# Pollster.com

## Articles and Analysis

### NC-IN Predictions Roundup

##### Topics: 2008 , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , Tom Holbrook

A typically busy election day here, but I want to quickly link to some interesting vote predictions popping up in the blogosphere:

• Tom Holbrook, a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, has used our final standard trend estimates for Clinton and Obama for the past primary states to create a statistical model that projects forward. His projection of Hillary Clinton's share of the two-party vote is 53% in Indiana and and 47% in North Carolina.

Holbrook first tested (and explained) the workings of his model in Pennsylvania on primary day, and nailed the result. He projected that Clinton would get 54.8% of the two-candidate vote. She won 54.6% of the vote. In the craziness of the Pennsylvania election day, I neglected to post a link to Holbook's projection -- apologies to all for that.

• Brian Schaffner has updated his delegate projections for tonight's two primary states also based on our polling trend estimates: a 38-34 split in Clinton's favor in Indiana and a 62-53 split for Obama in North Carolina.
• FiveThirtyEight's Poblano has used a regression model based not on poll results but on census and other "hard" population data at the Congressional District level. The model projected a 53.7% to 46.3% Clinton win in Pennsylvania. In Indiana, his model predicts a narrow (51.0% to 49.0%) Clinton win in Indiana that translates into a delegate split of 36 to 36. In North Carolina, the model predicts a very large (58.6% to 41.4%) Obama victory, with Obama gaining 66 delegates and Clinton 49.

Using a similar approach, Poblano has also generated "scorecards" for both Indiana and North Carolina that attempts to project results by county to match the final RealClearPolitics statewide polling averages (Clinton +5.0 in Indiana and Obama +8.0 in North Carolina). The idea is to create statistics to use to follow the election returns. If Clinton or Obama is outperforming his projections in the various counties, it would suggest a performance better or worse than the statewide assumptions.

I will predict with high confidence that others have posted similar models somewhere on the web. If you know of one worth adding, please post a comment or send us an email (questions at pollster dot com).

Daniel Thomas:

Thanks for this roundup Mark. Very helpful. I remain mildly surprised about Clinton's predicted win in IN, simply because it's so close to Obama's home state that he is almost a favorite son.

At the end of the day, however, I don't believe that most of the those voters who favor Hillary will switch to the Republican party come November.

____________________

ByTheNumbers:

I still think that it's valuable to examine the methodologies and determine whether some of the polls are using obviously skewed response sets. The cluster graph posted earlier today makes a nice case that Zogby is doing something rather different than the others, for example.

My guess is HRC +7 in IN; BO +10 in NC.

____________________

Jacob S:

I find the delegate projections to be favorable to Obama. I ran some numbers last night and figured out that, as long as he gets 95+ delegates tonight, he is in good shape. If he passes the 100 mark, it could be effectively over for Clinton, since Obama would be about as close to the magic number as he is to Clinton's delegate count.

____________________

Louis:

Hats off to Poblano. Who hit the numbers on the head. Regression model beats pollsters. back to the drawing board guys.

____________________

Another Mike:

Poblano and his website kick a**. It's amazing that his predictions just based on the demographics have been more accurate than pollsters. I think it also strongly indicates that this race has pretty much solidified and all the sturm and drang in the media and campaigns has done little to move the numbers.

____________________

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR