Texas 3/1 - 3/2
Obama 49, Clinton 48... McCain 53, Huckabee 36, Paul 5
OMG!! HILLARY IS FINISHED!!!
GOOD NIGHT HILLBILLY!!!
Posted on March 3, 2008 2:42 PM
Looks like the firewall failed
Posted on March 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Mark, you better look again. Obama being grilled by FBI according to news reports just today - this over his involvement with Rezko. He said he had no business dealings with Rezko, that turned out to be a lie ! Then (Get this) he said "But we gave the money back" ! LOL LOL LOL
This is the end of OBama, his fairytale is finally over. Get on board with Hillary or get out of the way.
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:07 PM
Mark & Greggie
you guys better turn the news on, Obama right in the middle of Rezko Mess - He may get called in to testify ! Also the Canadians said Obama lied about the Nafta meeting. The wheels are starting to come off the Obama Bandwagon ! Lol Lol Lol !!
Hillary will emerge on top !
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:11 PM
Bill Clinton's purchase of Uranium is going to be hammered home if Hillary is the Democratic Nominee. Infact...she should produce her Tax Returns...so we can see how her campaign recieved money. For the good of the Democratic Party...she should release the Tax Returns NOW!! As a Barack Obama supporter...I will vote for any Democrat who wins...but...If She DOES NOT release those Tax Returns and deal with the Uranium Purchase from the 3rd World Country...I can't see her winning. She has no appeal to Independents and Conservatives...and that doesn't include Ann Coulter...because she is a freak. Anyhow, the Clinton's need to win all 4...they cannot afford to lose ONE of all these states. CNN has a nice Delegate Game...where u can investigate all the different Delegate Scenarios...if she doesn't get a MAJORITY of delegates...she is done....b/c there is no way she can get 3/4 of delegates from MS, NC, or from OR. I hate to be the one who breaks the news, but she can't win even if some Super Delegates go her way. As Bill Richardson said...if u don't get ahead on the 4th...drop out....she can only bargin for Post Office General after her dirty political tricks.
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:20 PM
As I said the outcome in Texas will depend on the media wind on March 4th, the Rezco/ Nafta may be seen as swiftboating (whether it is or not) so it may affect the numbers either way.
Yet another 80-20 poll for AA... why wont anyone listen 85-15 or better...
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:23 PM
Just like Billary - her supporters are getting desperate too - ahhhh, the last throes of the campaign wield their ugly head.
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:26 PM
Bree, you should float there is so much air in your head!
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:28 PM
You just made her point .....irony....hmmm.....
pretty sad to watch these days
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:33 PM
If we can focus on the polls, for a moment everyone....this is the latest poll that indicates a movement toward Clinton from the previous poll by the same polling outfit (the last SurveyUSA had Obama up 4 points). So, is this a real trend, or just random noise within the M.O.E.?
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:40 PM
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:45 PM
BaRezko Obama is falling faster than he climbed!
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:50 PM
According to the poll, 48% of people in Texas are already voted. That's an incredible number. With that breaking basically 50-50, hard to see the final result not be within 3%.
It's going to be all about what group turns out. Here, SUSA has 17% Blacks and 32% Hispanics, with Hispanics breaking 64-33 with Hillary; all of those numbers look reasonable.
Basically, it's going to be super-tight in Texas, and I don't see the final margin bigger than a 52%-48% either way.
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:53 PM
I saw on a well-written list of talking points that was faxed 100 times and scanned onto a blog that Barack Obama served with the Viet Cong when he was only 8 years old! They are looking for the photos of him firing his weapon at a Swift Boat on the Mekong Delta! He was there, it was alleged by a perfectly reliable fourth hand source that has no connection to a campaign! They are using sophisticated ballistics to match his bullets to the wounds inflicted on John Kerry right now! They will call him to testify, you can be sure of that! When this gets out, everyone will know that he is a terrorist communist and probably even injures small animals for fun! I read on a right-wing blog that he exchanged crack for gay sex in a limo and even though the guy who made the charges has some serious problems and the people who printed them won't release the lie detector test it's clear that Obama was there! This will blow the whole race wide open! 110 Delegates is nothing when one of the candidates is accused of just about everything bad at the same time by people who can't format paragraphs and tend to use a lot of exclamation marks! O, the humanity! Soylent Green is people!
Posted on March 3, 2008 5:56 PM
BaRezko Obama is falling faster than he climbed!
The investigation is coming to the doorsteps of BaRezko Obama's house!!
You know.. Nixon had his cult of believers until his last day of lies!!
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:14 PM
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:15 PM
Rezko: It is not unusual for a person (Obama) who knew someone under FBI investigation (Rezko) to be questioned about that person. Therefore people should not assume that this is bad news for Obama. There is no suggestion from the FBI that Obama has done anyhting and Obama is not under investigation.
Nafta: The story was shown to be false a few days ago, and I would like to add that the Canadian official also implicated the Clinton campaign of the same alleged double-talk.
So please zealous Clinton people, focus on the polls and not the mudslinging.
It looks very close in Texas with Clinton still up a little in Ohio, turnout will be huge tomorrow for both candidates.
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:23 PM
Why do we believe the 17% AA turnout ratio when the 2004 exit poll showed a 21% ratio. Katrina Effects anyone???. However we dont question the Latino turnout of 32% where the 2004 exit polls showed a 24% turnout. If the AA turnout is anywhere in the 20%+ range we have an OBAMA victory all else being equal.
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:25 PM
Using lots of exclamation marks doesn't make your statements any more sane.
Judging by the comments on this site, this race has reached a RIDICULOUSLY high fever pitch.
Notwithstanding actual percentages tomorrow, one thing that is clear:
NOBODY IS GOING TO "WIN" TOMORROW. Obama camp will spin delegates, Clinton camp with spin % wins, supers will forcefully back Obama next week to help put this thing to rest. Clinton withdraws before the end of the month.
EVERYONE CALM DOWN. GEEZ
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:28 PM
Hey guys...Public Policy Polling has a new poll out today in Texas, showing Hillary ahead by 6 after trailing by 4 last week....all the trends over the weekend in Texas are towards Hillary, including a 3 point uptick in Survey USA...so why no mention of the Public Policy Poll???
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:31 PM
I am worried about national election look like last year CT senate race, Lamont winning primary ove Leiberman, on anti war vote and then loosing badly in general election as Republicans and Independents elect him back to senate... McCain winning over Obama easily, even winning some blue states... Scary to me as I look at Obama...
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:55 PM
I am worried about national election look like last year CT senate race, Lamont winning primary over Leiberman, on anti war vote and then loosing badly in general election as Republicans and Independents elect Lieberman back to senate... McCain winning over Obama easily, even winning some blue states... Scary to me as I look at Obama... For record I am a Democrat always voted for democrats...
Posted on March 3, 2008 6:57 PM
I would be stunned if the AA vote in Texas is only 17%, compared to 21% in 2004.
Posted on March 3, 2008 7:16 PM
Remember these are proportions of turnout - it may be that the number of AA's is way up over 2004, but that as a proportion of the likely vote they have grown smaller. Presumably SurveyUSA is using the actual poll results to determine their proportions, rather than weighting them according to some expectation. If so, I think that's the way to go. Still, when you get into subsamples, predicting proportions gets dicey...
Posted on March 3, 2008 7:24 PM
First I want to say to Erik Hare,
I really appreciate your posts. Thanks for the breath of humorous and smart fresh air amidst all the insanity that seems to have been permeating this site lately.
It's a little puzzling where all this crazed Clinton froth is coming from. She lost. Accept it, and get over it.
As has been widely shown by myself and many others, if you actually take the time to do the math, Clinton basically can't win at this point.
Even if she wins by 20 points tomorrow in TX and OH, goes on to win by 20 points in PA, and ties everywhere else, she'll still be behind in delegates. So Clinton people, please explain, with math rather than irrational fanaticism, how she is possibly going to win the nomination?
Oh and by the way, the above is not going to happen. More likely Obama gains a few delegates in TX tomorrow, Clinton gains a few in OH to cancel it out, Obama gains in VT, Clinton cancels that out in RI, and we'll be left with a net gain of about zero for anyone, which is a win for Obama because he'll still be ahead by well over 100 delegates and he'll have passed through yet another Clinton "Firewall". And meanwhile he continues to creep closer to 2025.
If Clinton doesn't win both TX and OH tomorrow, she will withdraw from the race very soon.
If she does win both and slightly closes the delegate gap, she might get enough money to fight on but will only be doing further harm to the Party, inevitably still withdrawing at a later date.
Meanwhile the Superdelegates are continuing their slow march away from Clinton and to Obama.
Calm down everybody. Obama isn't a bad guy. Be happy with your nominee.
PS. Over the weekend I made about 200 calls to voters in TX for Obama. Most don't answer the phone and there are obviously a lot of Republicans.. but of those who said they were supporting a Democrat, there were literally twice as many for Obama vs Clinton. Yeah some Clinton supporters might not tell me if they're for her, and 200 people isn't a lot, but it was still a striking difference.
Posted on March 3, 2008 7:33 PM
This "math" argument is bogus. She doesn't have to overtake him in delegates before the convention to win. Neither candidate will have 2025 and the superdelgates will decide. If she has won all the bigs states, has momentum and his vulnerabilities as a candidate have been exposured, as it appears is happening, the supers will turn to her.
Posted on March 3, 2008 7:44 PM
Clinton will lose (at least in delegates) in Texas, and not win Ohio by a large margin, so what I am saying is moot. However, I disagree with the notion that it is over, even if she does manage a win in both states.
Many super-delegates - about 400 - have yet to register their preferences. I do not think they will necessarily go as their state or congressional district did. This will be particularly true if momentum were to follow a Clinton victory tomorrow (not that that is going to happen).
Secondly, a ruling on Michigan and Florida has yet to be made. The case for seating Florida is actually pretty good, and there may be quite a few delegates in it for Clinton.
Thirdly, a number of states have yet to vote. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Puerto Rico, Oregon and Kentucky, to name the big ones - those states total 693 delegates (in addition to the 502 up for grabs this week).
So if Clinton won a net gain of 20 delegates this week, she would be behind by about 125. If they seat Florida, she would gain about net 30. If she goes 55-45 in the states after March 11th, she gains net 69 seats.
That puts her behind Obama by 26 pledged delegates. Can Clinton take the remaining super-delegates 57-43? Well she can if she is winning the post-Texohio week primaries, if Florida delegates are seated, and she has momentum on her side.
Are those big ifs? Yes. Clearly the odds do not favor Clinton, and I doubt she will win tomorrow. That said, a Clinton victory remains a possibility, in a way that it does not for say, Mike Huckabee (for whom a victory banks on McCain dying).
Posted on March 3, 2008 7:55 PM
The situation could be even worse. If Clinton can convince the superdelegates that she is more electable in November - and that case will be easier to make if Obama continues to lose big delegate states - and if the superdelegates see their role as insuring the "strongest" candidate wins, then Obama could be in trouble. On the other hand, if he wins convincingly tomorrow in Ohio and Texas, this argument is moot. Which is why he is pouring money into both states. And which is why he better win. I'm not looking forward to what happens if he doesn't win.
Posted on March 3, 2008 8:43 PM
Henry and all other Clinton bashers, keep in mind if your guy does edge out on delegates, it is still far from a unanimous decision.
My advice, instead of polarizing all the Clinton votes and chasing them away, why not offer a olive branch....I thought the Republicans were the party of war, and we were the party of inclusion. Apparently with the likes of you, the answer is NO.
Do you really want the Democratic party to win the GE? Then smarten up and stop killing each other and pointing fingers....Obama and Clinton support many of the same policies. Kill one or the other off and you send the GE to McCain....don't think so? He's virtually a Democarat already.....Wake up before it's too late!
Posted on March 3, 2008 8:54 PM
Everyone keeps excluding the Michigan and Florida delegates Hillary has won. Today the Governor of Florida said he is willing to hold another primary -- not caucus -- there, in order to seat Florida delegates. You can look at CNN.com to confirm that story. Florida is Hillary territory, with a huge Latino population, and decidedly elderly demographic. She won there big, and would probably do so again. Whether they count the original votes, or run another primary in Florida, Hillary's numbers go up. Michigan's Governor Granholm has stated recently that she fully expects her delegates to be seated. I don't see how Obama can win if he doesn't take Ohio and Texas tommorow by some impressive margin. His campaign is more in jeopardy than hers.
Posted on March 3, 2008 9:14 PM
Ned Lamont lost the 2006 Connecticut Senate race because Senator Lieberman ran as an independent. The vote break-up was Lieberman 50%, Lamont 40% and Schlesinger (R) 10%.
So your fear will hold if Senator Clinton runs as a third-party candidate, which is highly unlikely.
Of course, Senator McCain attracts a few Democrats, but Senator Obama also attracts a few Republicans, and both attract independents. I doubt Senator Clinton will attract any Republicans or as many independents as Senator Obama.
Full disclosure - I support Senator Obama.
Posted on March 3, 2008 9:21 PM
The main difference in the internals between this poll by Survey USA and their last Texas poll where Obama led 49-45 is the change in the proportions in African American and Hispanic voters. In the latest it is 17 and 32, while in the former it was 21 and 28, so the difference is not really movement to Hillary, but fewer African American and more Hispanic voters in this last poll. It also look though that if the true numbers are the 21 and 28, she would still have gained from 4 down to 3 down.
