The proportion of African-Americans and Hispanics is weird.
Bottom line both states are close and it will all depend on who turns out.

delaying the inevitable is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

!!!HILLMENTUM™!!!!

Fascinating Wolfson spin:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=814

"Obama must drop out for the good of the party if he fails to win Ohio and Texas. He can't close the deal among democratic voters. Independents and Republicans should not choose our nominee. Hillary is the clear choice of registered democrats."

Directly out of Hillary Clinton's campaign book. From "we must win Ohio and Texas and PA by a large margin" to "Obama needs to drop out if he doesn't win them". Lovely. Remember, even if Hillary Clinton wins Ohio, Texas and PA by 60 % she still needs to win every other state that follows by 60 % too.

Obama just needs not to lose by a large margin. Winning Texas and Ohio just means to get Hillary Clinton out of the race tomorrow. Losing them just means Hillary stays a bit longer.

Any poll that counts on fewer black people voting in a primary in 2008 (17%) than voted for Kerry in 2004 (21%) is a poll on crack.
And I have a general fondness for SurveyUSA polling, but I don't believe them here or in the Ohio poll. It looks too much at least in OH like their MO poll for the Feb. 5 contest, and that makes me suspicious.

I'm also suspicious of the veritable glee with which Greg reported it, like his favorite just might eke one out. In reading Buckeye State Blog, I get a different sense. Just as I do in reading Burnt Orange Report out of TX.

Thanks Michael's Mom. That was second point I wanted to make. :)

African-American turnout PERCENTAGE is low because of the increased turnout of Hispanic voters. Hispanics voted for Bush in 2004, but they're voting Democrat this year. So if Hispanic turnout increases more than AA turnout increases, then the percentage of the electorate that is AA will be lower. Key word being percentage, of course.

As Jack Nicholsen said, its sexy having to salute a women!
Hillary's a strong leader.

(Maybe Obama could be v.p.?)

Rae

On Clinton's firewalls, it appears according to the latest polls that they seem to be holding up. As a reminder, just because one has firewalls doesn't mean they don't get "singed." That's why they're called firewalls and that's why it was/is good that she had built up such a huge lead in Ohio and Texas. All polls tend to tighten as the election draws closer, as anyone knows who pays any regular attention to politics. That's why a huge lead helps protect the candidate as polls tighten, which appears to be what's happening. Yet, the only poll that matters is the actual vote.

However, if Obama fails to significantly beat Clinton in the March 4 primaries, it will be yet another case of his inability to knock her out of the race when it matters most, and a testament to her tenacity and hard work. If she wins Ohio and Texas or some combination of 3 of the 4 states that have primaries on March 4, it should keep her in the race, and I believe, indicates that an equal number of Democrats prefer Clinton to Obama, in which case she should stay in the race until one candidate clearly accumulates the requisite number of delegates. It also would continue to show, as on Feb. 5 Super Tuesday, that Clinton knows how to pick her spots and pick up wins in key states when it matters most . . . and frankly, in the states that will be crucial in the general election (let's not forget she also won Florida and Michigan). A Clinton win also would seem to indicate that voters are having some doubts about Obama.

It's a very interesting race and neither candidate should bow out until the numbers prevent them from continuing.

Sorry, but as someone who lives in Ohio, it's time to tell the non-PC truth about this state. It is full of poorly or under-educated people who are easily distracted by peripheral issues or tactics - and then constantly succumb to fear over reason when they're in the voting booth (even if it means going directly against their own best economic interests). Just look at the 2004 presidential election, when Ohio - a state that took more of an economic hit than any other in the nation under the Bush administration - actually voted to re-elect the guy (largely because the Republicans also shrewdly put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot - and tied Kerry and the Democrats to being pro-gay marriage). Ohio voters were actually more afraid of gays marrying than keeping a president whose administration has absolutely devastated their economic well-being. Also, too many Ohioans limit their analytical skills to debating who should Ohio State's starting QB, chanting O-H-I-O and bragging that the Browns' latest free-agent signing will help them make the Super Bowl. So, as a lifetime Ohioan, I'm not the least surprised that Ohio voters are stubbornly, slavishly sticking to Clinton - even though she backed a NAFTA trade deal that's ripped this hole throughout this state. It's a depressing mix of delusion plus cluelessness - and if leads to Clinton somehow getting the Dem nomination, God help us.

There are some internal problems with the Survey poll. It assumes AA will turn out at a lower rate than Latinos, ie.2004 numbers. It also gives some numbers on already voted people that don't jive. Survey says 50-48 for Clinton on those already voted.
The Belo tracking poll says of those who have already voted,Of all samples of the tracking Obama leads in early voters 56%-44%. This matches other reports I have seen.
http://www.wfaa.com/s/dws/img/standing/wfaa/poll/data/0302/summary0302.pdf

Belo says that if AA voters turn out in the same proportion as Latinos, then Obama wins.

the delegate math that dare not be mentioned on TPM is EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I am hoping so much that Hillary's gone after tomorrow ... the past two months revealed publically her gross personal dishonesty ... lies, mis-truths, half-truths, distortions, rumors, and most recently, refusing on 60 Minutes to say straight out that Obama is a Christian. What an outrageous insult to hurl at anyone - to hint that Obama may be of the "wrong" religion. And yet there are many among the brain-dead who simply can't see the obvious.

It no longer matters much any more what her programs and positions are - she is simply a woman without character who would connive to break rules and bend laws simply to gain the Presidency. She now truly sickens me - and I naively used to support her up to a few months ago. If Americans are stupid enough to allow her to take the nomination, I will - for the first time in 40 years - not vote in the general election. What would be the point? McCain will win in a landslide.

Yawn. We'll just win the Texas caucuses. Hill can't beat 56% in a primary. It's over, folks. . .

And remember, Hillary's general election vote withholders . . .

There won't be an abortion right left in the constitution after we replace John Paul Stevens with another Alito! Big step forward for women, like Nader taking us into Iraq by tipping New Hampshire and Florida!

Way to go, Democrat team players!