« Hillary Spokesperson Wolfson Strongly Denies Campaign Officially Pushed Obama Turban Pic | Home | Gallup: Obama Holds Double-Digit National Lead For First Time »
Rasmussen: Texas Primary A Dead Heat
A new Rasmussen poll of Texas shows a statistical dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The results aren't too different from the last poll from four days ago:
Clinton 46% (-1)
Obama 45% (+1)
The two results are a big change, however, from the poll released 10 days ago — then it was Hillary 54%, Obama 38%.
Hillary leads by five points among women, who are projected to make up 57% of the Dem electorate, while Obama leads by seven with men. The poll also shows the age gap we've seen in many other states, with Hillary leading among voters over 50 and Obama winning voters under 50.
Advertisement
TPM You drew attention to the ARG poll in Ohio that shows Clinton with a lead, but you are still ignoring the ARG poll that shows Obama leading 50 to 42 over Hillary in Texas.
Why are you not giving that equal time to the ARG Ohio poll results.
Time for you to provide equal coverage.
February 25, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I went back into TPM's archives, and it appears that ARG has a horrible track record. Keep in mind that ARG was the pollster telling us of a double-digit Clinton lead in Iowa. Their track record in other instances has been, well, less than stellar.
Bottom line: there's over a week left, and the aggregate numbers are trending toward Obama. Good stuff.
February 25, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they posted something from texas. Now when they do a story like this about texas or any story about the early voting being through the roof, that will be something.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/casey/5563835.html
February 25, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about polls. All he has to do is win the popular vote in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania --just win the popular vote in one of those states, and he's the nominee. Sounds like a dead hog cinch.
February 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question for you Billy Glad, what do you think the dem establishment and right-wing corporate media would be saying if obama went 0 for 11 and was getting blown out by 20% or more, was behind over 150 delegates in the pledged delegates, had never won a primary by 20% or more, was required to win Texas, Ohio and PA by more than 20% in order to come close in pledged delegates, was losing 2 to 1 concerning state primaries over all? What would be the drum beat from the press and the dem establishment?
February 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the situation were reversed, we'd be saying all she needs to do is win the popular vote in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania to put it away. How hard can that be?
February 25, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, come on, if the situation were reversed everyone would have been screaming for obama to bail 5 primaries ago so that the clintons could take on the big ol mean republicans and start the general election contest. Nobody would be talking about needing a blow out in texas and ohio to start to make a dent in the clintons' lead or try to stop the momentum of the clintons.
February 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That if he lost Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania that the game would be up for him. Same thing they say about HRC.
In case you haven't noticed all the msm have all but written HRC off.
As I assume most sentient beings have.
February 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Clinton has to win by 20 points in Texas and Ohio to make a real dent in his pledged delegate count. Trying to move the goal posts is an old trick, but a trick nonetheless.
February 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. They've already moved. It's popular votes and super delegates now. But how can he lose? All he has to do is win the popular vote in one of three states: Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. A walk in the park. Relax.
February 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
All he has to do is win the popular vote in one of three states
Nonsensical goal-post moving HRC spin. All he has to do is finish ahead in pledged delegates. You are claiming that if HRC eeks out 1% point wins in Texas (where the primary only counts 2/3), Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and Obama wins his usual crushing victories in all other states, increasing his lead in pledged delegates by another 50 or so, that HRC wins the nomination. Nonsense.
February 27, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very few people seem to have noticed that Obama hasn't just been on a winning streak lately, or even winning by big margins (though he has), but he's also been significantly outperforming his polling.
If we can extrapolate election results from polls, this means, what, a 10-point Obama victory in Texas?
February 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the spirit!
February 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I posted in the Ohio thread, ARG has a spotty record for accuracy and most sites post but don't really comment or use them much for that reason.
However, the poll that has Clinton up by only 4 points is interesting along with this poll.
It looks like Obama will win TX, lets face it - unless he does a nosedive in the debate tomorrow, Obama will win TX. Polls have been consistently under polling Obama's leads by at least 5pts over the last 10 contests because it is difficult to account for new voters & turnout. With a week to go and a lot of momentum, anything less than a 10 pt lead is a win.
Ohio will be a more difficult task but without a doubt he is closing the gap. If he wins TX & VT and draws in OH, HRC is done. Mathematically she needs to win by at least 20 pts to gain enough delegates to begin to catch Obama - which accoridng to these polls she isn't going to do. I can see her drawing this out if she wins OH by more than 5 pts but under is a draw and she is done.
February 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he wins the popular vote in Texas, he doesn't have to win anything else.
February 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't have to win the popular vote. He has to keep her pledged delegate pick up to a minimum. The popular vote is meaningless at this point.
Pledged Delegates is all that matter now.
February 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know billy glad, it seems that the clintons are preparing for a texas loss and an ohio squeaker and they will continue. That's the way the goal posts have been moving.
February 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that matter as much, but any polling on RI or VT?
February 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that *they* matter as much...
February 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw one for vermont and it was like 70/30 or 65/35 in favor of obama. Also, I saw a rhode island one with clinton up 50 something to 40 something. Don't have the links though, but both were recent.
February 25, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARG did. They have a 12 pt Clinton lead in RI, and an Obama blowout in VT (60-34). pollster.com has the full goods.
February 25, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pollster.com has done polls in all four states.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_for_tx_oh_vt_ri.php
February 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't need to win Texas or Ohio. All he has to do is keep the numbers close and limit her pledged delegate pick up to a minimum. On the other hand, she has to win by 20 points to keep this thing competitive going forward.
Again: Obama doesn't have to win, he just has to be competitive and limit his losses.
February 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. He has to win the popular vote in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania, or she will be the nominee. In your heart you know I'm right.
February 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, Billy. Mathematically, that's not true, and no one else seems to be setting that particular expectation. He just needs to stay close in delegates. This "big state" narrative is just created by the campaign, but in reality, well, it's the delegates, stupid--or, size doesn't matter. Of course now it's all about spinning the supers, but with polls showing Obama is doing well--better than Hillary even--in NY and CA, I don't know if you can argue he can't win those states. Not that that was ever really a good argument. (Now, I grant you they are just polls, but we're all trafficking in hypotheticals.)
February 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I'm not buying this spin. Just winning the popular vote is no the point in a porportional delegate system. If this were the Republican primary, I would disagree with you one wit, but it's not and I do.
Obama can win the pledged delegate count without winning the popular vote. Stay close with the popular vote and out organize to win the caucus. Recall, delegates are awared 2/3rds primary, 1/3 caucus.
HRC needs to win Texas not just by 1% of the popular vote, she needs to win by 20 points to effect the pledged delegate count. A small victory is meaningless at this point.
February 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just not true. If she loses Texas or Ohio, the super delegates are going to start abandoning her. There's powerful psychology at work here. If Hillary loses either state on the 4th, Mark Penn is out and reality is in.
February 27, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually if HRC wins Texas and Ohio she gets to stay in the game by dint of winning "big" states. Yes, I realize it means little but that is the reality.
On the other hand a loss in Texas or Ohio and her funding will really dry up and she will, minimally, all but suspend her campaign.
It's not if but when so let the kids play.
February 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that's not what Billy is saying. Billy says that an Obama victory in Texas is is sufficient to clinch the nomination. It's not necessary--there are other ways for him to do it. But if he wins in Texas, the fat lady has sung.
February 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't need to win Texas or Ohio. All he has to do is keep the numbers close and limit her pledged delegate pick up to a minimum. On the other hand, she has to win by 20 points to keep this thing competitive going forward.
Actually I agree with Billy's assessment: he does need to win TX, OH, or PA. But that's to put this thing away. If he doesn't win one of them, then I think there's a good chance she'll stay in longer. Obviously if their positions were reversed, he'd be out by now, but that's the rub about taking on the presumptive nominee--Barack's got a higher bar than Hillary.
And just to be clear, I think he may win by low double digits in TX next week.
February 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton said that Hillery must win Texas or she can not win the nomination.
February 25, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. If she loses the popular vote in Texas she is toast. Michelle can dance on her grave. Flys will walk on her eyeballs. And all that jazz.
February 25, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He also said that he did not have sexual relations with that woman (finger wag). Do you believe anything that he says? I don't.
February 25, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, EC, what's up with the very outdated CALENDER to the right on this page?
February 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this respect, I do suspect the coverage in the MSM is pretty much the same as it would be if the situations were reversed. Despite some conspiracy theories to the contrary (from both HRC and BHO supporters), what the MSM wants above all is ratings. The appearance of a "close" race, or at least one that either party can still win, is highly beneficial to them - as soon as there is a nominee, interest amongst the general public dies down a bit until the convention in August.
February 25, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
During Hillary's contrived outrage, on Saturday, about Obama mailers in Ohio
Pun alert: What I call her Feigning of the Shrew performance.
She demanded that Obama stop holding big rallies, and giving speeches to those big rallies.
I just loved that part:
Hillary dictating to Senator Obama to stop allowing all those people from coming to hear you speak.
She truly is a tireless Warrior Queen when it comes to defending freedom of speech and civil liberties.
February 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh but wait! Texas doesn't count! (according to Bill)...
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/25/texas-doesn-t-count.aspx
February 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between the Texas poll and the polls that had underestimated Obama's position in past contests is the dramatically increased latino vote in Texas. Given how hard it is to predict turnout in these contests, in particular among specific ethic groups, the Texas poll could be wrong either way - depending on how it weighs the relative predicted turnout of specific groups. The past states (except CA - where he may have actually been overestimated in polls) didn't have this kind of latino population. That, to me, makes these polls completely unreliable.
February 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh but wait! Texas doesn't count! (according to Bill)...
Next week is going to be fun...
February 25, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note to TPM: Check out the lob, Movable type returned a server error message when I first posted - bugs, bugs, bugs...
February 25, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the actual numbers, which are still in flux. It's the trendlines. Obama's line in TX, which Greg D aptly called "on viagra" in another post, just crossed Clinton's and hasn't peaked, but they're both near 50% now, so there's not much room to go up unless he eats into Clinton's support.
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
In OH, they're both on upward slopes, with Obama rising slightly faster. There's more room for upward mobility than in TX, but at least one of them will have to level off soon.
http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
But it's bad news for Clinton, even if she pulls off both states, since she needs decisive wins to catch up to Obama.
February 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly faster? Good Lord and butter, the first derivative of his slope has to be double (at least) the first derivative of hers. Meanwhile, at the risk of seeming rash, I agree with your claim that at least one of them has to level off soon, and I feel fairly confident in asserting that it is hers. He has been eating into her base in recent elections; she has not been even nibbling gingerly at his. I cannot yet bring myself to predict confidently that he will win OH, but I am expecting him to win TX outright and if he loses OH I am willing to say that it will be a narrow squeaker. A week and a day, however, might still be enough for him to take the popular vote lead in OH and leave her nothing but Rhode Island.
February 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg D, I notice that some of your posts have taken on a folksy shade as of late. Good Lord and butter? Are you gearing up for TX, or is it b/c I poked your post about the classical/biblical allusions. (I'm still waiting for a reference to Sumerian mythology.)
:)
February 25, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can a post which treats on the first derivatives of trendline slopes really qualify as "folksy"?
;-p
February 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It depends how you pronounce "derivatives". "Dervtives" would be folksy. Like "nuculer".
February 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Texas win does not seem to me to be enough to end the race. If March 4 turns out to be a TX-VT and OH-RI split Clinton will have plausible grounds to "soldier on" to PA. Hardcore Clintonites will start opening their wallets again. PA and what follows will be MUCH nastier than what we see now. By then we'll start hearing about slum lord Rezco's sweet property deal for Obama. At that point the Clinton psychology will be: "If I can't get it, it won't be worth having. " No, he has to win TX, OH, and VT to end it now, otherwise....
BTW, is the property deal for real? Before today, I thought the only connection was campaign money.
February 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
more EXCELLENT NEWS!!! for HILLARY!!!
!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!
February 25, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that is always good to note on these polls are the dates that they were doing the polling (not the release date). Even a few days can make a difference. This poll and the PPP poll in OH are the most 'current' in terms of polling dates.
The PPP OH poll was done the 23-24 and this poll was conducted the 24th. The Quinnipiac poll was conducted the 18-23rd.
February 25, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has lost eleven in a row. She will not withdraw even if she gets hammered in both Texas and Ohio. It is not in her nature.
Hillary is the Black Knight in Quest for the Holy Grail
February 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Survey USA will be releasing a poll tonight on the early voting in Texas. Since they've been the most reliable overall so far, this will be one to watch:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/25/newest-tx-democratic-primary-poll-to-be-released/
February 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info. Now this will be interesting and explain alot about what has been going on the last couple of days in the clintons' camp. I'll bet a lunch that the early voting poll results show obama up by double digits.
February 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not be surprised if you are right about that (so I will not bet against you). One way or another, however, I am delighted to know that another poll will be coming out tonight. I am simply ravenous for TX poll results right now. I have such a good feeling right now about our chances in TX on Mar 4.
February 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm dying for info as well. I have been scouring the web for texas info on early polling. There are videos from news organizations in texas that are pretty amazing. People are going nuts voting and the turnout numbers are phenominal. I think texas looks really good, the problem is that if he doesn't score in texas and ohio, I fear that this will drag on and on, notwithstanding the mathematical impossiblity of the clintons' position. It really is damaging to the party to have mr. bill out there trashing the prospective dem nominee on a daily basis.
February 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Obama will win regardless, but it is best if he can win in her "firewalls" so that this realization is brought inescapably home to even the most die-hard of Clinton's advisers. The sooner that this primary campaign's focus can be re-oriented towards the GE match-up against McCain, the better.
February 25, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The SurveyUSA poll sounds like an exit poll for a quarter of the Texas electorate, 8 days before the election! Is right? I mean both is that correct and, uh, proper? What will it mean for all the people who haven't voted. For example, Obama polls 55% to Clinton's 45%, and the Obama people who haven't voted yet shout "Hooray! We won" -- and then decide not to vote, no need to both! I don't like the sound of it. Not at all.
February 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few weeks ago I was at a dinner party at a friend's house and one of the other guests was a lawyer in the public defender's office in Columbia MO (home of the Univ of MO). She was telling me how she had a client for whom she was trying to negotiate a plea bargain and he would not accept the bargain because it would involve him pleading to a felony, which would make him ineligible to vote. He told her "no way, I have to be able to vote for Obama."
I realize that this is just an anecdote, but I dare say that this sort of thinking is quite common among Obama's supporters. Many of us do not just support him; we are positively giddy about doing so. As such, I am not especially worried that early signs of success would depress crucial later turn-out among his supporters. Quite the opposite; I suspect that early signs of success would simply feed the giddiness resulting in even more entheusiasm and even higher turnout among his supporters. Such is the happy dynamics of Obama's support so far.
February 25, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are good questions. I have opened my own thread on the effects of this poll.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/polling-early-voting.php
February 25, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have noticed RCP is selective in their use of polling, some of the polling done by ARG and PPP are not included in their polling averages. Also, I got the impression that they have a bias favorable to republicans, and right wings nuts.
February 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama just crossed over in Pollster's aggregated results:
http://www.pollster.com/08-TX-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
February 25, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idiotic, I love you. You always make me laugh.
February 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
MUST READ. Insightful analysis of the revealing exchange between Dems in Texas last week.....
http://blog.psaonline.org/2008/02/25/the-clinton-obama-exchange-you-might-have-missed/
February 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
... the first derivative of his slope ...
The first derivative is the slope:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slope
February 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you are right. I should have said the first derivative of the function which yielded the trendline.
February 25, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. that was supposed to be a reply to Greg about 20 posts up ... just trying to teach a little math to y'all.
Speaking of which, the pollster.com trend lines appear to be human guesswork, not any sort of actual regression ... anyone delved into their minutiae deeply enough to know if this is right?
February 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like this description "human guesswork" concerning pollster.com, which can basically describe any and all polling. It's all human guesswork.
February 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I know nothing specific, but I sort of assumed that they were fitting a regression equation to all of those disparate data points, just like I would do if I had a whole mess of data points from a time course experiment, or some such.
February 25, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
She may want to soldier on, but any army marches on its stomach and if there's no money to fund her madness, she won't soldier very far.
February 27, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, equal coverage isn't necessary. Obama is winning, Hillary is losing. The polls don't change that fact.
But you might be interested in this:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/02/06/2008-pollster-report-card-through-super-tuesday-includes-all-pollsters/
February 27, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink