Obama Continues To Rise In Texas

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 23:25


The new Survey USA Texas poll everyone was anticipating today shows Barack Obama moving into the lead:

704 LVs, MoE 3.8, (2/18 results in parenthesis)
Obama: 49% (45%)
Clinton: 45% (50%)

In a sign of good news for Clinton, she does lead early voting 51%-46%.

The seven-poll average in Texas now stands at Obama 47.1%--46.3% Clinton. Without ARG, Clinton still holds a narrow 47.0%--46.7% advantage. Considering the trend lines and early voting in the state, it is starting to appear less and less likely that Clinton will win any of the competitions in Texas. The primary, the caucus, and the delegates all seem to favor Obama at this point. She has to reverse Obama's momentum in the state immediately in order to prevent a sweep.

Will Ohio and Rhode Island be enough for Clinton to keep going? There actually is no precedent for a candidate with over 1,000 delegates dropping out before the convention, so I would not be so sure. As long as she leads in Pennsylvania polls and any delegate count, if I was on her campaign staff I would advise her to keep going. However, financial realities and a desire to maintain a strong, post-election position within the Democratic Party might dictate otherwise.  

Chris Bowers :: Obama Continues To Rise In Texas

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Continues To Rise In Texas | 32 comments
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
From SUSA, it says that Clinton leads in early voting 51-46%. A bit odd, but nothing to be too worried about.
I can't get it to load (0.00 / 0)
I took a commenter's word that Obama was way ahead in early voting. Will update.  
[ Parent ]
High MoE on the early voting numbers (0.00 / 0)
According to Kos's calculations, the MoE for this subsample of early voters is more than 7%.

PPP had Obama leading early voters by a wide margin.

[ Parent ]
Early voting: This is odd but there are many dissents (0.00 / 0)
from other polls like Rasmussen:

Twenty-nine percent (29%) say they have already voted and Obama leads handily among this group.

So I find it puzzling SurveyUSA has Clinton leading among early voters. As Kos points out, the MOE is about 7% so this lead is not statistically significant.

The most intersting news for Obama in this SurveyUSA poll,

Among Hispanic voters, Clinton led by 33 points last week, leads by 13 points today

As of right now, Obama is headed for a strong victory in Texas and the chaos & anger inside the Clinton camp is telling. Check it out http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

ARG is a team of blindfolded monkeys on crack throwing feces at a number chart.Looks like the monkeys hit Clinton's numbers today. MB

[ Parent ]
margin of error on early voting sample (0.00 / 0)
Should the 25 percent subsample of early voters  have an entirely different margin of error?  In other words, if you set out to poll Texas early voters you would have to have a much larger sample than 25 percent of the total sample of this poll -- or adjust the margin of error.

I could be wrong about this. I don't really know the poll's methodology, and I'm just trying to think it through. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[ Parent ]
No, you're absolutely correct (0.00 / 0)
As you shrink the sample size, your MoE goes up.  The numbers here are close enough that the MoE swallows up the disparity between the two candidates.
[ Parent ]
CA early voting (0.00 / 0)
How far up was Clinton in early CA voting?
About 20% (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if this was specifically polled, but the returns indicated it was in the 18-20% range.  Obama lost by about 6& amongst those that voted on election day (less if we included the LA County DTS voters, but don't get me started).

A vote against Health Care Reform is a vote for ten 9/11s every single year!
[ Parent ]
math (4.00 / 1)
SUSA says Clinton's support among Hispanics has crashed from 33 to 13 points in the last week. First of all: Jesus.

Also: this is especially significant because of all those border districts that have 4 delegates each. Those districts are all like 80-90% Hispanic, and if Clinton gets 62.5% of the vote in any of them, she gets 3 of the 4 delegates. If she only gets 60%, the delegates split 2-2. Looks like she's not gonna make the cut, doesn't it?

oop (0.00 / 0)
Advantage, I mean. She now has a 13-point advantage.
[ Parent ]
Slightly off topic... (4.00 / 2)
...but depending on your pronunciation of Jesus, your post is hilarious.
[ Parent ]
Early vote publishing (0.00 / 0)
I have mixed feelings about the publishing of polls of people who already voted. Of course I can't see any way of stopping it, since people can freely proclaim who they voted for, but I still don't like it.
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
I don't think that holding information back from the public in defense of democracy is very well, um, democratic.

It is a poll. There are droves of polls published before elections. Further, around the country 25% of voting now takes place before Election Day itself. Constricting that information  feels very wrong to me.  

[ Parent ]
Single day voting (4.00 / 1)
I favor single day voting, for the same reasons that the Presidential election happens in one day. Candidates can die, commit a grievous error in judgment, show serious medical, mental health issues, etc. after some people have already voted. Lengthening the voting time too much has downsides. It's not all sweetness and light. And I don't like voters having knowledge of how the actual vote is already going.

I'd like a single day of primary voting for the whole country (for the Presidential campaign), combined with legislated free TV time and public financing. A Saturday or Holiday would allow ample opportunity to vote. I would be OK with some limited early voting if the voter made a statement that they could not easily vote on the given day. The election of a candidate should be a snapshot of the voter's desires at a moment in time. Any other system elevates some voters over others, violating a fundamental principle of one person one vote, IMHO.

[ Parent ]
I just don't see that happening (0.00 / 0)
My understanding is that local and state governments do pick up some or all of the tab for primaries, so we do have public financing in a way (although not in the way you meant).  Thus, states have a say in determining when they hold primaries.  It's pretty much impossible to get all 50 states in line.  Even the threat of taking away delegates didn't stop Michigan and Florida from sticking to the calendar as agreed (and any attempt to reform the primary calendar will become even more impossible if the delegates from either state are seated with any ease).

I think there are pretty much two avenues for accomplishing your goal of a national primary day.  Either force the political parties to foot the bill entirely for primaries, giving the national apparatus of the party complete control over the process (which they won't want under those conditions), or pass a constitutional amendment completely changing the political process.

Personally, I'd like to force states to run presidential primaries on the same day as they run primaries for Congress.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Why continue after March 4th? (4.00 / 1)
"As long as she leads in Pennsylvania polls and any delegate count, if I was on her campaign staff I would advise her to keep going."

Why?  Is there some scenario I'm not aware of that has Clinton making up a 150+ pledged delegate deficit from PA alone?  If she ends up net negative or even no net change from the March 4 primaries, other than using the super delegates (who probably won't overturn a 150+ pledged delegate advantage), her ability to win is suspect at best.

Personally, I'm ready for the ridiculous bickering between them to end, and that won't happen until we have a presumptive nominee.

Couldn't agree more. (4.00 / 1)
I don't see anything positive coming from Clinton lobbing these juvenile attacks at Obama for another month or more.  It's doing nothing productive for the party that I can see, and if anything it seems to be diminishing her future political viability.

Personally, I think she should bow out now and Obama should appoint her as the next Attorney General, and let her channel all that venom at Karl Rove and crew.

[ Parent ]
What about the money? (0.00 / 0)
    If Clinton goes down in Texas and carries Ohio by a small margin, she will have no way (except super delegates) to make up the deficit.  The national polls are showing her slipping badly which makes her look more like a loser. How many people are willing to throw more money at her campaign at this point?  
[ Parent ]
early voting (0.00 / 0)
It is surprising that she is leading in early voting. But let's remember, that early voting number consist of a small sample and has a 7-8% margin of error.
Delegates on 5/4 (0.00 / 0)
Assuming the present poll margins, Clinton could gain as many as 12-16 delegates on 3/4. It is quite possible she will gain less than 10 if the present trends continue. In all cases, this is less than Obama's delegate gains in his victories in WI and HI last week. I'm sure the press will point this out after 3/4 if true. So whether she chooses to continue is somewhat immaterial. Also, I think the last few weeks of campaigning have been good for Obama in that he is becoming more inoculated against right-wing attacks. If Republicans just mimic the Clinton attacks they become less effective. If they just try to make up stories by swiftboating it will look more like racial vilification to which the country, as a whole, won't respond.
What do you base your delegate estimate on? (0.00 / 0)
Are you including Ohio?

Because Clinton will fall further behind on delegates in Texas, even if Obama's advantage in these recent Texas polls is exaggerated. Without a Clinton blowout of 60-40 or better, Obama will net delegates in Texas because of the way delegates are apportioned (skewing to Obama's failure) and the 67 caucus-selected delegates which will either split or go convincingly for Obama.

[ Parent ]
Ohio Included (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I'm including all four states TX, OH, RI, and VT and the present margins according to the polls. But the way the trends are going, Obama could indeed gain delegates on 3/4. I'm just saying that even if he loses delegates the losses will be less than 20 and will be less than Clinton lost on 2/19. Further, any loss in the popular vote will be marginal as well. So the overall picture in delegates and popular vote won't change after 3/4 whoever 'wins' and 'loses'.
[ Parent ]
Narrative and the Clock (0.00 / 0)
3 weeks ago the Clinton's were confident they'd take both, they're both on record for it and Bill went so far as to say it was a must-win for her to continue.  If they lose TX and tie OH, it becomes mathematically impossible for her to turn this around into something close enough that she can win it in the back room (as if that isn't a nightmarish scenario with President McCain written all over it).

At that point, the party elders will stop being neutral and start pressuring her to drop out, publicly if neccessary.  Deaniac DNC members may declare for Obama en masse, and Edwards, Richardson, and Gore will probably make their displeasure known.  They're not going to let her burn the party down, and her only chance of having any political career to salvage out of this will be to call it quits and play nice, help heal the rift.

Dean's already made it pretty clear he's considering bringing everyone to the table and forcing a deal by mid-march.  He's not going to let this drag out until September while McCain gets a free ride.

[ Parent ]
Some stats from the crosstabs... (0.00 / 0)
* Obama leads by 22 among men (about the same) but has closed the deficit amongst women from 28 to 11. That's pretty big.

* Obama holds huge leads (22 points and 18 points, respectively) amongst 18-34 and 35-49 age group...within 4 for the 50-65 age group (48-44).

* The gap in Hispanic support has narrowed significantly, from 65-32 to 52-39. That seems to be a lot of soft Clinton support moving to 'undecided'.

* It's about a tie between self-described Democrats (49-47 Clinton), while Obama cleans up in independent support (55-39).

* Obama leads amongst liberal (50-44) and conservative voters (55-35), while moderates are now a tie.

* Those who consider the economy the most important issue favor Obama 54-43, up from 51-46 Clinton.

* Among those who have made up their mind (76%), Obama leads 50-45, and he leads among those who might change their mind (46-38).

* Obama leads in North Texas (57-38) and East Texas (55-37), while Clinton leads in Central Texas (52-45), South Texas (66-28) and West Texas (57-42).

South TX numbers are scary. (0.00 / 0)
Looks like those 4-delegate districts could well break 3-1 for Clinton if Obama doesn't improve there.

Does anyone know about what fraction of Texans live in each region?  

[ Parent ]
Money woes (0.00 / 0)
Clinton has been begging her donors to hold on until March 4. If she loses Texas, they'll abandon her. And her campaign well knows it. It won't really be her decision about staying in. She may officially be in after that, but Obama talk will center around VP choices by then.
To Be Honest (0.00 / 0)
I think Clinton would lose, HUGE, if she lost Texas and still ran. The fact is, Carville and Bill, both close associates (Bill is her husband, for God's sake) have said that if she doesn't win both Texas and Ohio, she is done, and she has listed both as her firewall states constantly (her recent snub on Texas is going to be to her advantage too much in the spin after weeks of highlighting the state). As a result, even if she continues despite losing one and barely winning another (there is NO WAY she will beat Obama by anything above single digits, which she would need to stop the obvious momentum seen in his improving numbers), she will begin to lose major credibility, and her fundraising will dry up, along with the Party heads calling for unification of the Party.  

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
McCain used to be dead, too (4.00 / 1)
There's always the chance that a campaign will implode.  Obama has faced zero media scrutiny and zero Republican attacks.  Once he secures the nomination, Obamamania will become yesterday's news, and the focus will shift to Obama himself.  He's running as the charisma candidate, but I don't think that will be enough to defeat John McCain. The Republicans will take him apart and put him back together to their liking. Clinton can beat McCain on substance, regardless of rehashed Ken Starr stories.
If I Were Advising Clinton, (4.00 / 1)
I would say that, assuming she wins Ohio and Pennsy., she hang in until well into the Summer, betting that a severe case of Party buyers' remorse with Obama will have set in.  Obama will be coming under harsh press scrutiny, attacks from the Republican gutter, etc., and might not hold up well.  It would be a long shot for Clinton.
would that path hurt Obama's chances (0.00 / 0)
in November more that a Clinton departure from the race on 3/4 (assuming Obama will be the nominee)? I think it would.

So while there might be a small chance for Clinton if she hangs around, there would be a notable downside for the Democratic party.

We are better off without her attacks. Let the attacks come from the Republicans.

[ Parent ]
I don't see how she can continue after March 4th. (0.00 / 0)
She is being humiliated in all corners and that noise will only grow louder and louder.  
SUSA (0.00 / 0)
teases their new Ohio poll this morning, saying Clinton has a 22% lead among those who have voted early - which is a 2 point increase over their last poll.

The tease says "but" and doesn't finish the sentence, which is pretty mean thing to do to us poll junkies.

Obama Continues To Rise In Texas | 32 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox