Clinton Holds Narrow Lead In Texas

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 14:35


IVR Polls has a new release from Texas, showing Clinton ahead 50%-45%. This puts the seven-poll average in Texas at Clinton 49.0%--43.7%. Without ARG, the average stands at Clinton 50.2%--43.0% Obama.

Clinton still leads in what has become an extremely important state, but that lead has been significantly narrowed. Everyone know that if Clinton loses both Ohio and Texas, that the campaign will be over. Even Bill Clinton is saying this. Also, everyone also knows that if Clinton wins both Ohio and Texas, she will continue on to Pennsylvania. My question is, what happens if Obama and Clinton split Ohio and Texas? Also, what happens if Clinton wins the Texas primary, but comes in second in delegates because of the caucus? I am not sure we know the answers to those questions right now, but figuring them out will give us better insight on how long the campaign will continue, and on what to look for on March 4th.

Update: Another new Texas poll shows Clinton only ahead by 1%, 46%-45%.

Update 2: Whoops--that Texas poll actually shows Obama leading by 1%, 46%--45%.  

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Holds Narrow Lead In Texas

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Clinton Holds Narrow Lead In Texas | 31 comments
Bill thinks she needs both (4.00 / 1)
I think Bill said that if she were to lose either Texas or Ohio it would be over for her...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...

carvel said the same - she must get both /nt (0.00 / 0)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
My thought (0.00 / 0)
If Clinton loses both states, she has to withdraw or become a running joke. If VT and RI go against her, that would be 14 in a row.

A win for her would be victories in the popular vote in both OH and TX with decent margins of 10% or more (or 5% and 15%), AND changes the dynamic in terms of her 'base voters' going towards Obama. This would allow her to make a somewhat credible argument that she's turning things around.

Anything inbetween that, and I think that an intervention will take place sometime around March 8th (after giving it a few days to sink in). Maybe Dean, Carter, Gore ... a few of the party elders ... will try to negotiate an end and allow Obama to begin taking on McCain directly. She may ignore this intervention and continue on to PA, or she may accept something like a Supreme Court nomination.  

Not nearly enough (0.00 / 0)
To be a viable candidate going on, Clinton needs to win the delegate splits in OH and TX by at least 20 points.  That translates into a 65-35 margin over Obama.

If she wins both states 60-40, she's still doomed.  Even after twin 60-40 victories, she would need to win 75% of the vote in PA to have a chance of pulling within a dozen delegates (the largest margin she could hope to overcome with unelected delegates) by Puerto Rico.

This is really already over, but Hillary bitter-enders need to be praying for 65-35 or better wins in OH and TX just to have a chance with the rest of the states.

It's good that she's continuing through OH, though.  Obama's turnout machine there will be better after a good workout.

[ Parent ]
A reply (0.00 / 0)
"If she wins both states 60-40, she's still doomed."

Doomed? No, but she would be hanging on by a bare thread. IMO this is the minimum she would need to make a semi-credible argument to continue on to PA.

[ Parent ]
if she doesn't win dozens more net delegates, she's toast (0.00 / 0)
The rational standard would be she has to win a double digit net delegate edge in both Ohio and Texas to plausibly claim there's any reason to take this thing to Pennsylvania and beyond. If it's close to a wash delegate wise regardless of whether she wins the popular vote, then she just isn't going to make up the ground she has lost during February and Obama is the presumptive nominee. If she loses either state outright, then there's no reason not to call this over. However, I will be shocked if she actually ends her campaign on March 5. It's just not in her and Bill's nature to give up on an election until the bitter end.
Worst case scenario... (0.00 / 0)
...narrow, or even a non-blowout win, by Clinton in either OH or TX, or both. She'll fall behind in delegates and argue that it doesn't matter. Lots of people on both sides will get very angry. Or, I should say, angrier.

And with her campaign apparently deciding to go negative precisely in order to get those narrow wins, it looks ugly. I'm usually wrong, I hope I am again.

My fear (0.00 / 0)
Clinton could win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania with Obama still receiving enough delegates to keep his lead.  If that happens, we seem to be back at square one, with Hillary seeming to have the momentum.  Then it really can get nasty with supers, Florida and Michigan, and who knows what else.

But I'm predicting that doesn't happen.  My guess is Obama wins the most delegates in Texas while just barely clearing the popular vote, loses Ohio by about 7 to 10 points and wins the other March 4 states by the now-expected 20 points, for a clear delegate advantage.

Pressure mounts for Hillary to quit, but she does not.  Pennsylvania decides to put us out of our misery and hands the nomination to Obama.  (Ok, this part may be wishful thinking.)

Bad/Good news for Obama (0.00 / 0)
Using the new weightings, Clinton leads with 50% to Obama's 45%. I only named the active candidates that are on the Texas ballot, but give options for 'other,' which got 2% as well as 'undecided' which got 3%. Ethnically, Latinos and African-Americans were mirror images, with Latinos giving Clinton a 75-23 lead and African-Americans giving Obama a 75-25 lead. Whites gave Clinton a 52-38 lead. These ethnic breakdowns are raw numbers, not corrected for age/gender weightings.

This is a gap that Obama needs to close in the next 10 days.

On the upside:

For comparison purposes, I first looked at the results using my previous weightings. Undecided was much lower than the Jan 31 poll, but the margin was similar. Rather than 48-38, the results showed 53-43, still a ten point margin. Looking closer, Clinton had regained her earlier strength among south Texas Latinos, while Obama had made gains in urban areas. Much of intra-state 'flyover territory' was unchanged.

I not sure what to make of his new model, but his old model seems to be off as it shows no closing of the gap between Clinton and Obama and all the other polls do.  The gap is closed when he uses his new model.  I would like to see him run the new model on the old data to see if it produces a tightening in the poll.

FYI why national polls are meaningless at this point... (0.00 / 0)
To prove how poor the gallup daily tracking poll has become as an indicator of future primaries I present the following data: In the 11 primaries following February 5th Obama won by an average margin of 33 points. If, however, you look at the gallup poll Clinton actually held a lead for the week following super tuesday and Obama only had a statistically significant lead for four days in all of February.
How the spin turns... (0.00 / 0)
I find it interesting just how important Texas has become for the Clinton campaign.  After hearing from the Clinton camp how unimportant red states are and how only winning the big blue states shows who can win the GE for the Democrats, we now have Texas cast as the big Clinton firewall.  McCain will win Texas in a head-to-head with either Clinton or Obama, so I don't understand why we are supposed to look at the Texas results with any seriousness especially if South Carolina or Georgia are supposed to be dismissed as unwinnable.  

I wonder what the spin will be if Clinton wins Texas but loses Ohio or vice-versa?

Texas is a caucus state so... (0.00 / 0)
Keep in mind that Texas is in part a caucus state so if she loses there, it doesn't count.
[ Parent ]
If they split (0.00 / 0)
I think it's over.  It would be better for Obama's case if he wins either Ohio or - later on - Pennsylvania, but more important that he stays close and builds a base of good will and support in both states for the general.  If Clinton wins Ohio and Pennsylvania she can claim that - even though she's way behind in pledged delegates - she has carried the big states (Mark Penn is making this argument).  I don't think that will be enough because at present Obama is polling better than Clinton against McCain in New York, so many of the big states she's won will be easy for almost any Democrat to win.  She can make a case that Ohio and Pennsylvania won't be that easy, but Obama can make a case against Clinton that she's shown no strength against him (or in head-to-head polling with McCain) in Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado, and that he's also beaten her in other states McCain might try to pick off like Washington, Iowa, and Missouri.  If she had done better in the middle part of the country, she might have a case.  She didn't, and her campaign looks too much like the same old "we've got the coasts covered" strategy that has failed too many Democratic candidates.
Internals (0.00 / 0)
The internals of this poll seem too favorable to Clinton. Where has she broken 70+ percent of the Hispanic vote? In what state has she broken 25 percent of the African-American vote? I think Obama will rack up at least 85% of the AA vote and may approach 40% of the Hispanic vote before it's all over.

Also, Rasmussen has a new Texas Poll and it is now 47-44 in Clinton's favor. That represents a swing of 13 points for Obama since last week's Rasmussen poll in the state.  

Obama will net 20+ delegates in Texas... (0.00 / 0)
...even if Clinton wins the popular vote (by 4 or 5 points). That is a fact that every model I run is showing.

This is because the caucuses will choose 67 delegates, and he should do very well. Eyeballing his organization here, it is everything that its cracked up to be.

But it is also because the popular vote delegate apportionment:

15 of the 31 senate districts are apportioned 4 delegates. That's half the state. A candidate would have to exceed 62.5 percent of the vote to win a 3-1 split;

Many of those districts are Hispanic-majority districts. Even models that give clinton the 3-1 split only net her 6 delegates, which are

Balanced against the 8 delegates in Austin (Travis County) -- Obama Country, and the 7 and 6 delegates respectively in inner city Houston and Dallas senate districts, where Obama will win 5-2 and 4-2.

With anything less that a 65-35 popular vote win, Clinton will lose the delegate contest in Texas.

So she is depending upon the spin value of a big state popular vote victory. But even that strategy depends somewhat on narrowing the delegate gap, to make a superdelegate decision more acceptable. So, it's hard to see how Texas could help Clinton, while it could really help Obama.

One other thing:  Don't discount the spin. You know, there was no natural break for Clinton among Hispanics until the news started reporting it. The Clintons were never very good to Texas. We lost all our statewide officeholders on their watch. They stiffed Texas, on money and organization, in '92, '94, '96, '98.

But hearing the national press report over and over that Hispanics loved the Clintons has, guess what, led Texas Hispanics to love the Clintons.

Good Explanation, But One Caveat... (0.00 / 0)
However, aren't the caucuses part of a 3-tier process?  Meaning there won't actually be any pledged delegates chosen by them, leaving another loophole for spinning?

I'm no TX expert, but this is what I've heard.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Yes and no (4.00 / 1)
The caucuses do produce pledged delegates, but only after subsequent county and state caucuses.  However, many states have similar processes, and it is possible to estimate what the eventual pledged delegates will be from the precinct caucuses on the night of the election.  That's why the major news networks only have delegate "estimates" for most states.
[ Parent ]
My Question Was More Specific (0.00 / 0)
I know that Texas isn't alone in this. My questions was specifically about the degree of confidence one can make election-night projections from the Texas system.  And hence the size of the spin window.  Some commentators I've heard made it seem more uncertain than, say Nevada.  And since it's certainly more populous...

I really would appreciate anyone with first-hand knowledge to speak up.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Phillip Martin (4.00 / 1)
at Burntorangereport.com as a pretty good FAQ where he says

Will We Know Who Won Texas on Election Day?

Sort of. We will know who won the "primary" portion of the Texas primary on election day. Delegates are awarded by Senate Districts (not Congressional Districts, like in other states). The Secretary of State will report voting totals by Senate District, so we will know who won that portion -- but we may not have a good idea of the "caucus" portion for some time.


[ Parent ]
Uncertain (4.00 / 1)
In theory it should project, but that requires every elected delegate to show up at the next tier. At the state convention in 2006, a lot of the remote Senate Districts were poorly represented, but the few delegates that showed still controlled all the district's votes. The Chair was contested that year and if memory serves, the majority of the people in the room were outvoted.

I'm sure there will be higher attendance this time, but that's one scenario that could mess things up.

[ Parent ]
What is the breakdown/outlook in Indiana? (0.00 / 0)
Assuming we would get there - which I doubt we do - does North Carolina/Indiana balance out a win in Pennsylvania?

In May, you have North Carolina, a big state, sure to go big for Obama.  If Indiana goes for Obama, these two together are worth 187 pledged delegates, while Pennsylvania is "only" worth 158.

You can pretty much look at the calendar, and realize that any Pennsylvania win is neutralized, because of future states.

Update: Another new Texas poll shows Clinton only ahead by 1%, 46%-45%. (0.00 / 0)
This 'trend' alone is not good for the Clintons...  Hillary really needs to nail the debate tonight... and Obama needs to excel.

Else it's over.  I'm getting tired.  Clinton fatigue.

Obama will clean up in Texas (0.00 / 0)
Independents can vote in either primary.  Due to down ballot races many will vote in the GOP primary but he will pick up quite a bit, especially in the more heavily Democratic districts, which are the districts that claim most of the delegates.  In Dallas and Houston Democrats have picked up a good deal over the last couple of election cycles mostly on the strength of  African Americans who are feeling energized and likely to come to the polls in large numbers.  Obama has received some great Latino endorsements.   Democrats, even our goofy tired old state officials, know that Clinton will not bode well for down ballot races. And that is just the popular vote.  I don't think that she stands a chance of getting more delegates than he will.  How many in a row has he won? And by such large margins.  He seems to have a great ground force and she does not.  They made tremendous headway in Wisconsin in a shorter period of time.  By late next week we will be seeing numbers from Texas that will have bounce in Ohio.  
I have over underestimated the (0.00 / 0)
goofiness of our Texas politicians. Former gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell endorses Clinton. I doubt that anyone really cares.
[ Parent ]
Rasmussen also just released a poll... (0.00 / 0)
3 point lead for Clinton.

If Obama can keep this pace up he'll win Texas by 20 points too.

only 1 point in Texas in ABC-WaPo (0.00 / 0)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Ohio is at 50-43 in Clinton's favor.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Clinton Needs Both, I think (4.00 / 1)
If Clinton loses either OH or TX, I think she'll drop out within 2 weeks.

The week after March 4th, she will almost certainly lose two more states (Wyoming caucuses on the 8th, Mississippi primary on the 11th).  She'll go into the Pennsylvania stretch down by about 150 pledged delegates--about the same as the total number available in PA.  People will start to notice that there are only 566 delegates left, so that she'd have to win almost 65% of the remaining delegates to catch up.  They'll also start to notice that Michigan and Florida would only make up a little over a third of her deficit (assuming Obama gets Michigan's "undecideds," which seems the only remotely plausible way of counting  a state where he wasn't on the ballot).  She won't be able to spin away her loss, because it's been too clear for too long that she's been counting on wins in both states.  Superdelegates and party elders will start endorsing Obama in large numbers to end this thing as fast as possible, and Clinton will see the writing on the wall.  She'll know when to cut her losses by stepping aside gracefully.

OTOH, if she wins the popular vote in TX and OH she'll probably stay in even if she loses the delegate count in TX.  Her outward rationale--that she wins the big states--will be intact.  NB her actual rationale at this point is really that Obama is new to the national stage, and there's still a chance that he'll implode.  That's the only way she can win at this point--even if she took all the March 4th states, and PA too, by 20-point margins, Obama's pledged delegate lead would still be insurmountable, even if MI and FL were counted, as long as he somehow make himself a non-viable candidate.  But that's still a possibility, and as long as her external rationale--winning the big states--remains intact--and as long as she doesn't go scorched-earth negative, I think supers and party elders will sit on the sidelines and let things play out.  It's never a bad idea to make sure your nominee can take some sustained heat.

After tonight's debate... (0.00 / 0)
... look for Obama to take the lead in Texas within the next two weeks.
Clinton Holds Narrow Lead In Texas | 31 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox