"March 1-2, 2008
Survey of 755 likely
Texas Democratic
primary voters"

Another weekend poll.

The more this nonesense goes on the more that I fear for the dems getting hammered in november. The clintons cannot win the general election and all they are doing is dragging down the dems in november. It really is sad and pathetic. I am sensing the dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again and we have the clintons to thank for that.

Does anyone else find the huge swing in white male odd? Obama was up 58-37, but now TRAILS 54-41. He lost 17 points in a week? Really?

I think PPP's Ohio poll showed the same thing in Cincinnati as well. I'm just not sure what to make of the numbers. Either they were wrong at the outset (and his numbers weren't that high to begin with) or the numbers are skewed now.

Either way, the numbers seem odd.

Who has a better track record: PPP, Rasmussen or Zogby?

Well, something is happening. Either these weekend polls are skewing things for Clinton because of the people at home on a weekend to answer the phone, or something else is afoot. Maybe the red phone ad worked. Maybe the Muslim/anti-patriot meme is spreading and gaining traction. I think that it will be close tomorrow. If Clinton wins by 10 in Ohio and wins by 1 in Texas, she'll keep going. Even if she loses TX but wins OH she'll keep going. Obama needs to be prepared to stay in this race.

I really like Obama, and even though he will fight to the end for this nomination, he can't ruin his own political future in the bargain. He needs to stay positive and hit back when being hit by Clinton, and he needs to work on the areas that are his weaknesses. He needs to tackle the Muslim stuff and the patriotism stuff in a meaningful, positive way. I feel like the likelihood that this race goes to the convention is growing, and in that context, Obama needs to stay cool and think of his own future. I think that Clinton wants it so badly she may not recognize that such an outcome will greatly hinder the chances of a Dem presidency in '08. Obama, I would hope, understands the dangers to himself, to his message, and to the party in the event of a brokered convention, and I'll be looking forward to seeing how he handles himself in Pennsylvania and beyond to the convention.

Well, there is not much to be done at this point. I guess we will see who wins tomorrow. Call it delusion, but I am still expecting a healthy victory in Texas. One way or another, my candidate (Obama) is still well poised to win in the end, so am not going to get too dispirited by one poll result.

Sucks being beaten by a woman. Huh? Hillary '08!

Maybe we should all take a deep breath and trust that the voters in Texas and Ohio will do what they think is best for the country. I spent the weekend almost giving myself an ulcer about this, and I realized this morning (after a good night's sleep) that all my worrying and fretting isn't going to change the outcome one iota. Obama has run a spectacular campaign so far, he's had a fabulous rapid response team, and I think he's in good shape coming into Tuesday, regardless of the attack ads and the Goolsbee-NAFTA problem. I am going to trust that by tomorrow we'll have a pretty good idea of whom many Americans want in the White House in November and that the other campaign will do the right thing. Otherwise, I may not make it till tomorrow nite! :P

This is excellent news for Hillary.

JZ

"Worst case scenario for the party is two close wins by Hillary tomorrow. Six weeks of increasing levels of bitterness"

"That was before Hillary went semi-nuclear the last ten days."

You are totally right. People shoudl realize that ambiguous results tomorrow will only damage the party. This is what Bill Richardson meant by saying that the leader indelegates tomorrow should be the nominee. Pressure needs to be kept up to end this on March 5th. Otherwise, the semi-nuclear, desperate nutcase Hilary will only cause more damage to the Democratic chances.

I don't people quite realize that Hillary is tempted to see the Democrats lose as revenge for her humiliating downfall.

All Democrats and likeminded Independents shoudl be hoping for a clean, clear victory for Obama, and a gracious concession speech as Hillary exits.

the way these polls looks, only 1 of 2 things is going to happen tomorrow

1) HRC wins both OH and TX
2) New Hampshire part 2 happens and the polls are wrong and Obama wins either OH or TX.

I've just got a bad feeling about this (as I do before every contest). It's been what, 2, 3 weeks since the Potomac primaries? All the while the media has been writing Hillary's obituary, which as we saw in N.H., can work wonders to focus the minds of some voters, some of whom may think, "Do I REALLY want her out for good?" At the same time Obama is getting more scrutiny and some negative stories seem to be taking hold. And these polls make me nervous. Hillary was up by 12 in Ohio in one poll.
Just sayin'.

Why do we expect polls to be any more accurate today than they were prior to each election day in the past?

All we know is that it looks close now.

Tuesday night we'll know.

But there really are only two questions left for the Hillary Clinton campaign:

1. When (not if) will she drop out
2. How low will she go in the meantime to destroy Obama and the Democratic Party?

It's what I figured over the weekend. Hillary has been dominating the news cycle in the end game. She'll squeak it out and head to PA. It's going to get even uglier, I'm afraid.

Just remember that if Hillary squeaks out victories in TX and OH she has a long wait until Pennsylvania on April 22nd. And within a week Obama is likely to have 2 new victories in Wyoming and Mississippi.

I don't think Superdelegates are going to wait until mid-April to chose their candidate. They'll starting moving behind one of these candidates before April. Hillary's only chance for it to be here would be landslide victories tomorrow.

If this election has proved anything, it's that pollsters are incapable of predicting caucus results. With the exception of Nevada, Obama has owned the caucuses. I see no reason to believe things have changed. The caucus will put him over the top in Texas, a state with 52 more pledged delegates than Ohio.

Hillary is a formidable opponent.She is still a viable candidate,and as long as people are voting for her she has a right to be in the running. She does not have to back down just because she is a woman.The race is neck and neck.Why isn't Huckabee getting the bum rush? He certainly is trailing McCaine,but yet,he's still in it.You still don't want a woman in charge,even if it means electing the wrong person once again.Oh,how history wants to repeat itself.

Toni,

Who is claiming that HIllary should back down *because* she is a woman?

Huckabee isn't getting "the bum rush," as you put it, because no one is bothering to pay any attention to him.

Hillary is being paid quite a bit of attention, despite having lost the last eleven primaries in a row.

Open Left did an analysis and in all but 4 contests this year, the polling AVERAGES were accurate predictions of the end winner. So - probability says Obama wins TX and Clinton wins OH.

Big picture is a delegate wash. How can Clinton continue to successfully spin that? If she wants to stay in, fine. But the media narrative needs to be very clear - a la Huckabee. Her only path to the nomination will be to overturn the pledged delegates and take this to the convention. Hillary supporters down the line need to understand very clearly that that is what they are supporting.

By the way, and feel free to pass this info on to other threads to let people know, Cuyahoga county where Obama is expected to dominate will not be reporting until very late tomorrow. It's going to be reminescent of watching the MO returns on 2/5. Expect Obama to trail all night and start narrowing the lead at the end of the night. Unless it's a blowout, the networks are not going to be able to the race early.

From the pollster's analysis: "Barack Obama has tried hard but still seems unable to win over Hispanic voters. That dynamic is what caused him to lose in California, and it looks like recent history may repeat itself tomorrow in Texas."

Except that Texas is nothing like California. African-American precincts are heavily for Obama, and they have more delegates than the Hispanic districts, b/c of prior voting records.

It's been said time and time again, but it deserves repeating: Obama can actually LOSE the popular vote in Texas and still win more delegates than Hillary.

Personally, I don't think it's going to happen: I think Obama will win the poular vote, the delegates, and the caucus.

But we'll find out Tuesday night.

well, let's see:

1. balanced budget that proved the engine fueling the economic expansion of the decade and left current administration with a sizeable budget surplus not seen in decades.

2. average household incomes up by $7K per during his tenure, a figure amongst best in history.

3. decline in overall poverty, again at percentages not seen in decades.

4. family and medical leave act.

5. against heavy dem and republican party opposition, 1st open service of gays and lesbians in the u.s. military as officially recognized under military policy.

6. welfare reform that reform the program in manner progressive favored, and more importantly, forestalled serious and real threat to elimination and/or significant evisceration of the program by conservatives, again repub and dem alike.

7. dramatic nationwide reduction in crime rates seen across urban centers and rural areas alike.

8. 1st presidential visit to the continent of africa of significance leading charge against aids and poverty and women's rights.

9. as an african-american, the sizeable increase in african-americah household income again at historic levels not seen in decades.

...and believe me, i could go on.

this is the most beguiling but telling thing about the obama-support: the successfulness of the republican machine in turning you into self-loathing dems who believe hook-line-and-sinker the garbage they feed you about your own party champions. if you take 2 seconds to get out of front of your tv and/or computer websites and actually do some primary source research of the record and how it ranks, i think it's hard to reach any objective conclusion other than that the clinton administration was tremendous for both the nation and the democratic party.

only in the internecine-loving dem party, could we view success as something to loathe and despise because it wasn't the full breadth of success we'd like. the reason we lost the house in 1994 is because bill and hillary made a concerted push to get through a core progressive agenda item, universal healthcare, passed. and if you think they didn't anticipate the political capital that such an effort would burn, you're just either ignorant or naive...or both.

and now, you offer as your "champion of the progressive agenda" a guy who's not even supporting universal healthcare because he's already trying to structure a bill that will incur less republican opposition. thing is for anyone who's either been around long enough or cared to pay any attention to how the other side works, they're going to push for their agenda, which on healthcare, is let the private sector do its thing. there going to maintain that agenda whether you offer a true universal healthcare agenda (like hrc) or a faux one (like obama).

if your pee brain can fashion any words that don't require asteriks and other symbols, perhaps you will do an analysis of the facts and see that they're not on your side as regards your characterization of the clinton's support of the progressive agenda.

what "progressive" agenda items do you expect president obama to sweep through the apparently "wholly-compliant" congress and senate that you, good sir, imagine? pray, do tell. i await with baited breath.

I really don't think Hillary will give the Repubs any chance of
winning in Nov., she will bow out if Obama takes Texas.

There was a reporter from Time Magazine(Halperin?) on The View today, He was giving his assessments on the primaries. The ladies asked him who the Repulicans/Mc Cain felt would be a more formidable opponent. It was Hillary not Obama. The reason he gave is that Obama's inexperience was far easier to atttack than Clinton's.

Seems to me that a vote for Obama is a gift to the republicans.
Obama's charm works on Democrats but does'nt extend past that.
If we want to take back the White House; we need a fighter. And
I think even the most diehard enemy of hers has to admit that
she is that. And after all the things she's gone thru with this campaign, going up against McCain will be a cake walk.

And lastly, if Obama's losing ground over a few negative ads
and more indepth investigations into his record ie; Rezco, NAFTA comments; how is he going to survive against a party
that have less scruples than the Clinton camp?

Hillary can not win tomorrow enough to catch up.

I'm worried that she will decide to fight on and destroy the party.

She may desire to ruin Democratic chances in November by a slash and burn campaign against the eventual nominee.

Maybe if she can't be the nominee, she'd rather the Democrats lose just to spite them?

The media, sensing an "exciting" and ugly bloodbath, will seek to stoke these fires. (The media is the GOP's best friend, if you ask me)

really? we don't want a fighter? have you taken time to ask any of the republican and/or independents purportedly supporting mr. obama which of his progressive agenda policies they actually want their congressperson or senator to support? ending the bush tax cuts i'm sure is a big hit with that ilk? maybe expanding the federal bureaucracy and its management of healthcare is the "winning" progressive issue for them? maybe it's getting the federal government involved in local education standards? maybe it's expanding u.s. interaction with international organizations that supplant u.s. sovereignty?

which one of these progressive agenda items do you assume your bi-partisan obama-loving cohorts from across the aisle will support you and your president on?

i'm mean, really, people. i'm starting to believe june jones' followers have nothing on you folks.

nobody WANTS to fight but reality of american representative democracy is that there are millions of your fellow americans who hold passionately different views on the issues and absolutely want and expect THEIR elected officials to FIGHT to advance their agenda or block your agenda.

if you think a president obama wouldn't have to fight and do so at great political costs to advance anything truly progressive in the next congress, you're sadly fooling yourself.

WJ and Michael A.:

where's the reply to my question about the obama progressive agenda that will miraculously push its way through a compliant congress?

the silence is deafening.

Sorry folks, hate to disappoint, but Hillary is not going to step aside for Barack. Enough of men expecting women to get out of their way! Hah. Not going to happen. Totally sexist expectation.

Hillary is not divisive. People who hate women and think they should not be President are the ones who are divisive. Barack has shamelessly played the race card, dividing his own party, and conveniently crying like a baby that he's a victim of Hillary. Well he needs to grow up and face facts. She's a competent candidate, and he's a sham.

In Ohio, Obama's telling voters he's against Nafta, then he sends a senior adviser to Canada to tell Canadians, don't worry that's all campaign rhetoric I'm pro-Nafta. Then, he repeatedly lies to the press saying the meeting never happened. Then, a memo surfaces summarizing the meeting. Like Hillary has said, this guy is all hat and no cattle.

She's our girl! GO HILLARY! Wipe him out tomorrow! You're our next President! Women haters beware, you're gonna have a long eight years with a woman in the top job. Better get used to it and quit all your whining.

again, "insert straw, inbibe kool-aid."

i know you obama-ites making your 1st forays into political activism are all "swolled up" on yourselves and your seeming new found muscles, but again i invite you to look at the facts. hillary has superiour popular vote tallies when you add votes from florida and michigan. even if you don't, obama doesn't have a mandate within his own party -- there are millions of us hrc supporters out here and if you fool yourselves into believing your candidate has our unwavering support if he wins just because he has a "D" in front of his name, akin, you delude yourself in your own self-enamoration.

and "obama doesn't take money from lobbyist." there's a trial beginning TODAY on a non-official lobbyist friend of obama's. give me a break. he took federal lobbyist like all other washington politicians until he started running for president, and continues to take money from state lobbyist and from lobbyist us progressives like like labor unions, and teachers unions, and healthcare unions.

the willing suspension of disbelief going on in your camp is truly astonishing.

polls suggest that whoever the dem nominee is, their likely margin of victory in the general election will be in single digits, not double, and victory is far from guaranteed. the general is still 8 months away. you obama-ites see a 20% obama victory in a 4 vote caucus like guam, and suddenly start extrapolating that to general election results. truly the silly-season obama so oft laments.

Sorry I meant NV, not AZ.

not bdiddy in disguise, but i fully and thoroughly endorse is unassailable reasoning. :)

explain to me again the rationale for short-ciruiting the primary and caucus process? the one ironic irony of the race by all states to secure their "relevancy" in the nomination process by trying to get as close in time to idaho and new hampshire as possible, is that, by no cause of their own, the dem party process has worked to make ALL STATES RELEVANT.

There are 15+ states remaining to cast votes in this nomination process.

There is nothing that can possibly come out in the give-and-take of this democratic back-and-forth that won't ABSOLUTELY come out in the fight with mccain during the general.

would seem to behoove dems to have their eventual nominee as vetted and tested by this dem nomination process as possible prior to heading into the general election.

so if obama is indeed "the candidate to win in november!", why the rush to shut down the process? what could be more demoralizing to supporters on either side of the equation here than to not play this evenly matched battle out to the end.

again, by my last reading of the nomination rules, 2025 votes required for the nomination. i'm a lawyer by trade not a mathematician, but the only relevant mathematical truism in this race is that neither candidate can win the nomination with delegates gained from the remaining states.

...and as for who has more pledged delegates after the process is over: either counting florida and michigan (not likely) or re-doing one or both (very likely) could/would give a definitive final state tally and one that could like reverse the current tallies and balance of power. (by the way, my suggestion on handling florida and michigan is to hold re-dos in both venues, preferably primaries but caucuses also acceptable, and then merge those results with the previous results and calculate your winner and delegate splits accordingly. true best of both worlds, equity to all parties scenario.)

"we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." if i might take some literary license to amend: "we should never continue the primary process out of fear, but we should never fear to continue the primary process."

Clinton can and will win, I early voted for her here in Texas and I was quite please with the amount of people that were there expressing support for Clinton. It's sad that so many people are just expressing Chris Matthews' idiotic point of view that Clinton can't win.

And I see you following your most Divine Leader and not coming up with your own ideas, just copying what someone else has to say. Typical cult like behavior.