Obama Leading In Texas
February 25, 2008 – Texas and Ohio Primary Preferences
| Texas | ||
| Democrats | Feb 13-14 | Feb 23-24 |
| Clinton | 42% | 42% |
| Obama | 48% | 50% |
| Someone else | 3% | 2% |
| Undecided | 7% | 6% |
In Texas:
Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama among self-described Democrats 47% to 44%
Obama leads Clinton among self-described independents and Republicans 71% to 25%.
Obama leads Clinton among men 59% to 30% (46% of likely Democratic primary voters,
Clinton leads Obama among women 53% to 42%.
Clinton leads Obama among white voters 52% to 40% (52% of likely Democratic primary voters)
Obama leads Clinton among African American voters 83% to 9% (23% of likely Democratic primary voters)
Clinton leads among Hispanic voters 50% to 40% (24% of likely Democratic primary voters).
In Ohio:
| Ohio | |
| Democrats | Feb 23-24 |
| Clinton | 49% |
| Obama | 39% |
| Someone else | 4% |
| Undecided | 8% |
Obama leads among men 49% to 37% (46% of likely Democratic primary voters)
Clinton leads among women 59% to 31%
Clinton leads among white voters 56% to 31% (82% of likely Democratic primary voters)
Obama leads among African American voters 79% to 15% (16% of likely Democratic primary voters)
Among voters age 18 to 49 (61% of likely Democratic primary voters), it is Clinton 43% and Obama 42%
Among voters age 50 years and older, Clinton leads 58% to 34%.
Sphere: Related Content
February 28th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Why I Support Hillary Clinton
After eight years of George W. Bush, all Democrats—and most of the American people—agree that we need change.
We agree that we need a President who will put people before the oil, drug, and health insurance companies, who regards Social Security and Medicare as an achievement rather than as a failure waiting to be privatized, who supports and values public education, who will not ignore the science on climate change, who stands with unions rather than CEOs, who respects the Constitution, civil liberties, and the rule of law, and who will not thrust the United States into imprudent and unnecessary wars. We also agree that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama promise to be the President we need.
The problem is that we can’t get the President we need without winning the general election, and while there is growing support for replacing George W. Bush with a Democrat, John McCain and the Republican Party will not go down without a fight.
John McCain is a war hero who has earned a reputation as an independent thinker. He is a reformer who has challenged his own party on campaign finance and tax cuts, and whether you agree with him or not, he has bona fide foreign policy experience. We might not want to admit it, but John McCain holds tremendous appeal to Reagan Democrats. To beat him, we need a candidate that can’t easily be painted as a “liberal” or a “pushover.” To beat him, we need Hillary Clinton.
Look, we know the Republican playbook. We know that they will use fear to win votes. We know that they will try to paint the Democratic candidate as soft on terrorism, invoke the attacks of September 11, and might even conjure up an “Orange Alert.” We know that they will try to paint the Democratic candidate as an arrogant elitist—out of touch with mainstream Americans. We know that they will spend millions investigating every second of the Democratic candidate’s life, and that they will use the full force of the Fox News/Drudge/Talk Radio axis to attack his or her character. It’s happened before—and sadly, it’s worked.
We also know Hillary Clinton. More importantly, America knows Hillary Clinton. There is nothing new for Limbaugh, Hannity, or Ingrahm to exploit. Hillary is Hillary. Yes, she brings back memories of the Clinton years. But were those really so bad? Wasn’t your wallet better off? Wasn’t America more respected in the world community? More importantly, do you remember how most people reacted to impeachment and the endless Republican investigations? The country rejected Ken Starr and his overreaching. The Clintons beat Newt Gingrich, remember? It is true that when you remind people of the Clinton years you remind them of scandal, but you also remind them of economic prosperity and the Republican propensity to go to too far.
Hillary has a record since then, and it’s pretty moderate. She may be too moderate for the far left, but remember, the far left isn’t going to win Ohio or Florida, or keep Michigan and Pennsylvania blue—especially against John McCain. In the general election, Hillary’s moderate Senate record will attract independent and disaffected Republican voters.
Obama is inspiring and fresh—no doubt about it. But fresh doesn’t win elections—and it doesn’t beat the Right-wing hit machine. The attack has already started. Get used to hearing “Barack Hussein Obama.” See how fast the name Tony Rezko starts to roll off Sean Hannity’s lips. Before you know it, the inspiring Senator from Illinois will be turned into a naïve, clueless, elitist, corrupt Chicago politician with a Messiah complex. His supporters will be derided as immature sheep, caught up in his cult-like campaign. And of course, there is the inevitable race-baiting. It won’t be fair, but it will happen. And it will work.
Why will it work? In part, because Obama hasn’t even finished his first term as a United States Senator, and in the time he has been there he has earned the ranking of being the second most liberal Senator. Moreover, Obama has never taken a punch like he’ll get during the campaign. Let’s not forget that he won his seat by beating Alan Keys.
The point is that elections are all about putting ideas into action. The Democratic candidate has to be elected before he or she can bring the change we need. The polls against John McCain don’t matter now; look at fast things changed for Hillary. We need a candidate that will appeal to Reagan Democrats, because they will make or break the election. Don’t think so? Ask Al Gore or John Kerry if it’s a good idea to count on the youth vote. Obama looks good now, but what will he look like after he gets bloodied by the Republicans? We know Hillary can take a punch. We know she can win Reagan Democrats in a contested general election because she did it in New York. And we know, if we’re honest about it, that come Election Day, a lot of Reagan Democrats will pull the lever for the old war hero rather than the new guy. If we want to read that a Democrat was elected to the Oval Office, our best is to nominate Hillary Clinton.
February 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Andy:
I agree with you on the republican issues however, I doubt there are many Reagan Democrats left who would turn the next election over to the GOP.
I respectfully disagree with you on some of your Hillary Clinton points;
1) Yes we had heavier wallets with the Clinton administration but that was Bill Clinton and he’s not running. To expect life will be the same under Hillary just because Bill might be in the White House again, this for me is flawed logic. Also that thought implies a co-president, which I am very much against. I can’t give credit to Hillary for Bill Clinton’s administration nor can I hold Hillary responsible for any of his failures, they are mutually exclusive. Also for me it’s just as absurd to link Hillary’s future to Bill’s past as the republican candidates taking credit or linking their platform to Reagan; and
2)While you are probable correct that Limbaugh and the gang will not use the old scandals to get Hillary, they have plenty of missteps, wrong decisions and she will be called a flip flopper on NAFTA. There is plenty of Hillary fire for the right.
Thanks for your thoughts.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:41 am
Before you vote, please make sure YOU know your candidate.
If you take time to fill in the blanks that most of mainstream media leaves out, you’ll learn that Obama has been ‘missing in action’ for a lot of things because he’s been too busy inflating his presidential suit:
He was ‘missing in action’ …
- from his own state legislative record in Illinois. His entire record was created in ONE YEAR’s time, facilitated by Emil Jones Jr.
- from leadership in a host of critical community issues in his own district in Chicago during his State Senate years
summary: http://wonkette.com/361542/barack-obamas-dastardly-rage-and-corruption-revealed
summary:
original article: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/
- by failing in his chairmanship of a Senate subcommittee on Europe to hold a hearing on NATO’s presence in Afghanistan
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- from a Senate vote last year on a nonbinding resolution in that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (Clinton voted for the measure and faced heat from Obama and other Democratic rivals for supporting a measure pushed by the Bush administration.)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/29/clinton-obama-missing-in-action/
- at the Black State of the Union address in New Orleans last week
Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/obama.sobu/
- at a “controversal” photo op
“As God Is My Witness”: Obama Snubs Newsom, Gays (article at noquarterusa.net)
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/29/as-god-is-my-witness-obama-snubs-newsom
“Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.”
http://questionbarackobama.blogspot.com/mwash678@gmail.com