Polls closed in Ohio and are closing soon in Texas, exit polling data is out from both places. Here is what we know:
On the Democratic Party side, exit polls give Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton give a slight lead in Ohio, by two-three points and other data is looking good: Sen. Clinton won white women and white men in Ohio; voters 44 and over; and those voters making less than $50,000. She also closely won households which have union members, 52, Obama 46.
In Texas where polls don't close for another ten minutes, exit data says: Hispanics went for Sen. Clinton 64-35 percent. Among those deciding late, it was Sen. Clinton 66, Sen. Obama, 34. And women went for Sen. Clinton 54-46.
Now some polls will be staying open later in Ohio because of problems and weather.
Sen. Obama has been declared the winner in Vermont which also voted today; Rhode Island, a small state which also votes today has Sen. Obama in the lead according to exit polls.
Reports now indicate that Sen. Clinton will stay in the race no matter what. Analysts are saying Ohio is too close to call at the moment with the two candidates running about even.
Sen McCain is winning big both in Ohio and Texas. Say hello to the new Republican Party presidential nominee.
March 4, 2008
Alright, Already--The Prediction
I have been monitoring the trends in what is being called "Super Tuesday II"--the pivotal primary races in Texas and Ohio between Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. At stake is the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.
If Sen. Obama continues his winning streak (he has won 11 straight contests) he will likely put a stranglehold on the nomination both in delegate strength and in political perception. If Senator Clinton wins, at least she'll stop the momentum and create the political perception that this race is not yet over.
At the RealClearPolitics.com delegate counter, Senator Obama leads with 1392 to Senator Clinton's 1279. This total includes the number of "pledged" delegates won in caucuses and primaries, and the publicly committed "superdelegates," those 796 Democratic Party insiders who are given delegate (and voting) status at the August convention.
The irony is that even if Sen. Clinton wins both elections tonight, she will probably not eat into Sen. Obama's lead very much. That is because of the proportional allocation of delegates awarded to candidates based on the popular vote. Secondly, in Texas, additional delegates will be awarded at a caucus following the primary. But you can only participate in a caucus if you can prove you voted in the primary! What a convoluted system!
That is why many analysts here are predicting that the only thing that would change if Sen. Clinton wins--except if she wins by a large margin--is the current political perception as Sen. Obama might actually increase his delegate totals even if he loses both states!
Nevertheless, it is becoming clearer that neither candidate will reach the magic number of 2,025 out of 4,049 total delegates (or something like that) based on their numbers heading into the Convention. The superdelegates would come into play as they would then have to cast ballots based on their beliefs of which candidate would be better for the party. Both sides are courting and threatening these delegates as the contest drags on.
The polls show a definite trend to the New York senator as she leads narrowly in Texas (47-44 Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby) and in most polls in Ohio, although Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby has Texas as a tie. Additionally, a few polls have Sen. Obama ahead in Ohio.
But compared to the recent gains by Sen. Obama, it is fair to say that Sen. Clinton has come back somewhat to pose a challenge. In past elections, every one that has been fairly close in the polls has gone to Sen. Obama convincingly. What about tonight?
If I had to guess (an educated one, but a guess) I would say that Democratic Party voters in Ohio and Texas still may not be sure of their choices between the two. They may want a longer campaign, and to do that, one has to cast a vote for Sen. Clinton. She has raised some questions about Sen. Obama's experience, and he has been caught in some shifting explanations about a senior campaign aide's interview with Canadian television over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Additionally, a corruption trial has opened up in Sen. Obama's home town of Chicago, which features as defendant, a man named Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was a fundraiser for Sen. Obama who is accused of extorting companies for money if they wanted to do business with various Ilinois state bodies.
He was involved in the purchase of land adjoining Sen. Obama's home in Chicago which was later sold to Sen. Obama, increasing the value of the senator's house. Sen. Obama is not charged with any wrongdoing and said the purchase of the land from Mr. Rezko could create the appearance of impropriety, and he added that, "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."
The opening of the trial allowed reporters to start peppering Sen. Obama with adversarial questions and this marked the first time in months that the Illinois senator faced any kind of coverage that was less than gushing.
Add all these up, and I am going to say that Sen. Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by squeakers. We may not know the results for hours after the polls close if the races are tight. So in the sense that a win is a win, she will get two IMHO and fight on. But I think she remains an underdog in the nomination contest.
If she loses both states to Sen. Obama (as has been the pattern in the last 11 contests), I truly would join the chorus and say it is all but over. Apparently, she will hang in there and not concede defeat, but if she does not win these two states, I don't see how she convinces the 796 superdelegates that she somehow deserves the nomination over Sen. Obama.
On the Republican side, what normally would be a big story will take a back seat to the Democratic contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona should go over the top tonight and secure his party's presidential nomination. He is leading heavily in polls in Ohio and Texas over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who should drop out after he sustains major losses in both states.
This is an incredible comeback story for Sen. McCain whose political obituary was all but writte last year. But he tightened his belt, kept the ship afloat, events broke his way (namely in Iraq) and he knocked off former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in primary elections. Fortunately for him, the Republicans had many "winner take all" contests, and his victories have propelled him to the brink of the nomination.
I will be live blogging the results as they come in about two hours or so, so come back, and if you can, tell your interested friends to come over and catch what's happening. Should be pretty exciting!
If Sen. Obama continues his winning streak (he has won 11 straight contests) he will likely put a stranglehold on the nomination both in delegate strength and in political perception. If Senator Clinton wins, at least she'll stop the momentum and create the political perception that this race is not yet over.
At the RealClearPolitics.com delegate counter, Senator Obama leads with 1392 to Senator Clinton's 1279. This total includes the number of "pledged" delegates won in caucuses and primaries, and the publicly committed "superdelegates," those 796 Democratic Party insiders who are given delegate (and voting) status at the August convention.
The irony is that even if Sen. Clinton wins both elections tonight, she will probably not eat into Sen. Obama's lead very much. That is because of the proportional allocation of delegates awarded to candidates based on the popular vote. Secondly, in Texas, additional delegates will be awarded at a caucus following the primary. But you can only participate in a caucus if you can prove you voted in the primary! What a convoluted system!
That is why many analysts here are predicting that the only thing that would change if Sen. Clinton wins--except if she wins by a large margin--is the current political perception as Sen. Obama might actually increase his delegate totals even if he loses both states!
Nevertheless, it is becoming clearer that neither candidate will reach the magic number of 2,025 out of 4,049 total delegates (or something like that) based on their numbers heading into the Convention. The superdelegates would come into play as they would then have to cast ballots based on their beliefs of which candidate would be better for the party. Both sides are courting and threatening these delegates as the contest drags on.
The polls show a definite trend to the New York senator as she leads narrowly in Texas (47-44 Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby) and in most polls in Ohio, although Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby has Texas as a tie. Additionally, a few polls have Sen. Obama ahead in Ohio.
But compared to the recent gains by Sen. Obama, it is fair to say that Sen. Clinton has come back somewhat to pose a challenge. In past elections, every one that has been fairly close in the polls has gone to Sen. Obama convincingly. What about tonight?
If I had to guess (an educated one, but a guess) I would say that Democratic Party voters in Ohio and Texas still may not be sure of their choices between the two. They may want a longer campaign, and to do that, one has to cast a vote for Sen. Clinton. She has raised some questions about Sen. Obama's experience, and he has been caught in some shifting explanations about a senior campaign aide's interview with Canadian television over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Additionally, a corruption trial has opened up in Sen. Obama's home town of Chicago, which features as defendant, a man named Tony Rezko. Mr. Rezko was a fundraiser for Sen. Obama who is accused of extorting companies for money if they wanted to do business with various Ilinois state bodies.
He was involved in the purchase of land adjoining Sen. Obama's home in Chicago which was later sold to Sen. Obama, increasing the value of the senator's house. Sen. Obama is not charged with any wrongdoing and said the purchase of the land from Mr. Rezko could create the appearance of impropriety, and he added that, "I consider this a mistake on my part and I regret it."
The opening of the trial allowed reporters to start peppering Sen. Obama with adversarial questions and this marked the first time in months that the Illinois senator faced any kind of coverage that was less than gushing.
Add all these up, and I am going to say that Sen. Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by squeakers. We may not know the results for hours after the polls close if the races are tight. So in the sense that a win is a win, she will get two IMHO and fight on. But I think she remains an underdog in the nomination contest.
If she loses both states to Sen. Obama (as has been the pattern in the last 11 contests), I truly would join the chorus and say it is all but over. Apparently, she will hang in there and not concede defeat, but if she does not win these two states, I don't see how she convinces the 796 superdelegates that she somehow deserves the nomination over Sen. Obama.
On the Republican side, what normally would be a big story will take a back seat to the Democratic contest. Sen. John McCain of Arizona should go over the top tonight and secure his party's presidential nomination. He is leading heavily in polls in Ohio and Texas over former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who should drop out after he sustains major losses in both states.
This is an incredible comeback story for Sen. McCain whose political obituary was all but writte last year. But he tightened his belt, kept the ship afloat, events broke his way (namely in Iraq) and he knocked off former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in primary elections. Fortunately for him, the Republicans had many "winner take all" contests, and his victories have propelled him to the brink of the nomination.
I will be live blogging the results as they come in about two hours or so, so come back, and if you can, tell your interested friends to come over and catch what's happening. Should be pretty exciting!
March 3, 2008
Election Eve
It looks like the polls may be moving ever so slightly in the direction of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Tuesday's pivotal Democratic Party primary elections in Texas and Ohio. Sen. Clinton is fighting for her political life against Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois with the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party hanging in the balance.
Sen. Obama leads in total delegates and has won 11 contests in a row. Sen. Clinton badly needs a win of any kind. As I said earlier, I thought the "red phone" ad--a political advertisement in which a red phone rings at 3 a.m. and a narrator asks which person you want to answer that phone, Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama--had the potential of working.
Tracking polls today on RealClearPolitics.com indicate Sen. Clinton has regained her lead in Ohio and may be squeaking ahead in Texas. In Ohio, the main issue is the economy and here the red phone probably did not make much difference. In particular, the main flash point in Ohio between the two candidates is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both candidates have been arguing that NAFTA, and by extension free trade itself, has caused jobs to flee states like Ohio and they are discussing measures which critics call "protectionist".
But an issue concerning NAFTA is causing angst for Sen. Obama. It seems one of his senior aides--an economic adviser named Austan Goolsbee--told a member of the Canadidan consulate to ignore Sen. Obama's comments about NAFTA, that they were just "campaign rhetoric." When the story broke in Canada, the Obama campaign denied the meeting even happened, but CTV, which broke the story, stood by its account. The Obama campaign then said CTV "retracted" the story, which it didn't, and for the first time in months, the usually tight and disciplined Obama campaign seems to have gone off the rails a bit on this story.
Since this is a salient issue in Ohio, it could be a reason why Sen. Clinton is gaining traction there. Texas is different with both candidates in a dead heat.
If Sen. Clinton does manage to win both states--even by the skin of her teeth--she can claim to have stopped his momentum even if she does not catch up to the total number of delegates he claims (1392-1279) and she would stay in the race with a political reprieve.
I'll look at tracking polls tomorrow and make a prediction. I've been spectacularly wrong betting against Sen. Obama so I want to see more data before taking the plunge.
On the Republican side, it is possible that Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the clear presumptive nominee, could "go over the top" and gain enough delegates to mathematically clinch the nomination. That is a huge story, of course, but will be overshadowed by the exciting and media-absorbing Obama-Clinton race in Texas and Ohio.
I will try to post later but as of now, it looks like what the media is calling "Super Tuesday II" is going to be a real nail-biter.
Sen. Obama leads in total delegates and has won 11 contests in a row. Sen. Clinton badly needs a win of any kind. As I said earlier, I thought the "red phone" ad--a political advertisement in which a red phone rings at 3 a.m. and a narrator asks which person you want to answer that phone, Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama--had the potential of working.
Tracking polls today on RealClearPolitics.com indicate Sen. Clinton has regained her lead in Ohio and may be squeaking ahead in Texas. In Ohio, the main issue is the economy and here the red phone probably did not make much difference. In particular, the main flash point in Ohio between the two candidates is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both candidates have been arguing that NAFTA, and by extension free trade itself, has caused jobs to flee states like Ohio and they are discussing measures which critics call "protectionist".
But an issue concerning NAFTA is causing angst for Sen. Obama. It seems one of his senior aides--an economic adviser named Austan Goolsbee--told a member of the Canadidan consulate to ignore Sen. Obama's comments about NAFTA, that they were just "campaign rhetoric." When the story broke in Canada, the Obama campaign denied the meeting even happened, but CTV, which broke the story, stood by its account. The Obama campaign then said CTV "retracted" the story, which it didn't, and for the first time in months, the usually tight and disciplined Obama campaign seems to have gone off the rails a bit on this story.
Since this is a salient issue in Ohio, it could be a reason why Sen. Clinton is gaining traction there. Texas is different with both candidates in a dead heat.
If Sen. Clinton does manage to win both states--even by the skin of her teeth--she can claim to have stopped his momentum even if she does not catch up to the total number of delegates he claims (1392-1279) and she would stay in the race with a political reprieve.
I'll look at tracking polls tomorrow and make a prediction. I've been spectacularly wrong betting against Sen. Obama so I want to see more data before taking the plunge.
On the Republican side, it is possible that Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the clear presumptive nominee, could "go over the top" and gain enough delegates to mathematically clinch the nomination. That is a huge story, of course, but will be overshadowed by the exciting and media-absorbing Obama-Clinton race in Texas and Ohio.
I will try to post later but as of now, it looks like what the media is calling "Super Tuesday II" is going to be a real nail-biter.
March 1, 2008
Reader Comment
Besides our first comment from Jack in the previous post, VOA got an e-mail from a K.Kelly. Here it is:
"Do a Google news search and compare how many times the internet news media, including Voice of America, uses the term "Clinton ATTACKS...Obama" verses "Obama ATTACKS...Clinton." I think you will find the analysis startling. There are a lot more references to "Clinton ATTACKS Obama" than "Obama ATTACKS Clinton." Instead Obama "swipes," "criticizes," "says," "suggests," and "warns," etc. There is a big difference between ATTACK and SWIPES, CRITICIZES, SAYS, SUGGESTS and WARNS. ATTACK has a negative connotation. Is Voice of America biased against the Clinton campaign?
K. Kelly"
While not specifically addressed to this blog, I thought I would take, er a "swipe" at it. :-)
I would go along with the idea that the media in the United States (from which VOA draws much of its news) has generally been less critical of Sen. Obama than Sen. Clinton. This is not only my view but you can read this throughout the media itself.
But one has to admit that the Clinton campaign, according to analysts, has been less than adroit in pursuing the nomination. They gambled everything on a strategy of inevitability and wrapping up the nomination by Super Tuesday back during the first week of February. It failed. The press coverage reflects this as well.
But as I said in my earlier posts, I sense this is going to change and change soon. And again, this is not just my idea; you can read this all over the American press. The press, if I can aggregate what I see, realizes that it has been perhaps too ga-ga over Sen. Obama, and now that he is a front runner, is beginning to focus on what exactly he means by "change". His plans are beginning to be examined, his voting record is likely to be parsed.
I think Sen. Clinton has raised a legitimate question in asking whether Sen. Obama is prepared to assume the awesome burden of the Oval Office. He has spent four years in the Senate, and eight years before that as a state legislator. About half of his time in the Senate has been spent running for president. In his defense, men have been elected with far less national experience than he has as we have tended to elect state governors in past contests.
So given all this, I think the press coverage reflects the states of the two campaigns. And for my money, "attack" is not such a dirty word. That is what candidates do all the time, and frankly, in a democracy, they should. To me, "attack" does not have such a negative connotation but I will concede the point that words matter (where have we heard this before?).
VOA mirrors the national press coverage as we strive to give our listeners and the visitors to our website what the country's media is saying, and that terminology inevitably creeps into our own coverage. Perhaps we should be more careful but while I think we try to be as objective as we can, we should not go out of our way to "make up" for what the US press is saying. It is always going to be a judgment call for us as to how people and things are described. We'll always look at that.
But I do sense that a change may be ahead on the press coverage of both candidates. However, be prepared that if Sen. Clinton loses both contests on Tuesday night, the coverage and adjectives used to describe her and her campaign are going to be painful for her supporters.
Thanks for the note and I hope you keep getting your campaign info from us.
"Do a Google news search and compare how many times the internet news media, including Voice of America, uses the term "Clinton ATTACKS...Obama" verses "Obama ATTACKS...Clinton." I think you will find the analysis startling. There are a lot more references to "Clinton ATTACKS Obama" than "Obama ATTACKS Clinton." Instead Obama "swipes," "criticizes," "says," "suggests," and "warns," etc. There is a big difference between ATTACK and SWIPES, CRITICIZES, SAYS, SUGGESTS and WARNS. ATTACK has a negative connotation. Is Voice of America biased against the Clinton campaign?
K. Kelly"
While not specifically addressed to this blog, I thought I would take, er a "swipe" at it. :-)
I would go along with the idea that the media in the United States (from which VOA draws much of its news) has generally been less critical of Sen. Obama than Sen. Clinton. This is not only my view but you can read this throughout the media itself.
But one has to admit that the Clinton campaign, according to analysts, has been less than adroit in pursuing the nomination. They gambled everything on a strategy of inevitability and wrapping up the nomination by Super Tuesday back during the first week of February. It failed. The press coverage reflects this as well.
But as I said in my earlier posts, I sense this is going to change and change soon. And again, this is not just my idea; you can read this all over the American press. The press, if I can aggregate what I see, realizes that it has been perhaps too ga-ga over Sen. Obama, and now that he is a front runner, is beginning to focus on what exactly he means by "change". His plans are beginning to be examined, his voting record is likely to be parsed.
I think Sen. Clinton has raised a legitimate question in asking whether Sen. Obama is prepared to assume the awesome burden of the Oval Office. He has spent four years in the Senate, and eight years before that as a state legislator. About half of his time in the Senate has been spent running for president. In his defense, men have been elected with far less national experience than he has as we have tended to elect state governors in past contests.
So given all this, I think the press coverage reflects the states of the two campaigns. And for my money, "attack" is not such a dirty word. That is what candidates do all the time, and frankly, in a democracy, they should. To me, "attack" does not have such a negative connotation but I will concede the point that words matter (where have we heard this before?).
VOA mirrors the national press coverage as we strive to give our listeners and the visitors to our website what the country's media is saying, and that terminology inevitably creeps into our own coverage. Perhaps we should be more careful but while I think we try to be as objective as we can, we should not go out of our way to "make up" for what the US press is saying. It is always going to be a judgment call for us as to how people and things are described. We'll always look at that.
But I do sense that a change may be ahead on the press coverage of both candidates. However, be prepared that if Sen. Clinton loses both contests on Tuesday night, the coverage and adjectives used to describe her and her campaign are going to be painful for her supporters.
Thanks for the note and I hope you keep getting your campaign info from us.
Some Tightening in Texas
Didn't want I say I told you so, but there does seem to be some tightening in Texas in daily tracking polls. These tracking polls measure groups of voters day to day to determine what may move a campaign on a daily basis. It can also measure the impact of events--speeches, ads, devel0pments, gaffes--and see what may be responsible for voter movement.
In the Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby Tracking Poll, it says: "Democrat Hillary Clinton stemmed her losses and solidified her base in Texas, reversing a slide against rival Barack Obama." Sen. Obama has a two-point lead in this poll but the movement has to be at least some good news for the Clinton campaign.
In Ohio, it's virtually a dead heat according to Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby with Sen. Clinton up by a point, 45-44.
A second poll, the WFAA (TV station in Dallas, Texas) and Belo, a polling organization, have it Sen. Clinton by one point with the race seesawing back and forth. They say there is no way at present she can make up enough delegates in Texas to overtake him, but that may not be the point here. A win is a win and she needs one badly.
As I said yesterday, I wonder if that ad she is running about the red phone has raised a few doubts or given enough voters pause to reconsider a vote for Sen. Obama. That plus the story about whether or not Sen. Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was just "campaign rhetoric," as one of the campaign's senior aides told a member of the Canadian government.
We will see Tuesday evening. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye on tracking polls for these two races.
For the Republicans, Sen. John McCain is not breaking a sweat in either state and should win handily.
Hey, if you have any ideas or opinions you want to express, please go ahead, I welcome them. The e-mail address is over on the right and you can always leave a comment.
In the Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby Tracking Poll, it says: "Democrat Hillary Clinton stemmed her losses and solidified her base in Texas, reversing a slide against rival Barack Obama." Sen. Obama has a two-point lead in this poll but the movement has to be at least some good news for the Clinton campaign.
In Ohio, it's virtually a dead heat according to Reuters/CPSAN/Zogby with Sen. Clinton up by a point, 45-44.
A second poll, the WFAA (TV station in Dallas, Texas) and Belo, a polling organization, have it Sen. Clinton by one point with the race seesawing back and forth. They say there is no way at present she can make up enough delegates in Texas to overtake him, but that may not be the point here. A win is a win and she needs one badly.
As I said yesterday, I wonder if that ad she is running about the red phone has raised a few doubts or given enough voters pause to reconsider a vote for Sen. Obama. That plus the story about whether or not Sen. Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was just "campaign rhetoric," as one of the campaign's senior aides told a member of the Canadian government.
We will see Tuesday evening. Meanwhile, I'll keep an eye on tracking polls for these two races.
For the Republicans, Sen. John McCain is not breaking a sweat in either state and should win handily.
Hey, if you have any ideas or opinions you want to express, please go ahead, I welcome them. The e-mail address is over on the right and you can always leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
