Democrats Deadlocked In Texas, Close In Ohio: Poll - WaPo

[WillyT]

Democrats deadlocked in Texas, close in Ohio: poll

Saturday, February 23, 2008
By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, The Washington Post

<snip>

AUSTIN, Texas -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, facing a pair of big Democratic primary tests on March 4 that could determine the fate of her presidential candidacy, is deadlocked with Sen. Barack Obama here in Texas and holds a slender lead over him in Ohio, according to two new Washington Post-ABC News polls.

The closeness of the races in Texas and Ohio underscores the challenges facing Clinton over the next 12 days of campaigning as she seeks to end Obama's double-digit winning streak in their battle for the Democratic nomination. Those victories have given Obama a lead in delegates to the national convention and have put Clinton's candidacy at risk unless she can rack up a string of big victories of her own.

In Ohio, Clinton leads Obama in the new poll by 50 percent to 43 percent, a significant but tenuous advantage given the shifts that have taken place elsewhere as candidates intensified their campaigns in advance of previous primaries. In Texas, the race is even, with Clinton at 48 percent and Obama at 47 percent. In recent contests in Virginia and Wisconsin, Obama cut into Clinton's coalition, a potentially significant change in the Democratic race. At this point in Ohio and Texas, Clinton is doing better than she did in those states among her more reliable voters, but has yet to make deep inroads into Obama's core supporters.

The Post-ABC News polls show Clinton with solid support from white women, seniors and voters with less education and lower incomes in both Ohio and Texas. She holds a big lead among Hispanics in Texas. Obama has large advantages among independents, African Americans and better-educated voters in both states.

Clinton advisers have expressed optimism about her prospects in the two contests, but the new polls suggest the momentum Obama achieved in his string of victories has turned both into true battlegrounds. Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, said this week that she must win Texas and Ohio to keep her candidacy viable.

In Ohio, the economy and health care are battling for the top spot on voters' agendas, while in Texas health care is the clear number one concern, followed by the economy and Iraq. In Ohio, the war in Iraq also comes in third place, but far below the other two; just 9 percent of voters there called it their most important voting issue.

Obama and Clinton supporters in both states are highly enthusiastic about the candidates, and more than seven in 10 said they definitely will stick with the candidate they have embraced. But that leaves a sizable number of likely voters in both states either undecided or open to changing their minds between now and primary day.

<snip>

Link: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/2008/02/23/144130/Democrats-deadlocked.htm

:shrug:

[Scurrilous]

1. Great news!

:thumbsup:

[woolldog]

2. Why?

Why do better educated voters consistently prefer Obama? I can't think of a good explanation for why? :shrug:

[ORDem]

3. Maybe you're not one of them then? OK, sorry for the snark, but

couldn't resist. LOL...

[woolldog]

4. No.

:P I have a BA and a JD from two of the best schools in the country. And I'm an Obamaniac as well.

I'm just not sure why his numbers work out that way?

[Colobo]

5. I think the fact is more important than the question itself. :)

[scheming daemons]

6. Because...

1. Less-educated whites have a higher tendency to be racist and "fear" blacks being in positions of authority than more-educated whites. The redneck "good ol' boys" of this country don't tend to have a PhD. It's been proven in study after study that the racism wanes as education level increases.

2. The more-educated are usually higher income voters. They tend to be more self-reliant and more willing to risk electing a "newcomer with fresh ideas" than someone who is living from paycheck to paycheck and doesn't want to lose their safety-net.

3. The more-educated tend to be more up on current events (they read more), and so "Obama" and "Clinton" have the same name-recognition with them. The less-educated (and less well-read) in a lot of cases never even HEARD of Barack Obama until a couple months ago.

4. The more-educated are less likely to be susceptible to "Obama is a MUSLIM!" chain emails than the less-educated. More-educated people tend to do a little more research into spurious claims.


Those are my theories, anyway.


By the way... the less educated are more likely to vote Republican and be susceptible to Republican fear/smear campaigns than the more-educated. In both 2000 and 2004, Gore and Kerry won among those with college degrees.

Education leads to knowledge leads to free thinking leads to skepticism leads to INFORMED VOTER.

[jackson_dem]

9. More classism from Obamanation

Maybe it's because those who are working their rears off just to make ends meet can't gamble on slogans like "hope and change" and prefer proven entities? It is easy for someone making $150,000 to gamble because he will be fine regardless of who wins.

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

14. That's it exactly

That, and the poor people that Obama hunts for sport with the other members of the Latte Elite.

He prefers single mothers making less than 15k a year who are inspired by Hillary's struggle. Ted Kennedy prefers Latino children with crippling disabilities.

[woolldog]

10. thanks for the well thought out answer. (eom)

[CarbonDate]

7. Because they're paying closer attention....

...which means they're more likely to have heard of Obama. Voters with less education are more likely to go off of name recognition. That's the simplest and most likely explanation I can think of that doesn't involve a bunch of pseudo-psychoanalysis.

[CTLawGuy]

11. my explanation

they are more likely to know who he is, and about him. The less educated you are, the less informed you probably are about politics and the more likely you are to vote based on name recognition.

[jgraz]

13. My guess is that most of them are well and truly sick of the Clintons

More educated means more likely to stay informed on the issues. Anyone paying attention to the Clintons for the past 16 years can't help but feel a bit of fatigue.

[anamandujano]

15. You mean anyone who has internalized Rovian talking points.

That's what you should be sick of, and yet you use them to bolster your candidate.

I know plenty of people with degrees who are not great thinkers. I know plenty of people with money who are downright ignorant.

As far as rich and well educated, think Bush.

If the polls are skewed by college kids, and equating that with well educated and further equating that with intelligence, let me tell you it means zip.

Working people with families and sick children have street smarts and are more likely to delve into issues before they sign on to a candidate.

The huge rallies Obama is holding can be likened more to football rallies, where everyone gets drunk and burns things. Again, follow the crowd, don't think for yourself. I can't wait until these numbskulls get faced with a draft thanks to Obama's plans for perma war.

[jgraz]

16. Thanks for a great example of why the Clintons are bad for the party

Your post was nothing but divisive crap. Hillary thinks she can win at this point by crapping on Obama's supporters. She implies that they're cult members, she implies that they don't matter, that they're not "real" Democrats. That they're not "real" Americans.

And you lap it up and spew it out here.

Hillary is going to lose. She's going to lose Texas and Ohio by huge margins, and she'll be remembered as having run one of the worst campaigns in modern memory. Hopefully, that will put an end to all this destructive Clintonian bullshit.

But probably not.

[Faygo Kid]

18. Young supporters of Obama are "numbskulls?" Such hate.

"Everyone gets drunk and burns things?"

You "can't wait" for a draft?

You're a bitter ender who is reduced to the ugliest sort of name calling as the reality of your candidate's losing campaign begins to sink in.

March 5 is the day this ends. And good riddance to your kind of bitter post.

[adoraz]

8. aren't these just the the same 2 polls

everyone has been using the past few days? or are they new?

[Johnny__Motown]

12. Daily Kos does not agree with this view of Texas

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/22/01357/3030/71/455547

[Medusa]

17. She has to win with 70% of the vote in BOTH these states.

She won't. She can't. And Obama very may well win both of them. Then will she finally pack it in and go home or will she continue to divide our party?