Buckeye State Blog - Leaked Obama Ohio Internal Polling Numbers - Comments

We're a military family too

Susan — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:02:56 -0800

When the diplomatic balancing act of our foreign relations fails, it's people like my son who pay the price. So I want leaders who understand the consequences of their words.

I don't think it was naivete

generica — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:55:27 -0800

I grew up in the military, so I probably have a view slightly to the right of the standard dem outlook. I want every dictator out there to understand (as Saddam didn't) that if they screw with us, they'll accept the consequences. I, personally, think it would be more naive to think dictators would come along just because Obama said they should, so I appreciated the stick. I also think the carrots will be a thousand times more effective, but I want the stick there anyway. But I know I'm in the minority on that.

Saying it in public like that

Susan — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:42:50 -0800

Diplomatic relations are dicey and one shouldn't tick off the dictators we need to work with in order to keep a lid on the extremists in their nuclear-armed countries. The statement showed a level of naivete that is irksome, though I'm old enough to understand that I cannot expect a "perfect" candidate. I'm sure his advisers have walked him back from that misstep.

Pakistan

generica — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:33:20 -0800

The specific quopte you're looking for is:

“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf wonâ€™t act, we will.”

Which part of this is wrong?

I agree that he's a bit green, but...

Susan — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:47:08 -0800

that's about the only thing you posted I agree with. I don't know anyone, even on the GOP side, who wants aggressive war in Pakistan. I don't think BS posts like this are helpful to those of us who want to elect a Democrat to the White House. We know at this point that the Dem nominee is going to be either Barack or Hillary, and though it might be nice to have an objective discussion on the relative merits of both candidates for those of us who haven't voted yet, I don't think we are served in the long run by hurling accusations like this.

I would like to hear more from both candidates about their plans for the war in Afghanistan, their regional policy for maintaining our access to the oil until we can break our dependency on it, how we deal with China, and other matters of life and death. But that's not part of the marketing strategy of either team.

Obama wants aggressive war in Pakistan

findthesource — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:28:56 -0800

I'm not sure about Obama's foreign policy. It seems fairly aggresive and not as peaceful as he implies. See this link to bbcnews: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm. Apparently, after the debates last summer he noted that we will bring troops to Pakistan, even if Pakistani President does not authorize a U.S. invasion. He still feels this way to this day. It seems like a bit much. It reached a point where Pakistani President was severely pissed by Obama's words. Clearly, Obama is a bit green on these matters.

TYPICAL

amc7150 — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:23:57 -0800

I agree with you.......they don't get any more inaccurate this. It is indeed BS

Interesting

Tom Smith — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:50:11 -0800

I'm loathe to trust internal polls unless I can see the crosstabs. Also, often a campaign will "leak" a poll that is twoards their benefit, or even fudge the numbers if needed to rally the troops or dispirit the opposition. That said, these numbers seem plausable given how Obama is surging nationally. The latest Gallup poll has him up 49-42 nationally, and if Ohio is supposed to be a microcosim of the nation, then that should be a good sign.

Here we go again...

modernesquire — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 10:01:08 -0800

Jerid, you and Russo went nuts insisting I was lying about the Ohio debates because CNN still had it on their calendar of events. Now we know that Obama never agreed to attend that debate, but instead agreed to a previously unknown offer of a debate with an NBC affiliate in Cleveland. You guys seized on that as "evidence" that I was wrong, when in reality all Obama did was change his mind and agree to two debates: one in Texas and one in Ohio.

Then David Suster from MSNBC said some reprehensible comments about Cheslea Clinton and the campaign said they were "considering" dropping out of the debate, but never actually took back her acceptance.

Then you spent a week calling her a liar for "not agreeing" to a debate in Cleveland that she, in fact, actually had agreed to and has since said she is intending on attending.

I don't consider Obama's campaign on buying off superdelegates, his blatantly misrpresentations about his and Clinton's record on free trade and their health care proposals, or his waffling on his prior commitment to go with public financing in the general if the Republican nominee agreed to as well as "small holes."

Nor did I consider it a small hole to say that your claim that Clinton has been above 50% three weeks before every primary was as ludicrious as your claim that a poll showing her with a twenty point lead and well over 50% should give her "nightmares."

Meanwhile you and Russo have been rushing to post on the front page one ridiculous story after another (the webbanner and former landlord nonsense as but two recent examples).

I've said that I'm leaning towards Clinton, but not 100% decided. As I've told you privately over the phone, there have been times that I've come very close to coming out for Obama, but I have my reservations. If you think you can see into my heart and call me a liar, do so. God knows my life here would be easier if I did support Obama. But I came here to be a voice, not an echo.

I know it drives you nuts, but your spin on this polls is no different than what the Blackwell campaign said in 2006. Truth sometimes hurts.

And what the f*ck does when I post have to do with anything? Tell me, Jerid, when my deadlines are so not to offend you. This is the second time I've seen you whine about me posting at 4 p.m.? What does that have to do with anything?

In the end, you reflect what concerns me most about Obama- that any criticism should be rejected out of hand, "any merits notwithstanding."

Internal Polls are Internal

Brody — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:02:21 -0800

I don't know who showed you the numbers but there are 2 options. (1) The person showed you their honest-to-god actual poll numbers and in that case since your not senior staff that person will probably be fired in a day or so... but most likely the person leaked you option (2) cleansed numbers for Media consumption that are probably somewhat close but won't tell the whole story. As an enthusiastic Obama supporter I hope beyond hope that the numbers are close to the whole story and he'll keep the Mo going, and win Ohio and force Mrs. Clinton back to her Senate seat... but as a realist I also recognize in the '06 Democratic "Sweep" the two candidates who lost in Ohio where the two non-white candidates... and that this race is far from over

You know, Modern...

Administrator — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:48:41 -0800

The criticism is hilarious because of who it comes from.

Starting with your ludicrous attacks and spin mistating Obama's stance on an Ohio debate, you've done nothing but spin for the Clinton camp. You look for the smallest holes to attack on in any pro-Obama piece. You regularly post hit pieces at the end of the day (usually around 4pm). And you continually claim that you're undecided.

There's a pattern here Modern, any merits notwithstanding.

Before I post anything, I know where you'll stand on it. That's not my fault (or anyone else's). You've pigeonholed yourself by your conduct.

Re: Polling Numbers

tessellated — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:41:54 -0800

You need to defend statements like this: "The other, while very eloquent, is very vague when discussing his plans."

Otherwise you and your blog come across as a Hillary echo chamber.

Hey, just watch those numbers

Susan — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:37:04 -0800

when the Republicans start picking up Dem ballots.

Polling Numbers

jrowsey — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 07:10:01 -0800

This is not a big surprise as the election gets closer. I still believe that Ohio voters are smart enough to look at the two candidates and decide which one is making proposals with details and plans to back them up. The other, while very eloquent, is very vague when discussing his plans. Check out my blog at: http://rowseyblog.com

You know, Jerid...

modernesquire — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:47:52 -0800

The criticism on this is predictable because it's so valid and campaigns try to push this b.s. all the time. I distinctly remember the Blackwell campaign making similar claims in 2006. You laughed it off then, just as I did. Funny that when it's a different candidate, suddenly, it's valid. Odd.

Leaked Obama Ohio Internal Polling Numbers

Administrator — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:03:40 -0800

I'm at liberty to share very, very little here. I know everyone wants more, but hey, sorry. You take what you can get, right?

I had a chance to check out some recent Obama Ohio campaign internal polls today. Remember how a few days ago I said polling should have HRC a little nervous about Obama's positive Ohio trend? Well...

Sure, Ramussen's last release had Clinton up by 14 points. Sure, the last Quinny poll had Clinton up by 21 points.

But the internals have only got Clinton up by 7 points. That's right, 7 points.

Yeehaw.