Number Crunching the WaPo Texas-Ohio Poll

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:58:00 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ohio 08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Washington Post and ABC have released their poll of likely Democratic voters in Texas and Ohio , taken Feb. 16 to 20. As the article says, Hillary is slightly ahead in Ohio and she and Obama are essentially tied in Texas.

The polling data behind the poll is here. I see some different patterns.

In Ohio. 72% said they would vote for Hillary while 70% said they would vote for Obama. 27% percent of these voters said they would definitely vote for Hillary, 11% could change their mind, and 16% said it was unlikely they'd change their mind.

For Obama, 70% said they were definitely going for Obama, 14% said they were could change their mind an 9% said they were unlikely to change. [More...]

On issues, the number one issue is jobs and the economy, followed by health care.

42% would be "very happy" if Hillary was President, 40% could say the same about Obama.

They were then asked, regardless of whom you support, who is a stronger leader?. The answer: Hillary, 53% Obama, 36%

Who has the best chance of getting elected: Hillary, 37% Obama 48%

Who best understands problems of people like you? Hillary 44, Obama 40.

Who can best bring change to Washignton? Hillary 41, Obama 46.

Who will better handle Iraq?
Hillary 45 , Obama 39

Who will better Health Care?
Hillary 54, Obama 34

Who will better handle the economy?
Hillary 53, Obama 34

Who will better handle immigration -- an issue that none responded was important to them?
Hillary 40, Obama 38

If Hillary gets the nomination, 42 will be very satisfied, 39 if Obama gets it.

On what matters most, strenght and experience or new ideas and direction, 45 said strength and experience, 47 said new ideas.

56 said Obama has the strength and experience 40 said he does not.

On New ideas, 69 said Hillary had them and would bring them to Washington, 26 said she did not.

As to who would best be able to beat McCain: 12 said Hillary, 14 said Obama. Together, 63 said they could do it.

Bottom Line: On the issues most important to them. Hillary beat Obama in every category as being the candidate best able to deal with the War in Iraq, the eeconomy, health care and immigraton.

What does that tell me? On the issues they are most concerned about, Hillary leads by 19 points in some cases as being viewed as the more effective President, including health care and the economy. She has a 6 point lead on being better able to deal with Iraq.

If these numbers are accurrate, Hillary Clinton should do very well in Ohio.

Tomorrow, I'll analyze the Texas Results.

< Texas Debate: The Morning After | Politics As Usual >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Number Crunching the WaPo Texas-Ohio Poll | 38 comments (38 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There's another debate on Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:48:11 AM EST

MSNBC in Ohio. This ain't over yet.

Obama: The Billy Conn of Politics (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:10:00 AM EST

I've always felt Obama was the Billy Conn of Presidential politics.

Billy Conn was a boxer who had a famous fight with Joe Lewis in which he led on points for the first 12 rounds. But he went for a knockout in 13, and was instead knocked out.

I would prefer if this Billy Conn moment came now.
And those numbers in OH give me some hope that it just might.

Because the alternative isn't pretty. The Dems can't handle another GE loss.

since btd hates the red sox (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Turkana on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:02:11 AM EST

i'd compare it more to both carbo and fisk hitting miracle home runs in the same game...


: Pauvre Doris. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST

don't... (none / 0) (#7)
by jor on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 05:38:43 AM EST

... see it happening. He might make some sort of gaffe in the next debate, but it will not be a gaffe trying to knock out hillary.

He is clearly on a "run the ball every play and run out the clock" strategy.


the gaffe may come outside the debates (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:05:32 AM EST

The Clintons have not used anything in their emergency vault yet. They have to have something stashed away just in case, I would think knowing their history.

Obama hasn't had to "recover" from anything this entire primary. I wonder how he'd handle it.

Less than 2 weeks to find out.


The vault? (none / 0) (#12)
by myed2x on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:35:43 AM EST

I find it amazing that this late in the race that they would have held back anything? That's either being way too nice, there is nothing there or poor campaigning...maybe there isn't anything in the vault minus Rezko, perceived inexperience, quotes out of context or the Rove tactic of attacking his greatest strength as an orator (I was impressed Clinton would use that tactic so blatantly, although it failed over-all)


In 10 years no one wiill think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:42:00 AM EST

is a great orator.
I do not know how people have been fooled, so far, but he's barely out of the ordinary in that regard (for a politician).


I chalk it up to ... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:46:50 AM EST

the Bush psychosis. Some people have had their heads so screwed-up by the nonsense of Bush that they'll grab onto anything that makes them feel better.

And that fact that Obama's message is so like Bush's '00 message only makes them grasp harder. It's like the ultimate "do-ever."


It's like listening to a kid play (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:49:11 AM EST

Fur Elise after hours of hearing some talentless hack bang away. That sure will sound good, but it's only by comparison.


I think more of hearing a really fine (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:22:37 AM EST

pianist or singer perform a piece of music frequently played competently, but w/o the depth of musicianship.


: That's a good analogy. (none / 0) (#26)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM EST

LOL! (none / 0) (#19)
by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:20:16 AM EST

Like this?


Seriously? (none / 0) (#21)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:48:46 AM EST

Do you really not think he is a great orator?

Hillary Clinton even has said that he is a great orator (though maybe not in those exact words).

I know very, very few people who are not impressed with his ability to give a speech, regardless of their preferred candidate.


Yes, seriously. He is ok (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:09:07 AM EST

Have you ever read the texts of his speeches, separately? They are cliche-ridden boilerplate.
A good speech should sound good and also read well on paper.
He gets huge applause for banalities like "We should talk to foreign leaders, not just threaten them"
He talks about reaching across the divide, building coalitions.. but to do what?
I would say that the lack of development in his speeches is a sign in and of itself of the problem.
He's not leading with his speeches. If he were truly a leader, then you could name ONE important thing which he will definitely accomplish with his new coalition. You can't, because there isn't and Obama doesn't promise it.


then... (none / 0) (#24)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:19:20 AM EST

... you are not listening.

If he were truly a leader, then you could name ONE important thing which he will definitely accomplish with his new coalition. You can't, because there isn't and Obama doesn't promise it.

Come on. If you don't know what Obama will do, than you seriously haven't listened to a word he is saying.

And you really don't think his speeches have developed. His speeched include MUCH more policy than they did early on in the campaign.


Ok, tell me the single most important (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:25:55 AM EST

thing Obama will accomplish as President---based on his speeches---and be specific!
Make it domestic policy, because if you mention Iraq, I am going to disagree that he meets that bar.


: single most... (none / 0) (#29)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:31:24 AM EST

I don't like the idea of "single most important," as I believe it cheapens the debate. This discussion, this race, is not about one issue. I don't want a candidate who is so focuses on getting the "single most important" thing done. I want a candidate who is going to get a lot done.
But if there is one thing that I think that Obama will get done, it is health care. You may disagree with his proposals on it, but he will get it done.

just watch the side-by-side (none / 0) (#30)
by demschmem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST

of his lifted 'just words' speech. the other guy is much better.


: I know, right? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Nasarius on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:33:02 AM EST

Obama's delivery is awful compared to Deval Patrick's. Obama may be charismatic, but his speaking ability is unremarkable. John Edwards and Bill Clinton for example are, IMO, better at both delivering a prepared speech and speaking extemporaneously.

I Don't Think There's any Real Hope (none / 0) (#1)
by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 03:48:19 AM EST

Here for Clinton.

Her final statements tonight, and the standing ovation was a form of concession. That was the subtext. It will be her finest, and regrettably last moment in the spotlight.

By the way, they were great statements too. Very moving.

If the situation was reversed, I can, in no way shape or form even imagine Barack Obama being as gracious. But I will give Obama some credit for... begrudgingly... allowing the Debate to end on that note.

What concession?! Don't invent a subtext ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by cymro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:21:32 AM EST

...that was not there. You are just repeating the media spin, and most of them are doing their best to write off the Clinton candidacy. They tried to do that in NH, remember.

There are still 10 days to go until March 4th, and then the voters get to decide, not the pundits. Even March 4th may be much too soon for either candidate to concede. This race is far from over.


don't be silly (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by diplomatic on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:47:42 AM EST

This concession talk isn't going anywhere. Here's why: there's another debate on Tuesday night.

This won't be the last opportunity for Clinton to remind everyone she intends to win this nomination.

Calm down Edgar, maybe you're just not trying to jynx it but seriously talk about premature.

The Obama people are strangely nervous and anxious to get her to quit before March 4th for some reason. If Obama has such great momentum they should embrace and look forward to Texas and Ohio.


Ok (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edgar08 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 04:53:30 AM EST

I didn't know there was another debate tuesday.

My bad.

I'm a huge Clinton supporter, don't think I'm jynxing anything one way or the other.

I'll fall on my sword about Clinton getting some more moments to make some more impressions during the debates, but I still don't see the election panning out the way I'd like.

Part if it is a predisposition towards negativity.

The other part is that my predispositions towards negativity are never proven wrong.


: "Dewey defeats Truman" (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by cpinva on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:31:59 AM EST

With two debates she knows that (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:40:45 AM EST

the SECOND one is where she should deliver a knockout punch.
Whether she can do so depends on the questions asked and the moderator, but I have little doubt that she could have rocked Obama back on his heels last night , had she wanted.


one moment does not a victory make (none / 0) (#11)
by independent man on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:35:00 AM EST

Hillary Clinton is a fighter. Yes, and her final remarks were eloquent. I found them to be more political rhetoric. In my estimation, Barak Obama gave her a sound spanking last night. Every bit of dirt she flung at him spattered back into her face. and this is a woman who is an expert at the old school politics of filth flinging.

I watched a man last night SHOULD be president, proving that he not only has the substance and judgement needed to hold the most powerful position on the planet, but that he also has the class and dignity to lead this country. Class? Dignity? You'll have to look hard to find such things in the Clinton household. We certainly saw little enough of it last night (compared to the future president of the U.S., Barak Obama).

Once Mr. Obama recieves the nomination, I can finally say that in my lifetime I will passionately be voting FOR a president, for the person, his ideals and ideas, instead of voting AGAINST someone as I have in the past. Finally, I have a choice other than the lesser of two evils.

Then again, knowing the Clintons, they still may have some dirty tricks up their sleeves. Can anyone say Superdelegates? One thing's for true, if the Hillary gets the nomination due to backroom deals with Superdelegates, the next president will be a republican. If the DNC ignores the voice of the people now, WE WILL IGNORE THEM IN NOVEMBER!


LOL what? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by BrandingIron on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:05:00 AM EST

Super Delegate are "dirty tricks" now?

All of this talk by the Obama people re: the Super Delegates is ridiculous nonsense because they're scared that the Super Delegates might actually do their jobs instead of falling to pressure by the Obama wave. Their pounding around for the SDs to "vote with the people" indicates their clearl lacking in comprehension as to what the SDs are supposed to do.

"There was a belief that they would not want candidates who were dramatically out of sync with the rest of the party -- particularly if these were people who were going to have to run on the same ticket with them," says Northeastern University political scientist William Mayer, who has written extensively on the nomination process.
There were, Mayer says, two motives in giving elected officials a big voice in the nomination.
"One was not to get (ideologically) extreme candidates; the other was to avoid the Jimmy Carter phenomenon -- where you had a guy who was not very experienced and not very well regarded by most of his fellow governors, but nevertheless managed to win the party's nomination," Mayer said. (ref.)

Comprehend a little better now? Obama will be that Jimmy Carter candidate if he ends up winning the nomination.


He's more like Dukakis (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:10:01 AM EST

Except... (2.00 / 0) (#20)
by mindfulmission on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:46:37 AM EST

... Obama IS well-regarded by many, if not most, of his fellow colleagues.

So the only comparison of Obama to Carter is that they had limited experience.

By the way... Carter arguably had more experience than Clinton.


: Say what? (none / 0) (#35)
by joc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST

"By the way... Carter arguably had more experience than Clinton."
Four years in the Georgia state senate and four years as governor is arguably more experience than 14 years as governor and two years as Arkansas' Attorney General?

are you karl rove's (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by cpinva on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM EST

evil twin, "skippy" karl rove? you've clearly drunk deeply of the right-wing smear machine's magic "clinton" potion, which makes all things evil attributable to them. obviously, you must have been viewing a different channel, to have seen the man who will be our next president.

i didn't catch the debate, but i've seen and heard enough from sen. obama to be underwhelmed by his skills as both orator and debator. not that either are required to be a good president mind you, but don't delude yourself.

please do provide cites supporting your claims that the the clintons are skilled veterans of filthy politics. i mean facts, not just some hack's unsubstantiated allegations.


I'm confused (none / 0) (#31)
by Lena on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM EST

about these numbers:

27% percent of these voters [Clinton voters] said they would definitely vote for Hillary, 11% could change their mind, and 16% said it was unlikely they'd change their mind.

Okay, so 27 + 11 + 16 = 54% of all Clinton voters apparently answered the questions as to how likely they are to vote for her

For Obama, 70% said they were definitely going for Obama, 14% said they were could change their mind an 9% said they were unlikely to change

70 + 14 + 9 = 93% of all Obama voters apparently answered the question as to how likely the are to vote for him.

How come Clinton's numbers add up to about half of her voters, while Obama's add up to almost all his voters? Am I missing something?

Hillary is a Victim (none / 0) (#32)
by bob h on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST

of bandwagon thinking and a shallow desire "for a new face" on the part of many Democratic voters. I don't blame her too much, as there is nothing much she can do about it; it would not occur in an informed, mature electorate.

: Agree with that -- except your header (none / 0) (#37)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:44:00 AM EST

as that unfairly suggests that she presents it that way. Instead, it is the electorate that is victimizing itself once again by being misinformed.

What I get from that poll (none / 0) (#33)
by vj on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST

is that people think Obama is more "electable":

That may trump everything else.

: Sore Thumb (5.00 / 0) (#38)
by joc on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST

Indeed that factor may very well be what people in many states are using to make their final decision. And it's sad isn't it.
Here we may have a candidate who is demonstrably favored on most (though not all) of the major issues, and people are making their decision not to vote for her based on the reaction of the Republicans. The Republicans have spent so long demonizing the Clintons that people just accept it will be nigh on impossible for her to win the general, because she will 'invigorate their base' or 'unify them in their hatred.' This may be true, but doesn't it hurt that we may see the candidate with the best Democratic ideas/agenda not winning the nomination because the Republicans don't like her.
I'm a dyed-in-wool Democrat, and I was hoping that Barack would come into the nomination process and inspire the hell out of people using his excellent rhetorical skills to build up Democratic ideals. However, when I saw his statements about the 'crisis in Social Security' and other claims that work against universal health care, I was greatly disappointed.
I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I would prefer to have a candidate that proudly speaks to the Democratic ideals I feel matter over a candidate that is more acceptable to the Republicans.

: It does for BTD (none / 0) (#36)
by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:41:53 AM EST

despite admitting, even leading, against the misogyny and other matters, for another example.
Come November, I may find myself voting for the candidate at the top of the Dem ticket simply because it is at the top of the Dem ticket -- for the Dem platform and principles that I can only hope will be embraced by both of the Dem candidates now.
But that's because, if it is between McCain and Obama, I again will be faced with two candidates who both have embraced misogyny. So it is their other differences that will decide it for me -- while I continue to despair for this country's attitudes toward its daughters, even these two candidates' daughters.
Until then, at this point in the process,I cannot bring myself to put electability ahead of this issue, which so defines the difference between current Dem candidates who agree on many other important issues. I hope that voters elsewhere feel the same and do not put electability foremost when it is they, themselves, who can affect it.