Nearly Final Ohio and Texas Polls--Updated

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 03:13


New polls this morning from Suffolk in Ohio, Public Strategies in Texas (PDF), and Zogby in both states. Looking only at the seven Texas polls conducted since Wednesday, here is the current average in Texas:

Texas, 2/27-3/2, seven polls
Obama: 46.6%
Clinton: 45.7%

That is a real nailbiter. I think Obama will pull it out, because there are more indications that early voting favors him than Clinton, and because he tends to outperform polling more often than Clinton. However, both candidates still clearly have a shot to win the primary portion of the Texas nominating contest, which could be the difference to Clinton staying in the campaign after Tuesday, and Obama becoming the presumptive nominee.

Ohio tells a different story, one where Clinton is favored:

Ohio, 2/26-3/2, six nine polls
Clinton: 49.4%
Obama: 42.7%

Obama made up a lot of ground in Ohio, but it does not appear to be enough. With significant early voting underway, it would be a real shock if he won here. Zogby shows him moving ahead in the state--the first poll to do so--but Suffolk still shows Clinton up by 12%. My feeling is that both polls are wrong, and the truth lies in between. I expect Clinton to win Ohio by 3-5%, which puts a lot of pressure on Texas to decide whether the nomination campaign moves forward or not.

For more polls, always check out Pollster.com.

Update: A wave of new Ohio polls was just released, all showing Clinton ahead:

Survey USA: Clinton 54%--44% Obama
PPP: Clinton 51%--42% Obama
Rasmussen: Clinton 50%--44% Obama
Q-poll: Clinton 49%--45% Obama

Clinton appears to have Ohio in hand. The new, nine-poll average in the state shows her ahead Clinton 49.4%--42.7% Obama. Also, one new poll from Texas:

Rasmussen: Obama 48%--47% Clinton

The new average in Texas shows Obama 46.6%--45.7% Clinton. There has been favorable movement for Clinton in a few recent polls there, giving her a chance to win the primary portion of the vote. I also suspect that she should do better in the caucus than she did in any February caucus state, with the exception of New Mexico.
Chris Bowers :: Nearly Final Ohio and Texas Polls--Updated

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nearly Final Ohio and Texas Polls--Updated | 65 comments
Hillary Clinton's victory speech (0.00 / 0)
Expect to see it at around 8pm EST when polls in Texas are still open, if (unreleased) exit polls show her losing Texas.

If that happens, I don't think the media will buy her spin. I think their pundits will see a Texas win (popular vote) by Obama as the last step of winning the nomination and will call Clinton's campaign over.

If that happens, much will depend on the amount of party and superdelegate pressure on her in the following day. I think she will drop out and endorse Obama within a day or so, otherwise she'll have to endure losses in Wyoming (will she win Guam?) and Mississippi and possibly see Obama gain enough superdelegates to close the deal before even coming to PA... sorry Chris, I know you want to have a real vote this time :)

Not so sure (0.00 / 0)
She's going to win Ohio and Rhode Island, and probably Pennsylvania if it gets that far. So unless he wins a blowout in Texas, I suspect that she's staying in, even though she'll probably lose the nomination. I just don't see her dropping out until then. Something about presidential candidates from Arkansas not reading the writing on the wall...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Agree with your call of the states, but... (0.00 / 0)
I too think she will win Ohio and RI, as well as PA if it gets that far. I just don't think it will get that far, and not because of a blowout in Texas either. The media has kept her alive. Talking to people who are not political junkies, no one even realizes how far behind she is in delegate terms. She needs 3.5 more Californias or 2.5 more New Yorks to catch up!

Media pundits have been speculating on her ability to catch up recently and most seem to conclude that March 4th is her best chance to make up some of that delegate deficit. If she wins the popular vote in TX (in addition to OH), which I doubt, then she'll have the "big state" narrative going for her and will stay in. Otherwise, the delegate count at the end of the night will show her as far behind as she was the previous day. I think at that point, the media will call it done and some Democrats who have thus far stayed out, will start getting involved. Richardson was hinting that he'll be one such person, and I'm sure there will be many others.

Some people have started speculating about a deliberate strategy on her part to sabotage Obama and set herself up for a 2012 run, if she sees no winning scenario for herself this year. I think such speculation is premature at this point, but be ready to hear much more of it if she neither catches up on the delegate count or drops out.

[ Parent ]
Clinton campaign is pushing hard.... (0.00 / 0)
on Obama with NAFTA and the CTV article on NAFTA as they should. (MI), Ohio and PA have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result of trade. Texas is not happy about the NAFTA super highway either.  IF Hillary can get a word in edgewise, I think she can cook his goose.

As much as I don't want either candidate and have tried to "accept" Obama, I just can't.  I do not trust him.   From day one he brought Elmer Gantry to my mind, and I cannot shake it.  Hagel in his cabinet?  Like there are no Democrats who are good on the military and national defense?  Talk about reinforcing a right wing talking point.  

IMO, Obama is a big mistake; and he is going to make Bill Clinton's Presidency look liberal.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
wow (0.00 / 0)
I guess I should flog myself for my vote, because Obama is a big mistake,  Bill Clinton is a megalomaniac liar, and his wife is just as bad. I will take my chances with Obama.
As for goose being cooked, you would love Hillary to do that so you can have 4 more years to complain about a  Republican presidency, Pathetic...NO SALE
[ Parent ]
re: wow (0.00 / 0)
I with you.  As Hillary likes to point out it's all about the actions not the speeches.

Jeff Rosen wrote this in the NY Times last Saturday:

Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine - a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

Now Hillary supports the changes to this Reagan era law going forward but is so afraid of being attacked as soft on crime that she would allow people to rot in jail for her own political gain.  Craven is the most polite word that comes to my mind.

[ Parent ]
As I said, I'm not with either of them. (0.00 / 0)
I was Edwards, and I just can't find a replacement.  I'm in MI, I voted for Romney.  Why?  Well, no one was on our ballot, and I didn't want to give Hillary my vote.  Undecided would have ended up with her anyway.  

I guess this means that I really don't care who wins as long as it isn't McCain; and after 8 years of W., I just can't imagine why anyone would vote for McCain - HRC or not.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I don't like the Hagel notion either, (4.00 / 1)
but at least he's not a war criminal. Unlike Colin Powell, who Clinton would send around the world as the shining example of what's best in America. Either one will be "reaching across the aisle", so we might as well just get used to it -- it's a long and dominant tradition. I think Obama is still something of a mystery, but the problem with Hillary is that she isn't. We already know what happens with a president who obsessively gives away the store for nothing.
[ Parent ]
For some time Hagel has struck me (0.00 / 0)
as a possibly good choice for VA, perhaps ambassador to Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia. Otherwise, I hope that Obama's just trying to win over some moderate GOP voters and right-leaning indies, and perhaps pander to the High Broderite crowd to neutralize their noisemaking ability in the general, or at least make them a tad less McCain-loving.

The problem, though, is that even if this is what he's doing, as has been pointed out, he's setting himself up to disappoint either the left or the center-right if he gets elected, because he's not going to be able to please both enough to placate them once all these rhetorical checks have to be cashed. I don't know if I don't "trust" him so much as I have worries about his longer-term political acumen (i.e. in a governing sense, and not just in terms of getting elected).

One thing's for sure, if he gets the nomination, he's in for a real shitstorm from the right, and if he wins, he's in for a real shitstorm from the right AND left, and will have some major getting up to speed quick on being president as he tries to please both factions. He's not going to have the two years that Clinton had to screw things up.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Choice soon no longer hers... (4.00 / 1)
Great stuff.  But it seems to me that at a certain point, the decision is no longer hers to make about staying in.  I agree that the March 4th narrative has caused many to forget the real delegate deficit confronting her.  Without blowout wins in Ohio and Texas, the mathematics stays the same and will come to the fore as people try to discern what possible path towards the nomination remains for her.  Even with modest victories in TX and OH, she will doubtless stay in, and she may well get "big state" bump in terms of media perception for a few days.  But with the unfavorable delegate math confronting her, and with six weeks remaining until another state that "counts", I think the party starts to slip away from her with increasing speed.  She could dig her heels in and try to take it to the convention, but that doesn't mean she will continue to have the support of the party rank and file, office holders, donors and 2008 down ticket candidates. Do all these folks really want six more weeks of ads like the phone ringing at 3am, that is, six weeks of traditional Dem circular firing squad.  And when they look at the delegate numbers, do they really relish the kind of fight it would take to secure a majority of delegates for Hillary.  In a weird way, victories for her tomorrow might even speed this process up since it necessitates a look at how we go forward, "precisely" how she can secure a majority of delegates at the convention given the coming electoral landscape and the nature of Dem primaries.  So I say she goes on after tomorrow even if she wins one of the big ones, but even with that the party starts to fall in line behind Obama within the next week.  
[ Parent ]
He's only down 7 in Pennsylvania- RIGHT NOW (4.00 / 4)
And he'll have 6 weeks to campaign?

