« Hillary Mailer In Wisconsin Hits Obama On "Present" Votes | Home | Another Example Surfaces Of Obama-Patrick Rhetorical Overlap »
SurveyUSA: Hillary's Ohio Primary Lead Shrinks To Nine Points
A new SurveyUSA poll gives Hillary Clinton a nine-point lead over Barack Obama in the Ohio primary — quite a bit less than the 17-point lead she had in their poll from just a week ago:
Clinton 52% (-4)
Obama 43% (+4)
Hillary would need big wins in Ohio and Texas on March 4, if she wants to really narrow Obama's current lead in pledged delegates. As it stands right now, Texas is a dead heat and Ohio now appears to be tightening.
Advertisement















It's about Wisconsin. Obama wins, he's in the driver's seat. He loses, all hell breaks loose.
February 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did anyone actually expect her to hold onto the leads she had there? We see Obama consistently given an advantage any time he's allowed a little while to campaign in a given state (exception of New Hampshire and lord knows what the hell happened there...). Ah well. Gobama, I guess.
February 19, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama had five days in NH. All efforts will focused in iowa. That he closed the HRC lead to three points was astounding, and not reported.
February 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree. With a Wisconsin win, he may have enough juice to get close enough in Ohio to blunt her edge there and maybe squeak by in Texas.
Lose Wisconsin? If he does, all bets are off and I think she rolls into March 4th with a full head of steam.
February 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also agree.
February 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the concepts of "winning" and "losing" are pretty irrelevant with the proportional system in place in these primaries. Any "win" of Wisconsin by either candidate today will probably be a narrow one and won't make a big difference delegate-wise.
The only possible difference is the media narrative, and I don't know how much that will really factor in, either. I really think all Obama has to do on March 4 is lose by a narrow margin and he's still in the driver's seat.
The caveat to all this is a win in Wisconsin today and wins in Texas and/or Ohio could be a knock-out punch for Obama, so the fact that Wisconsin either sets up or precludes that scenario (depending on the results) is important.
February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad I gave up beer for Lent, because I would really have enjoyed toasting Obama's victories in TX and OH with a good stout.
February 19, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what God made Hornsby's Cider for.
February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the way your mind works, Generica.
February 19, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I left the church. Drinking was more important.
I'll be sure to drink up for you. I'm eating Thai tonight.
February 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watched Lauer's interview with Obama. On Wisconsin, he said his watch words are "Remember New Hampshire".
That's certainly what I remembered here in Missouri. I think every activist volunteering for Obama remembers New Hampshire and will remember New Hampshire until Clinton concedes or the convention votes for Obama.
Support Obama until the last vote is cast.
February 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys, newbie here. Got a question tho: why don't y'all just change the 'TPM' for 'OTPM': Obama Talking Points Memo?
Been reading this site for several years now but the relentless anti-Clinton bias is starting to get a bit irritating now.
February 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
*Sigh*
Yes. A newbie. Whose first post is to complain about the site. Completely believable.
If you are indeed serious, then ask around. There are just as many complaints about the site being pro-Hillary, which means that people see here what they want to see.
February 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of TPM maybe RPM (Rorschach Points Memo) perhaps.
;-)
February 19, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best part is, Obama hasn't even campaigned in Texas and Ohio, he has been focusing on Wisconsin, and Hillary is already losing her leads, as soon as Obama hits the ground in the March 4th states it is over for Hillary, and then we can get on with the business of taking down the Republicans, but we can't start that while Hillary is trying to attack her peers.
February 19, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am pretty sure that he has started campaigning in OH. Ben Smith had a photo of him at some sort of factory in Youngstown, OH on the blog yesterday.
February 19, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought he had been in Wisconsin all week, save for that quick trip to NC to meet with Edwards.
February 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that she's going to be spending more time in Ohio we can watch her lead there steadily decrease. It seems to be a infallible thing these last weeks: The more time she spends in a state, the more her percentage goes down. Perhaps Obama might as well take a vacation if she'll just keep showing herself to the people.
February 19, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ThompsonLives:
Your arrogance is of monumental proportions. Hunter would have been disgusted, but then again: whaddoyou know, huh?
A newbie in *commenting*, little bird.
February 19, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, "Pass."
February 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is encouraging news. If the trend continues in this direction, of course.
If Obama wins tonight, I think it's going to be hard for the Clinton campaign, simply because they seem to have, in the last couple of days, thrown a lot of crap at Obama. And if it still can't change the direction, then it doesn't bode particularly well for Clinton.
On the other hand, I should never underestimate the power of smear tactics.
Although frankly, it seems that some enterprising staffer on the Obama campaign has to be busily searching through all past records of speeches to find instances of "plagiarism" in Clinton. Seems like it could come back to haunt her--if not now, then in the general election.
February 19, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised to read the optimism here about the general election.
To those of you who are thinking that it is going to be a cakewalk, regardless of Obama or Clinton getting the Democratic nod: think again. It's going to be 49-49 all over again, and one medium-size football stadium in either Pennsylvania, Ohio or Florida deciding the outcome.
February 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to the a campaign between Obama and McCain. The lines would be clearly drawn.
This is a debate that America must have. And then we can all enter the polling places in November and decide our future.
February 19, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't look now. Obama plagiarized Bill Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHiw2jlwa4
February 19, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to see Obama work some of these lines into a speech, prefacing of course that they are not his own, and then crediting Bill Clinton in his 1991 campaign. Make a mockery of the experience argument and plagiarism charge at once.
February 19, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a great move.
When Hillary brings up her experience in a debate Obama should reply with:
"I think experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record I have amassed in my time in the Illinois legislature should count for something. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes, but we need a new approach, the same old experience is not relevant. Mine is rooted in the real lives or real people and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.
And with all this talk of plagiarism the past couple of weeks, please allow me to cite my sources. I borrowed that previous response from Bill Clinton in 1991."
February 19, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear newbie in commenting,
Your initial comment pointed out how seemingly "pro-obama" the comments were--have you been reading here at Election Central for very long?
Because it seems to me that if you had, it would be pretty apparent that there's enthusiastic Clinton supporters who chime in on a regular basis, in addition to the Obama supporters.
February 19, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out, Ohio. You are dangerously close to not counting.
February 19, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
N00b --
Trot on over to Taylor Marsh if you want all-Clinton, all the time.
This site plays it down the middle, with the comments coming more from Obama supporters.
February 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This site plays it down the middle, with the comments coming more from Obama supporters."
And even that wasn't the case back when Hillary was still running strong. The comments haven't been as pro-Hillary lately, but then again, neither has the electorate.
February 19, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taylor Marsh? No thanks. In fact, I'm *desperate* for some neutral media.
February 19, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a surprise at all...I expect everything to be dead heat going forward. Therefore, an Obama nomination!
February 19, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Play it down the middle? You've got to be kidding. I check the site every day because, generally, I like it very much.
But please. TPM has been pro-Obama for at least a couple of months. Why don't you just admit it?
February 19, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Define "pro-Obama." Please cite specific examples.
February 19, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a long read down through all the items in the past month on the TPM Horsesmouth, and I think you will find plenty TPM pro Hillary features. Far more on that site than anything about Obama. Here is the link: enjoy a nice long swim in the warm friendly waters of Lake Hillary.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/
February 19, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is CORRUPT, his slogan of change an ILLUSION.
1) A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (reference ABC News)
2) Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon to Obama's campaigns!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (reference New York Times)
People need to stop believing their fantasies about Obama and realize that Hillary is the one who has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care (before it became politically fashionable).
February 19, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Bloomberg, Feb 18, 2008
February 19, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
RHETORIC: "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company. Apparently he cut some deals behind close doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."
REALITY: Obama Bill Required Additional Disclosure From Nuclear Industry
National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
Original Bill Required Plants to "Immediately Notify" Commission, State And County. The original version of S. 2348, introduced on March 1, 2006, required plants to "immediately notify" when unplanned releases occurred. "`(A) IN GENERAL- Each license issued for a utilization facility under this section or section 104 b. shall require as a condition of the license that in case of an unplanned release described in subparagraph (B), the licensee shall immediately notify the Commission, and the State and county in which the facility is located, of the release. `(B) UNPLANNED RELEASES- Subparagraph (A) applies to any unplanned release of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances--`(i) in excess of allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards; and `(ii) within allowable limits for normal operation established by the Commission or other applicable Federal laws or standards but that occurs more than twice within a 2-year period originating from the same source, process, or equipment at a facility.'" [S. 2348, Introduced 3/1/06, 109th Congress]
Revised Bill Stated, "The Commission Shall Promulgate Regulations That Require Civilian Nuclear Power Facilities...To Provide Notice Of Any Release," And Made Clear That Failure To Notify NRC Was Grounds For License Revocation. The revised version of S. 2348 read, "Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006, the Commission shall promulgate regulations that require civilian nuclear power facilities licensed under this section or section 104 (b) to provide notice of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances." The EPW Committee's report on the revised bill further clarified, "S. 2348 directs the Commission to promulgate regulations, within 2 years of the date of enactment, requiring nuclear plant licensees to notify the governments of the State and county in which a civilian nuclear power facility is located in the event of any release to the environment of quantities of fission products or other radioactive substances. This bill also directs NRC to consider a number of factors in developing the regulations." [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06; EPW Committee Report on S. 2348, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Nuclear Industry Did Not Support Obama Bill -- Believed Congressional Action Was Unnecessary
CQ: Committee Approval Of Revised Obama Bill "Came Despite Industry Assertions That Companies Nationwide Already Are Employing New Measures To Compel An Increase In Reporting, And That Congressional Action Is Unnecessary. "A bill approved Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee would increase the reporting of radioactive leaks to state and local officials by operators of nuclear power plants. The committee action came despite industry assertions that companies nationwide already are employing new measures to compel an increase in reporting, and that congressional action is unnecessary. The committee approved by voice vote a revised version of the bill (S 2348) that was written by Illinois Democrats Barack Obama and Richard J. Durbin. The changes include new language that would give the Nuclear Regulatory Commission two years to issue regulations governing the reporting of radioactive leaks. The bill drew support from Chairman James M. Inhofe, R-Okla...Obama rejected industry arguments that no new regulation is needed. 'That's what industry always says; they never think that any regulation is appropriate,' Obama said. 'But this is about as modest a regulatory scheme as is possible. We simply want surrounding communities to be notified when these kinds of things happen.'" [CQ Today, 9/13/06]
NEI Spokeswoman: "We Do Not Believe A Federal Law On This Issue Is Necessary" Because Current Regulations Suffice. "NEI spokeswoman Melanie Lyons said in a September 14 e-mail that industry does not disagree with the intent of the Obama bill. 'In fact, the industry's communication protocol already meets what we understand would be required by the legislation,' she said. However, 'we do not believe that a federal law on this issue is necessary,' because all nuclear plant releases are 'well below' NRC radiation safety limits and current regulations 'already include requirements for prompt reporting of significant releases' and annual reporting of all radioactive releases, Lyons said. Also, the industry initiative requires 'prompt notification of state and local officials and the NRC,' she said." [Platts' Inside NRC, 9/18/06]
NEI Considered The Revised Version A "Better Bill" But Still Did Not Believe It Was "Necessary." "Jerry Slominski, senior director of legislative affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said he is more accepting of the legislation that passed out of committee, which gives the NRC more flexibility in writing its reporting rules than the original bill. While Slominski said 'we do consider this a better bill,' he added, 'We don't believe this regulation is necessary. The NRC has all the legislation it needs to protect public health and safety.'" [National Journal's Congress Daily, 9/25/06]
REALITY: Clinton Co-Sponsored Obama Bill
Hillary Clinton Cosponsored The Revised Bill After It Was Revised. In 2006, Hillary Clinton's name was added as a cosponsor to an amended version of S. 2348, Obama's Nuclear Release Notice Act. The bill had been introduced in March 2006 and passed the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously on September 13, 2006. [S. 2348, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 637, 9/25/06]
February 19, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
erm. uh. i have to wonder...(full disclosure, i've already decided to vote for obama, tho i've given him no money or rah-rahs in comments or blogspace)...
at this point my only real decision is whether or not to vote for hillary clinton or sit it out if she wins the nomination. i keep wavering, but now i'm back to 'sit it out'.
lemme tell ya why -- campaigning on "experience" and "competence" rings hollow in the light of one of the more inept campaigns i've seen in quite a while...
1) not enough delegates seated in pennsylvania
2) no preparation (or even awareness, apparently) for the screwy delegation allocation process in texas
3) seemed to have no strategy for post-super tuesday
4) sending bill to make a respectable loss in south carolina a devastating loss
5) desperate plagiarism attack -- when even harold wolfson won't say hrc has never done it herself
6) discounting every state she hasn't won as 'not important'
i'm supposed to vote for this roaring example of ineptitude and mismanagement? not in this lifetime.
February 19, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until she concedes or the convention votes for him? Did you not read the story in Politico today? It was sourced to an unnamed senior strategist with the Clinton campaign who laid out out her post-convention strategy to wrest the nomination away from Obama even if he wins it at the convention. Here's the money quote:
"We're in this for the long haul. If Obama wins the nomination at the convention on the basis of a lot of delegates from states that don't matter and due to votes by people who we believe are s insufficiently Democratic, we will owe it to the party and to the country to keep fighting, just as she's fought for them for the last thirty five years.
If Obama wins this nomination despite having the most votes, the most pledged delegates and the most superdelegate support, Hillary will crash every one of his post-convention events, fight her way past his security detail and claw that microphone right out of his hands in venue after venue until the American people have heard her message of competence and hard work. She will show up for all of his debates with McCain and take her rightful place on the stage. And, in the end, if Obama wins the election under such suspect circumstances, she will wait until Day One, jump in front of him just as the Chief Justice gets to 'so help you God?' in the oath and scream I DO! I DO! Then she'll be President and can get to the hard work of handling all the problems she knows will be waiting for her."
February 19, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny. Thank you for this. :-)
February 19, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Thanks for the laugh...
Although why can't you just be NCSteve?
February 19, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we nominate Mark Penn for this year's Bob Shrum Idiot Strategist award?
His entire strategy, from "inevitability" on down through "March 4th" seems to have been nothing but "Look how far 'ahead' we are! All you guys should just give up!"
Any campaign strategist worth his salt should know that early polling is largely name recognition, and if you don't build an organization to back it up, that can easily evaporate.
February 19, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi all,
Read through all the comments here and it was such a relief to find, for once, no wielding of knives. Congratulations on the civilized behavior. So I decided to join. I used to argue for the 'dream ticket' (either way), partly because either would be a good backup in case of assasination. But with the way Hill has been conducting herself lately, It's hard to believe in that 'fairy tale' lately. So who could be Obama's best backup/insurance, I wonder?
February 19, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think an Obama/Kaine ticket would be unstoppable.
February 19, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also like the idea of an Obama/Kaine ticket.
February 19, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully submit Obama/Webb.
February 19, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine Obama accepting a VP slot on Clinton's ticket, not with Bill hanging around. Why would Obama, or anyone else, want to play 3rd wheel in another Clinton administration?
February 19, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama were to get the nomination, I'd like to see someone like Biden (or, while we're crushing paradigms, Richardson) get the VP nod. Either would go along way in quelling those "inexperience" fears.
February 19, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, tpm has seen more pro-obamas lately, but so the polls and the ballots. Coincidence?
February 19, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Early Exists:
Info from our trusty pals at CBS News: this electorate is very white; only four in ten have a "college degree." They're "less affluent" than Dems in other states. The percentage of late deciders is declining: only 27% made up their minds within the last seven days.
-- Issue number one is, of course, the economy, followed by health care... adding the economy and health care brings you to nearly 70% of the electorate.
-- Change trumps experience, 52 to 24.
-- Very few first time voters -- only 17%.
-- 27% of the electorate were independent
-- Clinton was seen as the most unfair attacker;
-- Obama (55%) was seen as the candidate most like to improve relations with the res tof the world.
-- Clinton and Obama are seen as equally qualified to be commander in chief (50% and 48%), while Obama draws 60% or more on the questions of who best can unite the country and beat the Republicans.
February 19, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Obama/Biden myself but if they want to mend some intraparty (interparty?) fences a Obama/Wesley Clark ticket would bring in someone with Clinton sympathies who also hasn't really spread much venom either and has good defense credibilty. No clue how probable that is though.
February 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I voted for Clark in the '04 primary. I've always liked him a lot and thought he was uniquely qualified to take on Bush on the Iraq war.
Basically I think Obama would need someone with strong foreign relations experience on the ticket and any 3 of those men would be perfect.
February 19, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey guys first results from Wisconsin 56%-43% Obama in the Lead this is from CNN!!!
February 19, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN has just declared OBAMA the WINNER in WISCONSIN!!!!
February 19, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
NBC calls Wisconsin for Obama too!
February 19, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if Hillary congratulates Obama on his victory this time around.
Actions not words, blah blah blah...
February 19, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink