to the conclusion that Senator Obama was the best, by far.
And what is wrong with admitting he's a flawed vessel? If anything, both Michelle and Senator Obama have tried to keep folks from having any illusions that Senator Obama's perfect (recall "snore-y, stink-y"?)

But g-d damn, man - if the guy's years as a community organizer, a scholarship to Punahou (not one of the typical rich alums), a Harvard degree and editorship of the Law Review, two excellent (not ghost-written) books, many years as a state legislator (praised even by Republican legislators) and then a couple as US Senator don't qualify as hard work, what does? Or are you seriously equating Senator Obama to W?

Sorry for the long post OT. But this "empty vessel" rhetoric is pure unadulterated BS.

____________________

Jojo:

Jake's level of thinking and argument is an interesting one. I'm a democrat and will never vote GOP. Obama will win MI hands down. It wasnt Obama who took the decision to sideline MI and FL and he has said time and again that he'll welcome a re-run or re-vote at MI and FL. I think Jake should direct his anger towards Howard Dean and those who took the decision and not Obama. I hear both candidates were part of the decision. So come again Jake.

____________________

RS - next i will be asking Mark to juggle three chainsaws whilst balancing a glass of chardonnay on his head. I am of the belief that his powers are limitless. ;-)

Must agree with Jake, though. Frankly, I won't vote for a candidate who surmises I have a "hole" in my "soul," and that he's just the guy to fill it. He can stuff it up his own hole, thank you very much.

(And that Southern preacher thing he pulled in South Carolina was ridiculous. I guarantee you that is coming back in a negative ad.)

But don't tell me you're going to defend the Dems primary system? Its a total embarrassment. It makes the Republican system look like the Platonic ideal of a transparent, fair process. Every "card carrying" Dem should be deeply ashamed.

____________________

Greggie:

@Ciccina:

Both parties have assinine systems.

Winner-Take-All is stupid. It allows a minority group (moderate Repubs) to beat the majority group (Conservatives) by having the majority split their vote between multiple candidates (Romney/Huck).

Proportional by Congressional district is equally stupid. So if a district has 3 delegates, and we know who will win that district (but not the margin), no one's vote matters, because the margin doesn't matter, because it will fall 2-1 for the winning candidate no matter what!

Delegates should be awarded proportionally by total vote in the state, period, end of story. Both parties should look into it.

____________________

Jake:

RS, Obama's false southern preacher style is already coming around to bite him in the butt. So far, the Democrats have been kind about it. Not so for the Repubicans. Obama is now trying to sidestep the fact that his stepfather and father were muslims, and he has muslim family in Africa. Obama's African father remarried, without divorcing Obama's mother, muslim style. Obama's father also had a child with a third "wife." He died in a car crash, due to alcoholism. Why did Michelle complain yesterday that people were using Obama's middle name "Hussein?" That is his middle name, and reflects his partial muslim family heritage. His mom was a white, well educated, protestant from Kansas. Where in his past is a black, southern, evangelical heritage? His books say his parents were not even religious. Perhaps Obama has just seized on that southern, black preacher style out of political expediency, since the evangelical style is popular in Republican states. More troubling, though, is that his phoney exterior indicates a troubled interior. Assuming the identity of a black American preacher from the south is a negation of both his mother and his father. I don't think Americans would care about his mixed, unusual heritage, if he would present himself in speeches as what he is -- a half white, half black, urbane Harvard Law School grad. The Republicans are going to tear off that phoney evangelical mask in no time. That's already started, with the tuban photo and middle name usage. What will be behind the mask? There is a promising, highly intelligent, young senator. Yes, he's made it to the Senate, but he hasn't passed any legislation of significance. JFK had been in the Senate 20 years before he ran for office. Obama has no record to even examine. No one knows who he is. As he himself said in one of his books, he is a "blank screen" for people's projections. That only works for so long.

____________________

Before everyone starts yelling at Jake -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24kristof.html

____________________

RS:

Jake:
I didn't know you were a psychoanalyst. Have you forgotten that Senator Clinton's past includes an abusive father? Wonder how that affects her... I am no psych major, so I shall not pass judgment on either of these fine people.

The "Hussein" thing is clearly being stoked to make people afraid. If you haven't figured that out....

20 years before JFK became President, he was in WWII. Look up your history. As for Senator Obama - don't forget, he was a state senator in Illinois for I think 8 years (elected more often to public office than Senator Clinton, I might add), and passed plenty of excellent legislation - in a bipartisan manner.

As for the "southern Baptist" charge, Senator Obama "found Jesus" 20 years back. Why do you assume he's suddenly turning religious now? Evangelical liberals do exist, you know -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202386.html?hpid=opinionsbox1&sid=ST2008022402257

____________________

Jake:

RS, Thank you for correcting me. JFK became a U.S. congressman in 1946 and then served in the Senate until 1961, before becoming President in that year. That's 15 years of the big leagues, before running for President, compared to Obama starting to run for President the minute he landed in the Senate a few years ago. Obama's legislative record in Illinois is sparse and unimpressive. Neither Obama nor his wife can point to any solid accomplishment on behalf of any sizeable proportion of the electorate. That is the blank slate anyone can scribble on. It's fine if Obama "found Jesus," but why broadcast political goals in southern, baptist church intonation? He "found Jesus" in Chicago, for God's sake. The infiltration of the Republican party by the Evangelicals has led to a destructive force in the country. The Republican party is trying to shake off that alliance with McCain, and reclaim the party for true conservatives. Obama is now opening the doors of the Democratic party to wandering evangelicals, and is thereby destroying our party, and setting the Democrats up for defeat in the fall. The destructive influence of the evangelical element of the Republican party is what everyone is fighting against. Why do we want it in our party? Didn't any of you learn about the separation of church and state that the founders of this country took such pains to establish at its inception?

____________________

Andy:

The big question is WHY? In the end WHY should anyone get my vote?

Clinton - health care (she wants to CHANGE the Health care system....who isn't paying too much here?

McCain - Veteran (served and understands the sacrifices our HEROS are making overseas. Was a POW for 6 years....his SON just returned from IRAQ...)

Obama - ???? Not one of his supporters can list a reason why to vote for him....they bash the other candidates and assault their supporters as racist....that is BS....Colin Powell has experience, Condoleeza Rice has the experience....Barack does not....it is not racist, it's a fact.....

Obama is a nice guy from all I have seen. When a good reason to vote for him is offered, he will get my vote....Give me a reason....I am open minded my friends!

____________________

JDS:

Jake - have you ever been to a church service in Chicago? If you haven't, then I suggest you attend one in an African-American community. Or maybe just watch "The Blues Brothers."

You're completely asinine claims about Obama (his father was not a Muslim) and your repeated misspellings of simple English words like "phony" indicate the lack of rigor in your "arguments."

Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Yes, his middle name is Hussein, which is one of the most common family names in the world. And if you are so concerned about the "psychology" of a candidate, it's interesting that you don't have any problem with a woman who knew about her husband's repeated philandering, forgave him in public for it, and then watched him piss away his presidency and his law degree when he did it again. Low blow? I didn't even bring up Vince Foster, Travelgate, Bill's 30 million dollar trip to Kazhakhstan, HRC's campaign being run by a pollster with no political backbone, or the fact that "Ready from Day One" apparently means "I have no plan except to get my way."

Also, your bashing of evangelicals is beyond naive. You clearly have no understanding of Christianity or how religion functions in American life. As a proud born-again Christian and lifelong Democrat, I would happily welcome you to my political party and hope that there would be a vigorous exchange of points of view on the issues that concern us. I, however, as an "evangelical" would apparently be banned from your party.

Clinton supporters always are accusing Obama supporters of "drinking the Kool-Aid"; methinks they do protest too much.

____________________

RS:

Andy:
Ummm... State Senator Kirk Watson had an unfortunate, deer-in-the-headlights moment on national TV, but that doesn't mean none of Senator Obama's supporters can offer a reason why they support him. I, at least, can - click on my name to see my blog, and go down the list to see: "My personal take on the US Presidential primaries."

Jake - please read the WaPo article. Not all Evangelists are "bad", and if through their faith they are able to help solve national and global concerns (e.g. climate change), then why not? Isn't the Democratic Party the Party of Inclusiveness - or does that only apply if one is a firebrand feminist or gay?

____________________

Tom Smith:

It will be interesting to see how the undecideds break on March 4. That will be the ultimate decider. In most of the races so far, the undecideds at this stage of the game have almost universaly gone for Obama, especially since super Tuesday.

____________________

Jake:

JDS, Please consult a dictionary before accusing others of misspellings. The word "phoney" is more often spelled "phony" in the U.S., but my spelling of it is also accepted, and is the way it is spelled in Great Britain. I am a devote Christian myself. I would welcome anyone of any religion into the Democratic party. That is not the point here. The point here is mixing religion with politics, which everyone who founded this country ran away from in Europe. I am uncomfortable with Obama talking about political solutions in church-speak. That would be less disturbing if his style reflected his heritage. It simply does not. I am not saying Obama is now a muslim, but it is true that his father and step father were muslims, though apparently not devote ones. It is well known that his relatives in Kenya are muslims, including his grandparents. His biological father did marry again, another white woman from Harvard who followed him to Kenya, without divorcing Obama's mother. He had a family with his second wife, then fathered a child with a younger "co-wife" or mistress, before he died in a drunk driving incident, his second. It is appropriate under muslim polygamy traditions to remarry without divorce. I am not bashing that tradition, particularly because I have done research with a friend on polygamy in Mali, studying changes in the level of stress hormones among co-wives. I am saying Obama has taken great pains to hide his heritage, by adopting a southern, black speaking style foreign to his upbringing, education, and geographical locations where he has resided. I believe it is for political effect, and to mask his identity. It has worked so far. I mistrust it because it comes across as affected. It is not an authentic voice anymore than if I, a midwestern, white, Christian academic, started speaking like a southern, black baptist minister. His whole campaign and popularity is based on his rhetoric. Shouldn't it be authentic? As to the evangelical right, they destroyed the Republican party by trying to impose their beliefs and life style choices on everyone else. Obama is trying to lure that into the Democratic party with his church style. That "style" will eventually affect substance, and we will lose our core Democratic tradition of tolerance and inclusiveness.

____________________

Jake:

Before anyone corrects me, I misspelled "devout" in my last email, as "devote." This is not due to ignorance, but rather fatigue.

____________________

Andy:

RS- Ok, who are you voting for and why? All I want is to hear HOW a candidate plans to improve the conditions in this country. I don't care what color or gender they are....I don't care what religion, or if they came from outer space....I'm just tired of all the stupid finger pointing with nothing to back it up.

I want a better country, that is why I am asking what others think and why they are voting....

____________________

Molly Zo:

Andy, I don't mind telling you I am voting for Hillary. We had a better country under her husband. The poor were less poor, and the rich were less rich. To put it simply, the playing field was more fair. She has a long string of legislative accomplishments: expanding health care for children, helping low income families, expanding health care and benefits for veterans, upgrading the equipment for our soldiers in Iraq, reducing student loan burdens, etc. These accomplishments reflect a central goal of helping people survive and thrive. Go to her website: Hillaryclinton.com. Read her press releases on positions, and check out editorials in newspapers endorsing her on hillaryhub.

____________________

Jade7243:

So Molly is voting for Hillary's husband: "We had a better country under her husband."


I am voting for Barack Obama. I have tired of a country that is stagnating because we have this partisan divide. Nothing gets accomplished of any substance because we have a government that cannot form working coalitions.

We have a President who is clueless and incompetent; he was preceded by one who was constantly tacking towards a non-existent "center" -- triangulating. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" meet "Defense of Marriage Act." Welfare reform meet NAFTA. Kosovo ethnic cleansing meet Rwandan genocide. World Trade Center bombing 1993 meet USS Kohl. Waco and David Koresh meet Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolf and the guys of the Michigan militia. Ken Starr meet Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones.


I'd rather cast my lot with Sen. Obama than return to the Clinton era. I deserve better. You deserve better. We deserve better.

____________________

RS:

Jake:
How can you reduce a 20-year experience to zero? That is how you are treating Senator Obama's exposure in a Black Chicago Church! What you are essentially saying is that a Harvard-educated person has to be... colorless (in speech!) That would be pretty sad, and puts students (and voters) to sleep. I guess that's why younger voters are more attracted to Senator Obama than to Senator Clinton.

As for Senator Obama trying to hide his past - he's written a best-selling book about it - how much more open can you get? One of the reasons I support Senator Obama is because he's refreshingly candid and honest - releasing his tax returns, Michelle Obama's PhD thesis when asked, admitting his teen drug use. That's more than can be said for the ClintonS - or most other politicians, for that matter.

____________________

Molly Zo:

Jade7243, the state of a country isn't measured by the string of pop culture figures you sight. Hillary's political stance is reflective of her husband's. You must not remember the peace and prosperity of that era. Why cast your lot with an unknown? I don't see that Obama has anything better to offer, just dilutions of Hillary's policy positions, without the political muscle to see them through. Hillary has done a great job for New York for very diverse groups. There is a report from a farm journal, for instance, endorsing her as the only candidate with any knowledge of agricultural issues. She is highly regarded by upstate New York farmers, who organized efforts to campaign for her in Vermont this week.

____________________

Jake:

RS, If Obama is now 46, he changed his accent and intonation, then, at about age 26. I am a neuroscientist. We form our speech patterns much, much earlier than that. Hence, his accent and intonation are affected. If you listen to him at informal moments, he speaks like a white guy from Kansas, because his mom taught him how to talk. You can go to church to hear sermons. Please don't bring that style into political discourse. It muddies the separation of church and state. That's a slippery slope. It is no coincidence that Obama invoked the presidency of Ronald Reagan as his model. Reagan was the first Republican to forge an alliance with the religious right to win elections. That's not an appropriate model for the Democratic party.

____________________

RS:

Jake:
"That's not an appropriate model for the Democratic party."
Isn't that your personal opinion, though? But more importantly, if you read the WaPo article (and other news items that have come out over the years), you'll see that evangelicals/Christians share many "liberal" priorities - keeping the earth/environment safe, no war-mongering, no to the death penalty, poverty alleviation. And surely you realize that achieving these goals involves getting a large majority of the population together? [See last paragraph!]

Besides, I am not a neuroscientist, but I find it hard to imagine one cannot pick up speech patterns over a period of time. There's surely something to be said for environmental effects!

Anyway, so Senator Obama can relate to different populations; I'd liken that to speaking different languages, and the bonds such an ability can forge in the world community. I don't see anything dishonest or affected about it. But that's my personal view; your mileage may (apparently does?) vary.

____________________

BOFWH:

Andy:

reasons to vote for Obama

- he does have a healthcare plan, which aims to give everyone coverage by cutting costs, instead of imposing a mandate.

- he would pull out the troops from Iraq, so that the military can concentrate more on Afghanistan/the Taliban/Al-Quaeda. He is an authentic figure in opposing the war, he did it from day one, and not just for the sake of it, he warned that the exact same things would happen that are happening right now (look up the interviews he gave back than).

- he doesn't take PAC or federal lobbyist money.

- he realizes the necessity of working across party lines, and at least promises to try that. Hillary's approach (being though, fighting hard) led to a botched health care plan, because she went behind close doors, and did not even seek fellow democrats support/advice.

- he was behind tha patriot employer act, which would provide a tax credit to companies that create jobs in America.

- he ran an extremely well organized campaign, which planned well ahead, and reacted quickly and sharply to every obstacle. this is the first thing that every presidential nominee has to do.

____________________

Jake:

RS, Andy, and other Kids, Obama is a well packaged novice who has no place on the national stage. Let him come back in eight years, if he has earned a place to be there. Obama failed miserably in his attempt to run for the House 7 years ago. He won a Senate seat 3 years ago, after two Republican candidates in a row had to drop out over sex scandals. He eventually ran against a Republican who didn't even live in Illinois. That sort of unimpressive record is at odds with his admittedly effective campaign now. What's the difference? Having enough money to hire the guy who has hit on a successful formula for placing black men in positions of power across the country. Obama's manager is the same guy who put Governor Patrick into office. That's why parts of Obama's speeches were lifted from Patrick's. The formula is: never take a controversial stand; stifle all criticism as "racist"; repeat over and over uplifting, upbeat words; sell yourself as a "unifer." The formula works like a charm on the campaign trail. The problem is this won't solve any political problems. To make an effective change, you have to take a courageous stand, and be willing to engender enemies. I don't know how old you were when George Bush ran for his first term. He, too, had Obama's cental message: "Unity." He, too, promised to work across party lines. Look how well that worked out. Obama hasn't even made it to the presidency. Yet he's managed to fragment the Democratic party and keep the nomination process stalled. I have never witnessed a more divisive Democratic primary in my life. How does this translate to the "unified" country Obama promises? The U.S. has functioned magnificently in the past when people kept their religious beliefs within their personal spheres where they belong. Obama is using religious mannerisms and words to win an election and stir people up. That's dangerous and bad for the country. The last and greatest evil out of Pandora's box was hope. Hope prevents you from practically attending to your life in the moment. There was no one better at stirring up hope in large outdoor crowds than Hitler. Empty words of hope are not enough. Read some of the recent articles on the pressure being put on black superdelegates to shift their votes from Hillary to Obama. They are getting death threats. How hopeful is that type of stifling of free choice? I'm not looking for unity. I'm looking for practical, tested, political skill at problem solving.

____________________

rainmaker:

Jake:
"There was no one better at stirring up hope in large outdoor crowds than Hitler"

I would like to point out that there was another man in Europe during WWII who could stir up hope in large crowds: Sir Winston Churchill. He rallied his people to a valiant stand against the nazi machine. Being a good speaker is not inherently good or bad, you have to examine the message. Now, if you think that there is anything common in Obama's and Hitler's message, you are insane, and beyond redemption.

You say that when people attack Obama their supporters cry racism, but thats not really different when Hillary's fans cry sexims whenever she is attacked. Besides, we should concentrate on the candidates, not the supporters.

You say Obama never ran against a serious GOP opposition, which is true, but then neither did Hillary.

Obama held elected office for a longer time than Hillary.

Obama did more in the senate in his first term, than Hillary in hers.

The notion that Obama is fragmenting the Dems is a joke. He merely decided to ran for president (sth he is entitled to do) and conducted a relatively clean campaign, in which he did not attack Hillary, just responded to her numerous attacks. The Dems will rally behind him in the fall (expect the Hillaryis44 crowd and the likes), because he is on the exact same platform on the Iraq war, Healthcare, economy as them, They wont vote for a candidate who would do the exact opposite of what they want, just because he (McCain) has more experience.

Also, your notion that Obama doesn't know the lines between state and religion is ridiculous. He taught constitutional law at Chicago. He stands for the separation of church and state, and supports equal rights to people of every religion or sexual orientation. But on a personal level, his christian faith is very important to him. There is nothing wrong with that.

____________________

Bill Clinton:

Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this. If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.

Obama '08

____________________

BOFWH:

Being a president is not about merely pulling levers. It's about creating and realizing a vision, and leading by example. It's about inspiring people to help to reach that vision. Leaders are not afraid to go first.

____________________

Hussein:

@Jake:

("The last and greatest evil out of Pandora's box was hope. Hope prevents you from practically attending to your life in the moment. There was no one better at stirring up hope in large outdoor crowds than Hitler. Empty words of hope are not enough.")

"The politics of hope does not mean hoping things come easy. Because nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened unless somebody, somewhere was willing to hope, stood up when it was hard; stood up when they were told no you can't, and said yes we can."

Barack Obama

____________________

Sean S.:

In reviewing the latest polls, I would suggest that the current trends is very favorable to senator Obama in both Ohio and Tx.

Providing the current polls trends would hold, there is a real potentials that Senator Obama may very well come very close the gap to take Ohio away from Sen. Clinton, although he still can lose it by 2-3 percentage margin.

I like to learn more about the size of latest polling samples and whether they are more representing rural areas versus big cities. In addition I would like to view the demographic breakdown, income breakdown, demographics sampling and College versus non collge sampling as well.

From college population stand point, One of the main known elements about Ohio, is that it host many large college campuses which tend to lean heavily toward Obama. This kind of demogrpahic bloc will help propell him to do very well in areas around Columbus, Cleavland, Bowling Green, Toledo and Dayton.

On the other hand, we have seen a consistent trend that support Senator Clinton which is the married white femal voters. They still prefer her over Obama by very large Margin.

The question here for the Pollsters, is what is the is size of white married femal population are they sampling? Is it 19% or 23% of the femal voting populations.. If the sample is around 22 or 23 %, then we can conclude that this voting bloc will very instrumental in determining the fate of senator Clinton coming Tuesday night in Ohio..

I have read few analysis suggesting that Senator Obama has an edge in and around Urban towns and senator Clinton is still doing very well in the middle regions.

Although I am a big fan of Senator Clinton and I respect her record in the senate, I thought her latest TV add is a disperate attempt to paint him in such way that only Republicans are capable of deploying such deplorable tactics.. She is clearly deploying a scare tactic to scare potential voters away from Obama.

I would rather see a clean race between the two respected senators..

Let's bear in mind that the record turnout that democrats are comminding in the states they had cearly ontests is a clear indication about the the high level of excitment that we haven't seen in the country for very long time..

Both senators are very exciting senators to see and to watch and any of them will make a great president to this great country.


I believe that one of the main reasons to why Senator Obama is doing well, is that be bring a fresh perspective, an era of excitment and have the natural talent and abilities to inspire the young generation and bring about a message of hope and message of deep change to Washonton and to the entire country...

____________________

Denise:

Jake is a racist. I am from Michigan as well and Jake must be from Howell. Very racist town. Also, Jake needs to study his politics. Michigan should not have moved their primary up, period. It is obvious who Jennifer Granholm is supporting. Michigan should be punished. And yes, I was one of those who, along with John Conyers, was pushing the uncommitted vote. And, while Hillary might have "won" Michigan, uncommitted was close behind. What does that tell you. By the way, the majority of Democrats are saying that if Hillary is the nominee, they will not vote, not the other way around. We are tired of the Clinton and their nasty tactics.

____________________



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