Posted on March 3, 2008 9:31 PM
Posted on March 3, 2008 10:49 PM
People focusing only on delegate counts are missing the point a bit. Neither candidate can get to the magic number. Clinton's clearest path to the nomination is to win the roughly 54% of the remaining vote (excluding MI and FL) that she would need to win the popular vote. Then, the supers have to decide. Do they pick Obama, with the most delegates but less popular support, or HRC with fewer delegates and more popular support.
Also, I think it is funny to see how many people knock the SUSA poll of Ohio since it has Clinton up, but say the race is over when BO is within the MOE in TX.
Finally, if you are looking for some good statistical analysis of this poll, read Greg's post. He does a good job looking at the internals for what they are.
Posted on March 3, 2008 10:51 PM
Again, the issue re: SUSA is whether the change in proportion of AA's and hispanics reflects a change in the actual responses to SUSA's surveys, keeping in mind that the uncertainty for subgroups is likely larger. But if the response to the polls show that hispanics have become a greater part of the overall projected vote, then it is possible to interpret that as a trend to Clinton.
Posted on March 3, 2008 11:02 PM
Get real, Clinton ran on a big state strategy from the beginning! To say now that because she won those states she deserves to be the nominee? It's absurd.
Posted on March 3, 2008 11:24 PM
Even if you count Michigan and Florida as they stand now, with the pledged and automatic delegates (per Real Clear Politics) - Obama still leads by 2. That's with 355 automatic delegates still to be pledged.
Michigan won't get seated "as is" - with Florida already considering a revote - it provides the DNC with more leverage on Michigan to hold one as well.
Tuesday isn't the end unless something surprising happens. Wednesday will be the interesting day.
Posted on March 3, 2008 11:33 PM
Emily is funny.
Up is down.
Yeah, Emily. Obama is really on the ropes with his 162 delegate lead.
And just how many delegates do you think a legit Florida primary would net Hillary? I'm willing to bet you don't even know how many she could win without looking it up.
Hillary can't win the pledged delegate count. She just can't. Her only route to winning is to be appointed the nominee.
Posted on March 3, 2008 11:57 PM
Posted on March 3, 2008 11:59 PM
I agree with Henry B.- she will never win in the Pledged Delegate Count. Even if you would seat Florida, what would cause dozens of primaries in January next primaries, and revote in Michigan, CLinton would still be far behind.
I doubt that CLinton would be able to win the Michigan primary twice, or at least with a 15+ margin of victory- Obama is doing better in the GE-matchups there. That COULD be an indicator for the situation there.
Even if she wins TX without winning delegate count, wins OH with a 10% margin and PA by 15% (she will never get more than that, PA is in single digits right now), that would not make her gain more than 75 PD- leaving her 75-80 PDs behind- but it is illusional to think she will be able to net any delegates out of NC, the MidWest-Caucuses, Indiana etc.pp.
In the best case she would go 50 PDs behind Obama to the convention- I exspect it to be 150-200. (without FL and MI, they wont be seated)
Clintons superdelegate lead wont be there at that point.
She leads with about 50 automatic delegates right now- in the last month she lost 6 ADs, Obama won 36- the "Superdelegate shift" started on the 6th February. It is not unlikely that the remaining superdelegates split 175-125 or even 200-100 for him.
Obama will get the nomination in every case, probably with a lead in both PDs and ADs,
I think with a 200 PD and a 50-100 AD lead.
Posted on March 4, 2008 12:42 AM
Posted on March 4, 2008 12:57 AM
An interesting twist. Two days ago I noted that Hillary was a 3-1 betting underdog in Texas even though the RCP number was a statistical dead heat (Obama +0.8). The race is esentially unchanged tonight (Clinton +0.3,)but the betting odds have gone to almost 50/50. Ohio which showed Mrs. Clinton with a small lead two days ago was a 50/50 betting proposition. Tonight with her lead just outside the MOE (+6.4) she is a 4-1 favorite. I don't think Intrade has any predictive value but I do think it is an indicator of changing expectations. My intuitive sense is that the momentum has changed over the last couple of days. My interpretation of Intrade is that it is showing the same thing.
Posted on March 4, 2008 1:17 AM
The AA % seems to be too low in this poll. I guess the latino % could be possible but I think it might be a tad high.
Posted on March 4, 2008 2:14 AM
Posted on March 4, 2008 2:16 AM
I may be mistaken, but the low expected AA turnout may have to do with the areas that have already voted early in large numbers vs those left to vote. Again, I recall seeing that somewhere, but I may be wrong.
Posted on March 4, 2008 5:59 AM
Posted on March 4, 2008 6:00 AM
Posted on March 4, 2008 6:08 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