Zogby Predicts Obama Sweep Of Texas And Ohio

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:20:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I write this post so that we can remember that John Zogby is not much of a pollster. On Super Tuesday, Zogby predicted wins for Obama in New Jersey and California. Obama lost both states by double digits. He may have hit the dart board here. But there is little or no polling in a John Zogby poll.

Other polls show Clinton leading in Ohio and slight Obama lead in Texas. Let's count the votes.

Update [2008-3-3 9:35:19 by Big Tent Democrat]: The UC Ohio Poll has Clinton up 9 in Ohio.

More updates below:

Update [2008-3-3 10:26:27 by Big Tent Democrat]:Ras has Ohio trending towards Clinton. Now up 6 from a 2 point lead..

Update [2008-3-3 10:28:47 by Big Tent Democrat]: MikeinDC tells us the new world's greatest pollster, SUSA, has Clinton up 10, 54-44. The battle is for Texas it appears.

Update [2008-3-3 11:50:14 by Big Tent Democrat]: PPP shows the same trend, Clinton expanding lead, here to 9.

< Politics As Usual: What Obama's Advisor Meant | Krugman Again >

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.

Zogby Predicts Obama Sweep Of Texas And Ohio | 48 comments (48 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Your favorite charlatan/pollster (none / 0) (#1)
by commissar on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:27:32 AM EST

actually says, "The Democratic Party presidential primaries in Texas and Ohio remain too close to call ..."

Yes (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:30:29 AM EST

But his polls call the race. I guarantee you if Obama wins Ohio and Texas he will proclaim his accuracy.

Sorry, I know Zogby too too well.


Zogby and expectations (none / 0) (#16)
by diplomatic on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:48:36 AM EST

Obama must really not be pleased with Zogby contributing to him losing the expectations game so often.

Time for Zogby to go back into hiding.


You apparently know nothing about Zogby (none / 0) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST

: You know nothing about Zogby (none / 0) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST

Sorry, you do not.

For what it's worth. . . (none / 0) (#2)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:28:14 AM EST

based on no polling at all (which, I guess, qualifies me as much as Zogby) I say Obama will do no worse than tie Ohio (and probably win) while he'll come away with a very large delegate win in Texas, not withstanding the popular vote result.

I heard today on NPR, by the way, that Democrat voting procedures in Texas have had the effect this year of making votes in many heavily Hispanic districts count as little as one-half as much as votes in other areas.

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:29:23 AM EST

Texas has institutionalized vote dilution.

Kid Oakland is pleased.


Why Shouldn't He Be Pleased (none / 0) (#14)
by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:46:21 AM EST

Obama proudly touted his delegate win in Nevada, which was the result of over-weighting white rural participants at the expense of urban, more diverse, participants. What would embarrass me as a democrat, makes these folks proud, but then I am not a politician.


I do not ask they be embarrassed (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:50:54 AM EST

I ask they be consistent.


: when Obama won the popular vote in AL (none / 0) (#50)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:23:11 AM EST

he called it a win. Right?

do we think (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:37:21 AM EST

the court challenge to this we have heard about will materialize?
should it?


No and no. (none / 0) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:41:28 AM EST

Some of the methods used in the primary are nutty and wouldn't stand up if they were subject to the same tests as a national election but since parties are legally allowed to use whatever method they want to select a candidate any change needs to come through internal reform.


I agree that is the state of the law (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:43:36 AM EST

I do not agree that that is how it should be.

Primaries are part of the electoral process and should be subject to all the requirements of government run elections.


"Should be". . . (none / 0) (#13)
by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:45:09 AM EST

in the sense that they should be under current law, or should be in the sense that we need legislation to make them subject to the same requirements?


Should be (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:50:05 AM EST

in that I believe the Courts got it wrong when they decided they were not subject to the same laws.

I do not question that that is what the courts have decided. I think their decisions were wrongly decided.


Agreed -- for the courts (none / 0) (#20)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:56:24 AM EST

to say that only the final part of the process must meet Constitutional minima, but it doesn't matter that all the other parts of the process are flagrantly discriminatory, for one -- it goes against other decisions in other areas, such as Miranda (I'm not a lawyer; you have better examples), that state that if any part of the process is flawed, it's all "fruit of the poisoned tree" (or some such phrase). In sum, our GE is fatally flawed and perhaps even poisoned by these early stages of the process. It really would be great if someone cares enough between elections to get this case to a smarter court.


: Not at all (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST

the reverse in fact. Registration in the relevant group is much like a voter registration requirement.

: Trying again: What I am saying (none / 0) (#45)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:08:38 AM EST

is that the court was wrong to say it ought to be a decision made only by the parties, allowing processes that would be outlawed in the GE, and especially when those processes affect the GE. Frankly, even if a court deteremined that all primaries be as wide-open as mine in Wisconsin, it would be better -- as it would get rid of the most discriminatory process, the caucuses, as well as the ridiculous situation now of thinking that we know now what their delegate allocations would be. And there would be wider recognition of the impact of crossover votes. And we would stop giving equal weight to the results of all states' processes, when all of the processes are so different that the count today really is not predictive for us. And we might even see a court saying that parties don't get to disallow some states' primary votes.

I Think (none / 0) (#15)
by BDB on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:48:16 AM EST

Primaries, at least the ones put on by states, are subject to constitutional standards in how they're carried out, even if the party doesn't have to listen to them or seat their delegates. I suspect caucuses, which are usually purely party affairs, are not. Unless I'm missing something, it's early here in the West.


: No (none / 0) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:50:24 AM EST

neither is subject to voting rights laws.

how about a court challenge (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:43:38 AM EST

to change it for the next go around?


likely he will be declared the winner (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:36:10 AM EST

no matter what.
right?

: Bill Richardson will (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:36:44 AM EST

I suppose Monday a.m. comic relief (none / 0) (#8)
by scribe on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:39:27 AM EST

is the purpose of this post, right?

: Heh (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 08:41:25 AM EST

A little bit anyway.

I foresee a split (none / 0) (#21)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST

...Obama wins Texas by roughly the same margin that Clinton wins OH and RI. He wins VT by a VA-size margin(65-35), and due to the TX caucus system and the overall allocation rules, he actually expands his lead by a few delegates. He may also slightly expand his popular vote lead as well.
I think Clinton will make noises about staying in, but the superdelegates will start lining up behind Obama, and after Obama wins Mississippi and Wyoming, and polls begin to show him winning PA, IN and NC(the three biggest remaining contests), I think she'll drop out, probably around mid-March.

If she wins the popular vote in both OH and TX, I think she'll stay in until at least PA. If she wins there, I think Obama has to win most of the remaining 9(11?) contests in order to secure the nomination.

By the way, a re-vote in FL and MI is a potential disaster for Clinton, because a) she could well lose Michigan, and b) if the convention had accepted the delegates under the existing vote, she'd be gaining over a hundred delegates relative to Obama, and now that's extremely unlikely to hold up.

If Clinton wins OH by the same margin (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST

she wins RI, Obama will not win Texas.


dunno... (none / 0) (#24)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:20:06 AM EST

...weekend polls had it as Clinton by 9 in RI, and that was before Obama's rally in Providence.

I think she'll win both by about 3-5%, and Obama will win Texas by about the same percentage.
The only plausible truly disastrous outcome for Obama would be losing both the primary and the caucus in TX, while winning only Vermont. That would probably mean the race continues to the convention.

Obviously, while unlikely, Clinton getting shut out in all 4 states would be an unmitigated disaster for her campaign, and I'd expect signals about conceding to emerge the very same night.


: She'll win RI (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:58:30 AM EST

by 10.

What's your take on Texas popular vote? We (none / 0) (#25)
by Angel on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:22:21 AM EST

know BO has the caucus. I'm interested in the popular vote because that's the checkmark on the TV.


: NFC (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:30:05 AM EST

: CNN interviewee just said that (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:39:49 AM EST

Latinos/as have been undercounted by polls because most, if not all, are conducted only in English. Interesting point, possibly for post-mortems -- although I think that the interviewee was spinning for the Clinton camp. Still, it doesn't mean that she's wrong on that point -- and I regularly read pollster.com and don't recall a discussion on bilingual polling.

As an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#22)
by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:11:21 AM EST

...the last thing I wanted to hear was Zogby predicting he wins.

This is very bad news for my side.

SUSA OH today, 54-44 for Clinton... (none / 0) (#26)
by mike in dc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:27:33 AM EST

...no link, sorry. I'm guessing the final margin tomorrow will be smaller than that. Turnout modeling is probably why these polls are all over the place(ranging from -2 to +10 Clinton).

Link here (none / 0) (#28)
by Shawn on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:33:19 AM EST

Clinton Widens Lead Over Obama on eve of Ohio primary


: Maybe this is why (none / 0) (#37)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:08 AM EST

the MSNBC media was ticked that much of the debate was about healthcare:
From the link above:

SurveyUSA concludes that the 16 minutes Clinton used during the Cleveland debate to talk about health care may have paid off. More voters now name health care as their number one issue, and of those, Clinton has a 24 percentage point advantage, up from 7 percent last week.

There's a link (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST

here


I think this general movement toward Clinton... (none / 0) (#30)
by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST

...may explain why Obama is withholding his fundraising numbers. My guess is they are really amazing - maybe more than 60 million. But it would make sense now to create a competing story on election day if Clinton has a good night tomorrow. If he announces them now, the story ends with a Clinton win tomorrow. If he announces them tomorrow, it might take some of the shine off of her victory.

Aha, thinking like a spinmeister (nt) (none / 0) (#31)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST

Um (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:38:11 AM EST

Not a good strategy if that is what he is doing.

Would have been better to make them a story over the weekend.


Depends... (none / 0) (#35)
by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST

...on the one hand, it might have injected some energy into Obama's campaign over the weekend. On the other, it might have created some sympathy among Clinton supporters and those still on the fence. But right now I suspect that his internals are telling him he's going to win Texas (at least in delegates) and that he's going to lose Ohio (SurveyUSA seems to confirm this now). I also imagine that if Hillary wins Ohio and comes close in Texas she's going to claim it's a huge victory. By announcing his fundraising tomorrow, it might dampen that claim somewhat, especially as the pundits start counting delegates and determine that no matter how well she did, the math is still working against her.

But again, I'm just speculating. We'll see how it plays out, but I'm not willing to say it's a bad strategy yet - I don't even know if it is his strategy!


Popular vote (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:45 AM EST

Delegate counts from Chuck Todd will not overwhelm who wins the popular vote.


: No, but... (none / 0) (#44)
by sar75 on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST

...winning the popular vote only makes for a more compelling victory narrative. (although Obama will likely note that even with Michigan and Florida thrown in his overall popular vote will still be slightly higher).
And, of course, in the end, it's delegates that matter. Obama has a good chance of coming out of tomorrow night with the same lead or slightly more. The supers, I expect, will not just flock to Clinton, but will probably break evenly. She'll still need to win decisively in the remaining states (which is hard to imagine) for her to regain that lead.
So, I think that this is still the better play for Obama - wait until tomorrow to release the fundraising numbers to cushion any blow he might receive.
But maybe he'll release today. I am unwilling to say anything at this point with certitude.

: I think people would also say, (none / 0) (#51)
by Kathy on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:28:17 AM EST

"Wow he raised a zillion trillion dollars and STILL didn't win?"
That'd be the story.

Thanks for all the updates (none / 0) (#34)
by Lil on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST

Any polls/trends from Texas?

I fear Zogby will be correct on- (none / 0) (#47)
by kenosharick on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:32:50 AM EST

these races. Most polls have been drastically underestimating turnout, which helps Obama. These new voters seem to be going for him in overwhelming numbers. Once he has the nomination, the MSM will suddenly makes his ties to shady Chicago&Iraqi businessmen front page news.

Worth Repeating (none / 0) (#48)
by KevinMc on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST

Back on February 04 I made my first comment here on TalkLeft and it bears a good old fashioned copy and paste in regard to Zogby:

I usually stop by this site when I need a break from the MSM bias. For the past year or more I had been participating in the Zogby online polls and had never skipped even one whenever they would send an invite. Suddenly about two months ago I stopped receiving anymore invites and I wonder if it's because I wasn't giving the desired responses? I find/found it odd they, Zogby, would drop someone who was a reliable and active participant.

PPP has been good; that with SUSA (none / 0) (#49)
by Cream City on Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST

is more reassuring . . . that Zogby is being Zogby.