No, I wouldn't give her PA - at all.  

[ Parent ]
I think she won Ohio tonight on 60 Minutes (0.00 / 0)
The way it was edited made her look more anti-NAFTA and willing to renegotiate it and put up tarrifs than Obama, who said something about it not being practical to put up a moat around the country. That's going to cost him in Ohio. If I was an out of work or just barely getting by Ohio worker, he would have lost me on that one.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
Who watches 60 Minutes anymore? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
kovie does (0.00 / 0)
just kidding. ;)

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I will misremember that ;-) (0.00 / 0)


"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
old white people who vote (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Isn't that O"Falafel's .. (0.00 / 0)
demographic too(by a country mile)?
[ Parent ]
suffolk is awful (4.00 / 3)
check out its demo breakdowns:

Independent/Undelcared 9%

Black  8%

18-25 2%
26-35 4%
36-45 10%

Pollster.com's examination of the recent Ohio polls shows:

non-Dems in 11 polls from 17% to 26%.

Black turnout in 12 polls at 12% to 22%.

18-45 turnout in 5 polls at 26% to 46%.

details here: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/...

also, I'm not sure if you are including the Columbus Dispatch poll, but you might consider removing it, since it polls only registered Dems, not independents (or non-partisans, as they are called in OH). See Blumenthal for details:
Polling a Semi-Open Primary as Closed
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/...

You said it for me (0.00 / 0)
Well put.
[ Parent ]
No Kidding (0.00 / 0)
I'm surprised RCP, Pollster or Chris included this.  The Rabid Hillary lot on MyDD are going apeshit about this poll and the Columbus mail in poll which also undersamples Obama's base.  2%?  At that point Suffolk should have tossed it out.
[ Parent ]
Ohio cf. Wisconsin (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to see Mark Blumenthal write a follow-up article to the one he wrote a while back regarding the demographics of Ohio versus Wisconsin. Specifically, why hasn't Ohio followed the same trajectory?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
Wisconsin has a history of being considered a reform state (0.00 / 0)
Reform minded candidates generally do well there.  It's where the Progressive movement started in the 1900's, and is also represented by Senator Feingold.  Like Ohio, it is a swing state, and has similar demographics.  However, the Democratic electorate in Wisconsin has consistently been shown to be hospital to reformist candidacies like Obama's.
[ Parent ]
*hospitable n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I can't call it, because of other factors (4.00 / 1)
Yes, Obama exceeds polls, if momo is clear till the end in the polls. But he was up 4-6 pts in TX a week ago and this suggests Clinton's reversed that. With 8% undecided, how will they break?

In OH, he was close, at 4-6 pts down, but Clinton has widened the gap. With both trends favoring Clinton, there is a chance she'll win both.

Also, both campaigns have internal pollsters. And while they all put on game faces, I sense the Obama team is concerned, because they're resorting to "she won't gain much in delegates even with narrow wins." (I paraphrase).

They're correct in that, but saying it at all sent my antenna up.

However.... we'll have more accurate polls from others today, so we'd better wait for that.

If Clinton wins both, she gets to maintain her big state argument, claim momentum though she's going to lose WY and MS, erasing ant delegate gain from March 4.

It'll mean I'll sudestep comment threads till PA, as they'll all go stupid again. If...

Damn, I hope I'm reading things wrong, because I hate the idea of this all going to June and contending with FL, MI and superdelegate issue crap.

you are (4.00 / 1)
You are reading things wrong.  He was up by 4-6 in some very unreputable polls.  The average has never had him up by much.

As for Ohio, the average is tainted by that terrible suffolk poll and a few others.  I'd be curious to see what happens when it is dropped.  Look at averages NOT indivudual polls.

[ Parent ]
I'm sticking to my slow-motion beatdown theory (0.00 / 0)
The polls got it wrong, I tell ya. Obama sweeps all four.
I Can See Hillary (0.00 / 0)
going on with a slight popular loss in Texas, and a win in Ohio.  She will argue that Obama, together with his union allies, outspent her 2-3-4 to 1, and that if this is all he can manage with that kind of lopsided advantage, it is a victory for her.

it's Clinton not Texas (0.00 / 0)
The pressure is more on the Clinton campaign than on Texas. The end result of Tuesday's vote is sure to be close to a wash in delegates if not an increase for Barack. Given Obama's current delegate lead it's already implausible for her to win the nomination except by getting Michigan's and Florida's delegates seated and winning a huge percentage of remaining superdelegates. Texas merely reconfirms what we already know.
how on earth would a 6% margin in one state be enough (4.00 / 1)
this is just madness. I'll give the Hillary team credit, they've someone convinced everyone to think that a 6% victory in Ohio is big win. Well it's not. Its a pathetic loss. She's going to lose Texas both in popular vote as well as delegate vote, and she's going to barely win in Ohio. HRC needed 15%+ margins in BOTH states to be viable, and she needs those margins in remaining states to the end of the primary. It's simply not possible, and for the slow kids in school Tuesday will be the writing on the wall. The story here is she can't pull it together, she's a lame duck candidate who can only win through nefarious means (superdels) at best.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
The media wants a race. (0.00 / 0)
I watched the mainstream news channels for the first time in a while last weekend (for longer than a few minutes). I need to do that more often.

The superficial media is more lazy and horse-race-y than anything else; given that perspective, their choice to portray tomorrow's contests as the next chapter in the evenly-contested Clinton-Obama battle royale is understandable.

Unfortunately for the consumer of superficial media, it's also inaccurate. This race has been Obama's to lose for at least a month, and maybe two.  

[ Parent ]
I realize that I'm stating the obvious, here, (4.00 / 1)
but think about all those tens of millions of donor dollars pouring into Texas and Ohio on our side (the blue team).  Ads on TV and radio, sure, but also all of the news coverage, the snail mail, the organizers, the lawn signs, the chatter at workplaces, the canvassers, the new voters, the organizational structures, the local state party hierarchy...  Wow.  Given that H and B have not been running the kind of dirty campaign that flings the other candidate into the mud (it's been dirty, but not that dirty), can this lengthened primary season be anything but a net positive for the Dems?  For both long-term strategy as well as the general in November?  And for Obama, this long process of hard-won victory after hard-won victory has given his campaign, down to the canvasser and individual donor, the kind of experience, confidence and motivation that is going to wash McCain right off the electoral map.  Maybe he won't win Texas, [in the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen in Talladega Nights], "but maybe....juuuuuust maybe...."

I'm feeling refreshed.  Or maybe somebody put a little something extra in my coffee this morning.

Now if we could just get Obama to actually govern as a progressive...

Kicking it in the NY-25.

O is making more of this than H (0.00 / 0)
I was thinking the opposite that this was an incredible waste of money, so much donated and wasted on this infighting. But your's seems like a good observation that the O team is getting lots of canvasing and coordinating experience out of this, as well as building bases of support in most states. HRC can't been getting as much as O out of the process since she doesn't both to try to compete in most states.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Zogby has Obama ahead 47-45 (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't count out a victory for him quite yet - especially with the kind of incredible ground game and phone calling that's going on in Ohio.

Ohio:
Obama 47% (+1)
Clinton 45% (-2)

Texas:
Obama 47% (+0)
Clinton 44% (+1)

Heh Heh-heh, you said Zogby, heh heh-heh (4.00 / 1)


Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
The Zogby internals are not believable (4.00 / 2)
they show very little gender gap - something that everyone else is finding, and something that has appeared in every other poll.
[ Parent ]
Zogby has Gravel polling at 2% in Texas (0.00 / 0)
His polls remain useless.
[ Parent ]
The Referees Should Call The Match (0.00 / 0)
This is like the Olympic Trials in boxing. The point is to determine who is the best contender to face the opposition in the Olympics. In boxing you decide on points or a knock out. Absent a knock out, points win. At this point, Hillary can't win on points - the question is should she be allowed to go on and try to knock Obama out (which it is not clear how that would even happen). A HUGE scandal??? BIG Wins???? The game has rules. Narrow wins in big states, show us nothing, accomplish nothing. She blew the earlier rounds.

Now, the match is getting bloodier and bloodier. Meanwhile the opponent from the other country has already been chosen, is resting up and hanging out outside the ropes taking pot shots at the guy with the most points. It's going to be very hard for the guy with the most points to recuperate from the match in order to beat the opponent from the other country.

At some point the referees have got to step in and say this has got to stop.  

The referees have to stop it, huh? (0.00 / 0)
Just like the Supreme Court did in 2000?

The hypocrisy around here is mind-blowing.

[ Parent ]
APPLES AND ORANGES (0.00 / 0)
The Supreme court stepped in to prevent votes from being counted that had already been cast in the National election between the two parties. No one is preventing votes from being counted. Rather, the opposite - all the votes are being counted and looking at all those that remain to be cast, Hillary can not succeed. BIG BIG difference.

This is a Party matter where the Party referees (superdelegates under the current rules) determine what is best for the Party. The Party is trying to pick a nominee. It is an adversarial process but having the two opponents tear each other apart is not the point of the match.  

[ Parent ]
Tell that to the Democrats in Florida and Michigan. (0.00 / 0)
And even putting that aside, you are saying this is ok because instead of not counting votes already cast, this would "just" be about preventing people from casting votes in the first place.  

I have no desire to try to make you see your hypcrisy; I just hope someone out there sees this for what it is.  Good luck to you.

[ Parent ]
Good Luck To You Too (4.00 / 1)
You want to count votes in MI where Obama wasn't even on the ballot? Let's do FLA and MICH over. Fine. No problem. Problem is even under the best of scenarios Obama still has more pledged delegatesafter the do over. But please let's continue to call people "hypochrits" for pointing this out.
[ Parent ]
Ohio isn't as close (0.00 / 0)
as it appears, and I think Clinton has clear momentum.

The Ohio Poll re-sampled over the weekend, and shows it Clinton 52, Obama 41 - close to the 12 point margin in the Suffolk Poll.  Rassmussen is out with a new poll showing Clinton up 6, 50-44 from their prior poll of 47-45.

I find it interesting in these three polls that Clinton is at 50, and Quinnipiac has her at 49.

My guess is we are about to be very surprised by the size of Clinton's win in Ohio.

This means Obama has to win Texas to prevent Clinton getting some decent momentum out of tomorrow.

This in turn will move the polling in the later races.

Here is the Ohio poll link.
http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.asp?...

SUSA: Clinton leads 54-44 (0.00 / 0)
As I said above, Clinton is going to win by more than 10 in Ohio.

[ Parent ]
Did This Come Out today? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
It just came out.
[ Parent ]
Ohio will be close. (4.00 / 1)
Black turnout will be closer to 25% (of the total) than the 15-20% assumed by most of these polls.

Moreover, while current Ohio polling shows Obama getting about 75% of the black vote, said vote will break relatively hard at the end for Obama as it did in the Beltway primaries. Obama will clear 80% of the black vote in Ohio. The same thing happened in the Beltway primaries (both with respect to underestimated black turnout and underestimated % support for Obama among blacks).

That's about 5 extra points for Obama that don't show up in the polls. Combined with an edge in GOTV, it adds up to a very close race. I'd be surprised if either candidate won by more than 5 points.    

[ Parent ]
fladem interesting (0.00 / 0)
Surprised huh?

I think we will be surprised, but not in the way you are calling it.


[ Parent ]
Nope (0.00 / 0)
It's Obama's to lose until otherwise notified. He's won 11 in a row and the pollsters have proven themselves incapable of capturing what is happening. I'll put my chips on Obama rather than then the pollsters.

Obama sweeps.

[ Parent ]
I know what may be (0.00 / 0)
giving the Clinton campaign all kinds of headaches in Texas.  We all know she is dependent on low-income, low-information, women, and latinos... Well my mother an I each called 100 voters.  I called a West Austin Upper-class neighborhood, I had 6 disconnected numbers 17 Obama people, 4 Gop, and 3 Hillary... My Mother, however, called a mostly latino, low-income, area and has 40 disconnected numbers, yes 40!, and still had more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters.  

Both campaigns are using the voter registration numbers provided - according to a friend phonebanking for her, but low-income voters move a lot more, don't pay their phone bills, or have switched in the last couple years to cell-phones.  And very few of these voters know about the caucus.  Thus, Hillary's huge organization disadvantage.  She cannot contact half of her voters.

please add Rassmussen C50-O44 and Quinnipiac to the mix. (0.00 / 0)
But most of all we learn (0.00 / 0)
yet again that the polls are absolute garbage.

The real issue now is, if Clinton loses TX, does she follow Bill's script and drop out, or does she try to wiggle out of it? Either way it looks bad for her. Staying in will in itself become a strong argument against her.

Delegate Count (0.00 / 0)
The real question is whether Hillary will net enough delegates to make a difference. In TX, the answer appears to be "no"; OH might give her a small bump. She'll try and spin the OH win as some kind of Roman triumph, but whether the media will buy it is an open question.
Delegates take a while to count (0.00 / 0)
The problem with delegates is that they take a while to count. Might not even have good estimates of the final delegate totals until 2 or 3am eastern. So, Obama's win on that front could come too late in the night to declare overall victory.

Winning Texas is very important to him, so the media narrative looks like a draw, which puts Clinton back on her heels.  

[ Parent ]
How not to report on polls (4.00 / 1)
I would have thought you political junkies would be savvy enough to be weary of weekend polls by now. They ALWAYS understate Obama's support for obvious demographic reasons.
And I would also suggest you guys take the time to read the actual crosstabs when they are provided. Two of those polls with the largest margins predict only 10% independents in the primary.
AS IF.

"nuff said.

I'm with you and (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure at all why this concept is being so routinely dismissed in here. Is there any evidence that the pollsters have monkeyed with their turnout projections in a sufficient way to capture this Obama wave? If not, then we can plausibly assume he'll overperform.

Is he down on average in the polls by 4 in Ohio? Then that means he wins by 4 (or more.)

[ Parent ]
I would not go that far (0.00 / 0)
But these polls have so many weird crosstabs (Hillary running even among Republicans ? Really ?) and were all taken this weekend.
I am not optimistic about him winning OH but 10-12 points is ridiculous
[ Parent ]
My question (0.00 / 0)
is this, taken from a SurveyUSA release today:

"2,000 state of Ohio adults were interviewed 03/01/08 and 03/02/08. Of them, 1,805 were registered to vote. Of them, 873 told SurveyUSA they had already voted, or were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote on Election Day."

When they say 'determined to be likely to vote,' what do they mean?  Do they discount those who have never voted in a primary before?  

basically, yes (0.00 / 0)
most pollsters ask a series of questions, meant to determine voting history and enthusiasm. Each house has a different way of ranking those answers, but in general, if a respondent answers that they have not voted in the past two major elections, they will be lower on the scale of being considered a "likely voter."
[ Parent ]
Ohio Results (0.00 / 0)
Just thought I'd pass on what I read on the Field.  Cuyahoga County, where Obama is expected to dominate, will not report until much later in the night based on their process for counting paper ballots.  It's going to be reminiscent of watching MO returns on 2/5.  Expect Obama to trail all night and expect to stay up late to get the real results.  Unless it's a blowout that can be called based on exit polls, expect the race to not be called early.  I also learned the OH is somewhat similar TX in that the delegate math favors Obama.

I'm not very good at focusing on the big picture right now so I say this for myself as much as for general commentary.  Tomorrow is going to be a delegate wash.  The math regarding her path to the nomination will be very clear.  It's her call to stay in or not.  But the media narrative will need to be clear...her only path is to overturn the pledged delegates and tear the party apart.  Richardson made this point very clearly yesterday and I suspect he's not alone.

How am I ever going to get any work done today???

Nearly Final Ohio and Texas Polls--Updated | 65 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox