« Hillary Facing Calls To Drop Out If Tuesday Doesn't Go Well | Home | Zogby: Obama Takes Narrow Lead In Ohio »
Quinnipiac: Hillary Up Only Four Points In Ohio
The new Quinnipiac poll of Ohio shows the Democratic primary closing fast here. Hillary Clinton led by 11 points a week ago, but now her edge is down to only 4 points. Here are the numbers, compared to last week:
Clinton 49% (-2)
Obama 45% (+5)
From the internals: Hillary leads by 55%-39% among women, and Obama by the same 55%-39% with men. White men are now statistically tied, versus a 16-point edge for Hillary last week.
Advertisement
Two other polls have wider leads for Clinton:
Columbus Dispatch
Clinton 56
Obama 40
Suffolk
Clinton 52
Obama 40
http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080303/UPDATES01/80303003/1002/NEWS01
March 3, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!
(Sorry idiotic.)
March 3, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd treat the Dispatch and Suffolk polls with some skepticism.
The Dispatch poll is a mail-in survey, which means it was conducted early in the month over a long period of time using a methodology that's somewhat questionable. It also surveyed only registered Republicans and Democrats, whereas Ohio allows non-partisans to register and vote in the election. Mark Blumenthal has a good discussion about this at pollster.com
As far as the Suffolk poll, take a look at the cross-tabs. It looks might suspicious to me. Blacks accounts for only 8 percent of the sample, and I've got to believe they'll be a larger percentage of voters. Similarly, Republicans amount to 4 percent of the sample and independents for 9 percent, and I think those will prove to be low. Lastly: more than a third of those surveyed are over age 65. That sounds high to me -- maybe those were the only people home when the pollsters called.
March 3, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Thanks for the info.
March 3, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only thing you need to know:
If Hillary can't win in huge +20 blowouts in BOTH Texas and Ohio she is toast.
A 5 point win in Ohio and a tie in Texas is a huge loss for her. A 10 point win in Ohio and a 5 point win in Texas is a loss for her. A 10 point win in each is a loss for Hillary. She needs Obama-sized landslides to even get a glimmer of hope out of tomorrow, and that is that, period.
March 3, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
In substance, wwjb, you're exactly right. But I fear that under any of the scenarios you describe, it provides the opening for Mark Union-Buster Penn and Howard B.S. Wolfson to say she's still alive, she'll still keep fighting, it's really a rejection of Obama, the states he won don't count, Texas was rigged, and, oh, by the way, let's seat those Michigan and Florida delegates. All that would do is prolong the agony, but it's in keeping with their Rovian scorched earth approach to politics and the Clintons' feeling that they're being deprived of a birthright (or perhaps a marriage-right).
Hopefully, I'm just being too pessimistic.
March 3, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we have a thread on how Hillary equivocated on the 60 minutes Muslim question, please?
That answer was classic doublespeak, the same thing she does a lot.
Recall, this is how she answered that driver's license question and afterwards Dodd said ...Hillary you just AGREED with it and she emphatically replied "NO, I did NOT?
Does anyone else recall that moment?
It is classic Hillaryspeak...she uses all the right words to SOUND like she agrees yet when if anyone was to assert that Hillary does not beleive Barack is a muslim...she would refute you and say...I didn't say that. I said as far as I know I have no reason to doubt his words but the truth is I have no idea what his faith is and I take him at his word.
March 3, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Hillary wins Ohio (which I think she will), will Wolf Blitzer french Paul Begala in the Situation Room?
March 3, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Columbus Dispatch poll was for Registered Dems only!! A little disinformation here.
March 3, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Quinnipiac's poll it's notable that Obama is losing among White Women by a giant 40 point margin (26% to 68%) and he's barely winning among people with a college degree (49% to 45%). I believe Obama's campaign, to be losing in Ohio now like this, must have done something wrong in Ohio over the past week. What? A key part of Obama's core message, one of his key advantages against Clinton, is -- to quote from one of his ads -- "I will always tell you where I stand and what I think". That claim has been totally contradicted by his posturing on international trade and NAFTA over the past week. His loss in Ohio tomorrow must be attributed, in part at least, to his NAFTA ads undermining his core message about straightforwardness. As a footnote, the more-or-less same ads, but with a lower profile, also ran in Wisconsin (but not in earlier states -- not in Maryland and Virgina for instance). In Wisconsin the NAFTA theme disappeared in the last few days before polling, and Obama gained in those few days. In Wisconsin in the days when the ads were running and in the news -- specifically the few days around his economic speech at Jainsville -- he wasn't gaining. The truth is that Obama's NAFTA stuff is phony and it's a turnoff, and it's bad press, and it's a basis for people to see Clinton as not worse after all.
March 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama typically performs about 8 points ahead of what the polls have been showing and has had big support from unions that he hasn't had before. Plus, Meet the Press yesterday showed this case for Obama made by Bill Clinton:
"MR. RUSSERT: Here's the interesting thing about politics and why we love to cover campaigns. This year's being now described as fear vs. hope. The phone represents fear, and Obama is trying to suggest hope. Back in 2004, your man, William Jefferson Clinton, campaigning for John Kerry, framed Clinton's political law this way. Let's watch.
(Videotape, October 25, 2004: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83MdEnb1K)
FMR. PRES. CLINTON: Now, one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope.
(End videotape)"
See it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83MdEnb1K
March 3, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seanwal111, scroll up to WWJB's post above, or read it again here:
"Only thing you need to know:
If Hillary can't win in huge +20 blowouts in BOTH Texas and Ohio she is toast.
A 5 point win in Ohio and a tie in Texas is a huge loss for her. A 10 point win in Ohio and a 5 point win in Texas is a loss for her. A 10 point win in each is a loss for Hillary. She needs Obama-sized landslides to even get a glimmer of hope out of tomorrow, and that is that, period."
The Clinton campaign is on a massive spin charge because they know that if they win anything it will be only a tiny percentage. After Tuesday, the grown-ups including Bill Richardson and Al Gore will start pushing Superdelegates to get Hillary out of this race and back into the Senate where she will belongs.
March 3, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you say has lots of merit. But Clinton winning Ohio by a margin of 15%+ is now a possibility based on the polls, and if that happens she can expect to win PA by a yet bigger margin, and thus she'd be still alive. My point -- my only point -- is that Obama's NAFTA themed message didn't convert the voters of Ohio, nor Wisconsin, and he was doing fine without it in the earlier states. Obama hasn't downright lied about his positions on international trade but he has been cynically and deliberately misleading the more ignorant, less engaged types of voters who only have the benefit of soundbites and ads to go on. If he fails to kill her off tomorrow it'll be his just desserts.
March 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand why some people do not favor Obama-that's politics and personal choice.
But how anyone can trust very much of what Hillary says is not rational.
To wit, go back to her early days in the Senate and see how she equivocated about Rowe v. Wade (which was the beginning of my concern toward her after being a big fan while she was in the White House).
Can any of Hillary's supporters truly say they know where she stands because she has become such an adept triangulator, that she covers several sides of many issues.
She supported the Lieberman resolution which is a hawkish stand toward Iran based on the US's unsubstantiated allegations.
And as has been pointed out many times, how can her original support for the Iraq resolution be justified. Any body who read at the time saw that the entire argument made by Bush was bogus-if anyone doubts this, email me and I will show you prewar intelligence docs that debunked every argument that Bush gave the public. (I have a library of articles that I saved.) How cane I, Joe Public, have known more than my Senator!
And last, her resorting to fear tactics when she is down shows what she is really made of. While I will admit she would be better than Bush, her tortured triangulated positions, taken together with her divisive personality will not make for substantial change in Washington.
Obama is no lock for change-but there is a chance at least with Obama.
drwilbur@gmail.com
March 3, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink