Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ARG for TX, OH, VT, RI


American Research Group this morning released results for new surveys for Ohio and Texas, and last week for Vermont and Rhode Island (and yes, we overlooked the RI & VT surveys last week - apologies). Each survey is based on 600 likely voters for each party primary:

Texas (2/23-24):

  • Democratic primary voters: Obama 50%, Clinton 42%
  • Republican primary voters: McCain 45%, Huckabee 41%, Paul 10%

Ohio (2/23-24):

  • Democratic primary voters: Clinton 49%, Obama 39%
  • Republican primary voters: McCain 51%, Huckabee 40%, Paul 6%

Vermont (2/20-21):

  • Democratic primary voters: Obama 60%, Clinton 34%
  • Republican primary voters: McCain 73%, Paul 11%, Huckabee 9%

Rhode Island (2/20-21):

  • Democratic primary voters: Clinton 52%, Obama 40%
  • Republican primary voters: McCain 65%, Huckabee 18%, Paul 7%

 

Comments
James:

Hillary is going to win TX, OH, and RI. It will be fun to watch the pundits change their tune overnight!

____________________

Mike:

I had a feeling Obama would pull ahead in TX. A lot of Independents plan to vote, and more importantly, Republicans are salivating at the chance in this open primary to shut the door on Hillary Clinton.

Obama 08!

____________________

Ed:

James - even if you are right about the 3/4 outcomes (and the numbers above suggest you might be spectacularly wrong) how would that change the story? Hillary would still likely be down over 100 pledged delegates, with only 1 more big state to go.

Sorry, but the end to this story was written over the past few weeks by all those "insignificant" states that Obama's been winning by 17+ points.

____________________

dsds:

I wouldnt believe ARG's Texas results, they seem to consistently over-sample in favor of Obama in Texas.

____________________

Here is MattTX from Election Inspection's analysis showing Obama with an 11 delegate advantage over Clinton in Texas, while narrowly losing the popular vote. This is seriously in-depth work and contains lots of charts, pictures, and links for your perusal.

Texas has a very complex precinct primary / caucus system. The statewide primary numbers tell you very little without a much deeper look.

____________________

Here is MattTX from Election Inspection's analysis showing Obama with an 11 delegate advantage over Clinton in Texas, while narrowly losing the popular vote. This is seriously in-depth work and contains lots of charts, pictures, and links for your perusal.

Texas has a very complex precinct primary / caucus system. The statewide primary numbers tell you very little without a much deeper look.

____________________

David Hernandez:

Yes, even if she beat Obama in all of these states she will still be down significantly in the delegate count (due to his extremely decisive victories throughout this month). There is no way she can win now without superdelegates handing her the victory in opposition to the voters. Does anyone really think this scenario would occur? No.

____________________

Two columns in the NY Times mocking Obama, one for his arrogance and sanctimony, the other for being feminine. MSNBC just reported on "Obama's nasty war of words" and said he falsified a quote attributed to Hillary in one of his mailers. The spin on his NAFTA message is that he doesn't "really" oppose it and won't say what he would do to change it (hear that, unions?). And that's just stuff I've stumbled on - I'm not particularly paying attention or searching today.

My, how things change.

Obama built his campaign in-group (naive young Dems, scared white men and the political media) on opposition to the Hillary "Other." Now that the Other appears to be vanquished, the in-group loses its internal logic.

It was a good time while it lasted, but Obama climaxed too soon and the media already have one foot out the door ("I'll call you").

The media will never tolerate Barack dumping on their beloved Mac the kind of garbage he's dumped on Hillary. Barack benefited from the sexism aimed at Hillary thusfar, but he forgot that in a match-up with McCain, he's the woman to McCain's man.

I'm rather enjoying the spectacle.

http://thelurkingcanary.blogspot.com.

____________________

Ed:

My Ciccina - what an odd sense of logic you have.

____________________

Mark:

This was the predicted trend in TX one of the posts in the linked story a week ago. Also predicted to get worse if the continued shift of Latinos to Obama continues.

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/early-prediction-on-texas/

http://infogiant.wordpress.com/

____________________

Michael:

"I wouldnt believe ARG's Texas results, they seem to consistently over-sample in favor of Obama in Texas."

Yeah, but they've consistently been oversampling in favor of Clinton most everywhere else. We won't really know until election day on that one.

Interestingly, in RI today Hillary made a big deal to say the RI was every bit as important as TX and OH..no mention of Vermont, wonder why? (only blue states with significant populations, closed primaries, and that she wins are important, you know, so we'll be downplaying TX in the coming days...).

____________________

Chris S.:

Even if these results are less crazy than normal for ARG, I still think ARG=random number generator.

____________________

Sidney:

Why does ARG polling have any credibility. Can someone tell me when they have even been close in big, important contests??

____________________

Super Star:

Why is the possible idea of Republicans voting for Obama and shutting the door on Hillary a good thing?
Just curious.

____________________

statistician:

Why are we still putting credence in ARG's polls? They've proved themselves as outlier too many times for me to take their polls seriously.

____________________

Walden Greenwood:

I do not have any idea how reputable the firm is, but these guys : http://www.decisionanalyst.com/Index.dai
have Obama up by 14 in Texas AND up by 8 in Ohio....

____________________

I do not have any idea how reputable the firm is, but these guys : http://www.decisionanalyst.com/Index.dai
have Obama up by 14 in Texas AND up by 8 in Ohio....

____________________

Rasmus:

Referring to SurveyUSAs pollster report cards, ARG is not much worse as Rasmussen is.
The ARG median error is about 8%, Rasmussen is at 7,5% and SurveyUSA at 4%.

I think it is clear that Texas is at least competitive for Obama- at least they will be tied with the delegates.
In OH she could a get a 15% Margin of Victory, but even that would give her just 20-25 delegates more than him. Vermont should balance Clintons victory in RI for Obama, and that was it. Maybe she can get 10 delegates more than Obama on 4/3, but this is nuts.

____________________

joshua bradshaw:

just a comment these polls do not let one see crosstabs, or I was unable to find them. If someone else finds them please let me know how to get their. If they are indeed not there then they are not worth looking at I beleive I heard that here

____________________

roy:

I do wish that, at some point, Sen. Clinton's supporters could find something else to say besides that anyone who supports Obama is a worthless loser. Ciccina, if you think so ill of the millionso of people who have turned out to vote for Obama, then you must be very unhappy in the Democratic Party. 'Cause if you're a Democrat, young people are not the enemy. Black people are not the enemy (or had you not noticed that they overwhelmingly support Obama?). Even white men who vote Democratic, flawed though we are, are not the enemy.

As for the ARG polls, the Texas poll is odd but at least extrapolates a recent trend. The Ohio poll is in line with other recent ones showing Clinton still with a substantial lead. If reality matches these results, it will be the end for Clinton.

____________________

Shane:

What I don't get is.. why is Rhode Island so strong in its support for Clinton?

____________________

I do not have any idea how reputable the firm is, but these guys : http://www.decisionanalyst.com/Index.dai
have Obama up by 14 in Texas AND up by 8 in Ohio....

____________________

Patrick:

What's most interesting about the new polls is how close Huckabee is to McCain in Texas (within the margin of error). That means McCain will be strongly urging all Reps and Independents (who may otherwise vote for Obama, even though they'd never support him in the general election) to vote for him to "put him over the top". This may be very good for Clinton, esp. if she can keep her edge with the Latino vote. If she can win OH and RI handily and squeak out a win (or even stay within a few % of Obama) in TX, she will stay in the race. And she'll have a very good argument to do so: the 3 populous swing states that decide whether a Dem wins the White House or not are OH, PA, and FL. Most all other big states have been either firmly "Blue" or "Red" (inc. TX) in the general election for about 20 years now. In addition to many of the big "Blue" states (e.g. NY, MA, CA) and several of the important swing states (e.g. NM, NV, NH, AK), she will at that point have won OH and FL easily and will still be way ahead in the polls in PA. And she can argue that she deserves to stay in the race until FL and MI delegates (whose voters were egregiously disenfranchised by the DNC) are figured out once and for all. (Do over caucuses? Half representation? Seat the delegates as is? By the rules, they can support whoever the want really). It doesn't necessarily mean she'd get the nomination in the long run (other than PA, she only has a few more strong states like KY and WV), but she'd have some new momentum and it is a very compelling argument for her to stay in and fight for superdelegats. And it gives her time to 1) raise more money with her new "momentum"; 2) keep debating Obama; she tends to win in the debates, if only subtly; 3) keep raising questions about Obama's readiness to be president; and most importantly, 4) see how Obama's new and sudden "negative press" plays out. Because it's really only in the last 10 days or so that he's gotten any negative press at all. But suddenly here it is. The media coverage is still biased against her, but he is getting some negative press and I think it's an indication that now that he's the front-runner, he's not the untouchable "media darling" anymore. And things like the sleazy Rezko land deal, all his "present" votes in IL, the repeated lies his campaign has told, and his other 'skeletons' (which are now only known regionally or by small numbers of people) will start to come out daily. And many Dems may start to question his "magic". Don't count Hillary out yet.

____________________

Thanks for that poll by Decision Analyst - whoever they are!

Has anyone heard of them before? They don't give methods in any great detail, making them sound rather Zogby-ish. But I have to wonder why someone would jump into this fray so late - unless they were paid by someone, which begs the question as to who!

Not saying I believe them, but I am very curious!

Thanks

____________________

Breecer:

Ciccina- You are a joke. Your partisan analysis is so skewed I doubt you know which way is up any more.

Pretty sad to see. What, are you mad your $4600 contribution to camp Clinton was spent on unnecessary groceries at the Hy-vee in Iowa? All your wasted time blogging on message boards, spewing Clinton support was a complete waste. Why exactly do you support her again - oh that's right, she is a woman - thanks, we get it now!

All your dreams.......washed away down the drain. Ooops.

____________________

RS:

Hey Ciccina:
Glad to see you are still engaged in the process :-)
But - which articles in the NYT are you referring to? This article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24obama.html?ref=politics
- doesn't seem to "mock" his confidence. The other article - describing his "feminine management style", I think, though I can't locate it - actually said that's the preferred style now, even in business schools, and that's where Senator Clinton failed (she offered a rough-and-tough version).

So, no idea what you are talking about... Post links, please :-)

____________________

Rasmus:

Referring to SurveyUSAs pollster report cards, ARG is not much worse as Rasmussen is.
The ARG median error is about 8%, Rasmussen is at 7,5% and SurveyUSA at 4%.

I think it is clear that Texas is at least competitive for Obama- at least they will be tied with the delegates.
In OH she could a get a 15% Margin of Victory, but even that would give her just 20-25 delegates more than him. Vermont should balance Clintons victory in RI for Obama, and that was it. Maybe she can get 10 delegates more than Obama on 4/3, but this is nuts.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Hillary's only down 69 delegates according to CNN - If you dont think that winning Texas, Ohio & Pennsylvania as well as RI wont put her up, you better re-caculate ! Even if its close in Texas and she takes the others (excluding Vermont), She's on top folks ! Also dont forget NC, she leads there too. Neither one will have enough to get even close anyway. You better beleive Florida & Michigan WILL enter the picture.
PS - Anybody seen the CNN posted picture of Obama dressed up in Muslim attire ?

____________________

Anonymous:

The DA poll is taken from an online set of opinion-givers. The sample is wacky, and I'd just ignore it.

Similarly, this poll seems like an outlier. Everything late last week showed Clinton by 1-5 and Obama closing.

SUSA, who's been by far the most accurate of the major pollsters, will have a TX poll out tonight at 11pm. I'd expect it to be in the Obama +3 range.

____________________

Chuck:

Hohn - Fox News has Obama up 97 delegates. (CNN shows 69) Why the difference and who do we believe?

____________________

Jerri Smith:

JAMES-

Are you high or just dumb?

How on earth do you get Hillary victories across the board from these polls??

The polls (not just ARG's) clearly show an unstoppable Obama movement EVERYWHERE. What is debatable is whether the movement has enough time to lift Obama to wins in all four states or just three of them.

____________________

Travis:

"Obama built his campaign in-group (naive young Dems, scared white men and the political media) on opposition to the Hillary "Other." Now that the Other appears to be vanquished, the in-group loses its internal logic."

Scared white men? Scared of what? Are you trying to imply that all white men who support Obama are somehow reactionary sexists, scared of giving power to a female?

Right. Who's sexist now? STFUKTHXBAI

____________________

RS:

@John-Spokane:
See this article:
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/25/obama-gets-dressed.aspx

FYI, I am a Hindu from India, and that photo looks nothing like a Muslim dress (in fact, that turban is actually similar to head-garb worn by rural Hindu Indians). I *know* because I also studied in a Muslim-managed private college in Bombay; quite a few of my Professors were devout Muslims, with beard, peaked hat/skull cap and all. Thinking this garb worn by Senator Obama is "Muslim" - just because he was in Africa/Kenya/a Muslim-dominated village - is the same thought-process that leads to turban-wearing Sikhs getting shot by ignoramuses who think they are Muslims. Not that shooting innocent Muslims is fair, of course; that's equally f-ing dumb.

If you are unaware of Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and their differences, perhaps a Google/Wikipedia search might set you straight?

____________________

rowjimmy:

Can some elaborate on why ARG has Obama ahead for about two weeks now, when other polls have showed a modest lead for Clinton, or a tie?

Is it a methodology issue with weighting? Or something with their results?

____________________

rowjimmy:

Can some elaborate on why ARG has Obama ahead for about two weeks now, when other polls have showed a modest lead for Clinton, or a tie?

Is it a methodology issue with weighting? Or something with their results?

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Obama only has 69 more delegates than Hillary. Even if she breaks even in Texas and wins Ohio, Penn & RI - shes on top ! She's going to do well in Texas anyway, she's also in front in NC and close in Vermont. They Both are in a situation where they need to win, not just Hillary but Obama as well & neither of them will have enough delegates anyway ! Florida & Michigan will most likely count come convention time.

PS - Have any of you seen Obama in the Muslim attire photo ?

____________________

Dewey:

Hey John in Spakane,

Maybe you and Ciccina should get together. You are both quite delusional. Clinton is toast.


____________________

Anonymous:

Intrade is predicting:

Ohio - Clinton 61% chance
Texas - Obama 65% chance (primary only)
Penn - Obama 75% chance
Clinton winning all 3: 17% chance

I would trust this more than ARG.

____________________

J:

Obama is only up by 69 delegates, he has to win States as badly as she does. Face it, she's up slightly in Texas, way up in Ohio, Penn & RI AND she's up in NC & close in Vermont. She's in good shape, but neither of them have enough delegates to win the nomination so be rest assured that Florida & Michigan WILL come into play here.
Has anybody seen a picture of Obama in the Muslim attire

____________________

Anonymous:

Obama is going to win Texas and Vermont handily, Ohio is going to be close, Hillary may win the state by a very small margin it will depend on how many independents and republicans show up, RI is too much corrupted by the old democratic machine, so I'll give that to Hillary as a consolation price. Hopefully Hillary will do the right thing and yield the nomination to Obama next Tuesday night.

____________________

Anon:

LOL at the spamming. "Have you seen a picture of Obama in the Muslipm attire?" LOL, people are getting desperate

____________________

rowjimmy:

It seems no one comments on statistics or polls here anymore. It's just more partiasian (albeit from the Dems) sophomoric crap that I could get on HuffPo or DailyKos.

Sad. This used to be a good forum.

____________________

:

I agree with rowjimmy. Elections are not decided on blogs. People aren't going to change their vote because of smears on pollster. Talk about the polls.

____________________

Greggie:

This is all over already. Just look at the math.


Obama is up by 152 pledged delegates. Best case scenario for her in March: She wins Ohio by 15 picking up +25 delegates, wins Texas by 3 points, loses the Texas Caucus by 8 points and nets 3 delegates out of Tx. Wins Rhode Island big (say, by 15), but loses Vermont by 25, for a total out of Tx, RI, and VT combined of net 0 delegates. We'll give her +2 just to be nice about it. So she comes out of 3/4 down 125 pledged delegates. Then, on 3/8, she loses the Wyoming Caucus at least 60/40, and on 3/11 she loses Mississippi by 62/38. Net for these two contests, a minimum of +7 for Obama. So, at the end of March, the score is Obama +132 pledged delegates.

In April, let's say she wins HUGE in Pennsylvania, say +32 delegates (just to make the math easy). That puts her down 100 pledged delegates with just 9 contests left to go. Of those, 4 favor Obama heavily. South Dakota and Montana are caucuses in Montain west states- he should beat her easily there, let's say + 6 net delegates from the pair. Oregon is a crunchy progressive state (the Vermont of the west). He will win there by 5 more delegates. And North Carolina, the biggest state left after Penn, with over 100 delegates. He leads currently by 18 in Survey USA's poll. Let's give him a 10 point win there, good for +10 more delegates.

That means that, in order to catch up on pledged delegates, she would have to win the remaining 5 contests by 121 delegates. Those 5 are: Indiana (blue coller, but borders Illinois and has lots of blacks in Indianapolis and Gary), Kentucky (leans her direction, but blacks make up a large portion of the Dem electorate), West Virginia (leans her way), Puerto Rico, and Guam with 3 delegates.

The math is impossible unless he says or does something to TOTALLY fracture his original base coalition of the young, high-income progressive whites (who have never liked Hillary), and blacks.

Note: This is the BEST scenario I can see for her barring a singularly stupid collapse-inducing moment for Obama. And under the BEST CASE scenario I could imagine, she ends up trailing in pledged delegates by about 80-100. That means she's got to get roughly 450 out of 800 Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. Or, in other words, Obama (who already has more than 180 committed Superdelegates) would only need a bit more than 350 total to win.

The math is impossible without a blowout win in Texas. Which (speaking as a Texan) ain't going to happen. One big, unreported reason: All projections on the black vote down here are based on the '00 census or the '04 primary. Those were Pre-Katrina events. We have a lot more blacks in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio than we used to just 4 years ago.

Comparison info: At my polling place in Dallas (area is 50% black, 30% hispanic, 20% white), during the 12 days of early voting in the '04 presidential primary there were a total of 520 or so Democratic ballots cast during 13 days of early voting. Through the first 7 days this time around the number is about 1600, with 5 days remaining (and the polls are open much longer hours the last 5 days). We're talking about a 5-fold increase in early votes, when all is said and done, in a heavily pro-Obama area.

And the Caucus is shaping up like a slaughter for Obama as well.

Kiss Hillary good night. She's about to be put to bed.

____________________

Greggie:

This is all over already. Just look at the math.


Obama is up by 152 pledged delegates. Best case scenario for her in March: She wins Ohio by 15 picking up +25 delegates, wins Texas by 3 points, loses the Texas Caucus by 8 points and nets 3 delegates out of Tx. Wins Rhode Island big (say, by 15), but loses Vermont by 25, for a total out of Tx, RI, and VT combined of net 0 delegates. We'll give her +2 just to be nice about it. So she comes out of 3/4 down 125 pledged delegates. Then, on 3/8, she loses the Wyoming Caucus at least 60/40, and on 3/11 she loses Mississippi by 62/38. Net for these two contests, a minimum of +7 for Obama. So, at the end of March, the score is Obama +132 pledged delegates.

In April, let's say she wins HUGE in Pennsylvania, say +32 delegates (just to make the math easy). That puts her down 100 pledged delegates with just 9 contests left to go. Of those, 4 favor Obama heavily. South Dakota and Montana are caucuses in Montain west states- he should beat her easily there, let's say + 6 net delegates from the pair. Oregon is a crunchy progressive state (the Vermont of the west). He will win there by 5 more delegates. And North Carolina, the biggest state left after Penn, with over 100 delegates. He leads currently by 18 in Survey USA's poll. Let's give him a 10 point win there, good for +10 more delegates.

That means that, in order to catch up on pledged delegates, she would have to win the remaining 5 contests by 121 delegates. Those 5 are: Indiana (blue coller, but borders Illinois and has lots of blacks in Indianapolis and Gary), Kentucky (leans her direction, but blacks make up a large portion of the Dem electorate), West Virginia (leans her way), Puerto Rico, and Guam with 3 delegates.

The math is impossible unless he says or does something to TOTALLY fracture his original base coalition of the young, high-income progressive whites (who have never liked Hillary), and blacks.

Note: This is the BEST scenario I can see for her barring a singularly stupid collapse-inducing moment for Obama. And under the BEST CASE scenario I could imagine, she ends up trailing in pledged delegates by about 80-100. That means she's got to get roughly 450 out of 800 Superdelegates to overturn the will of the people. Or, in other words, Obama (who already has more than 180 committed Superdelegates) would only need a bit more than 350 total to win.

The math is impossible without a blowout win in Texas. Which (speaking as a Texan) ain't going to happen. One big, unreported reason: All projections on the black vote down here are based on the '00 census or the '04 primary. Those were Pre-Katrina events. We have a lot more blacks in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio than we used to just 4 years ago.

Comparison info: At my polling place in Dallas (area is 50% black, 30% hispanic, 20% white), during the 12 days of early voting in the '04 presidential primary there were a total of 520 or so Democratic ballots cast during 13 days of early voting. Through the first 7 days this time around the number is about 1600, with 5 days remaining (and the polls are open much longer hours the last 5 days). We're talking about a 5-fold increase in early votes, when all is said and done, in a heavily pro-Obama area.

And the Caucus is shaping up like a slaughter for Obama as well.

Kiss Hillary good night. She's about to be put to bed.

____________________

rowjimmy:

Greggie,

Thanks for the long-winded response, but that post had almost nothing to do with the polls or their statistical merits. It was more of the same "my candidate is better" crap that has overrun this site for the last couple of weeks.

Take your horse race to another board, like DailyKos. This site is supposed to be about polling data.

____________________

Michael X:

The new Rasmussen poll in Texas still has them in a dead heat, while the new PPP poll in Ohio has Obama narrowing Clinton's lead to 4 points, so look like none of the last week's events (like the debate) has a visible effect on the trend, which continues to favor Obama.

____________________

G.G.:

Source of your delegate count, Greggie? As I noted, sourcing mine, the New York Times has a difference of only 5 delegates between Clinton and Obama. The media tallies of delegate counts are all over the place, so it is useful to cite which source.

____________________

Greggie:

Thanks. It is very over, and I don't see why anyone can possibly think otherwise. Yes, Clinton made her stand and everyone assumed that meant she had a reason for doing so. We now know that they didn't even have the system figger'd out when they declared it their own private Alamo.

(lest the partisan types jump on me, I started out a Richardson guy and I'm only for Obama because I want this over with)

I like to joke that Texas has more laws and rules per square mile than any other state, and you have a lot of square miles. That joke was always about county option liquor laws, but I see it applies to the Democratic primary/caucus as well.

Now that we've all had a chance to learn a little about the situation, it is quite obvious that Clinton is extremely unlikely to pick up any delegates at all there. Based on what both Hillary and Bill have said, they will wake up a week from Wednesday in a position that they said would signal the end.

How does anyone go back on that? "Oh, I didn't mean it was an 'absolute must-win', I meant it would have been nice to win it." ??

You can tell me it's not fair, and that's reasonable. But it is still very much over.

____________________

rowjimmy:

"while the new PPP poll in Ohio has Obama narrowing Clinton's lead to 4 points,"

And three other polls have her +8 to +11.

It's fine that you have a horse in the race, but on this site, you should explain why you think the PPP poll is more accurate given it's statistical merits (or lack thereof), rather than just cherry picking the polls that give you the most warm tingles. If that's all you want to do, go post on HuffPo.

____________________

Greggie:

Of course it had to do with the polls:

1) What would happen if things finished as they are currently polling? What would it mean for the overall delegate race? That "has to do with the polls."

2) Is the polling in Texas accurate (no- they are undersampling the black vote and underrepresenting pro-Obama turnout).

3) Specifically, ARG is sampling more blacks. They are also showing Obama stronger among Hispanics that other polls (probavly because they are including more young/1st time voting Hispanics).

____________________

Rasmus:

Referring to SurveyUSAs pollster report cards, ARG is not much worse as Rasmussen is.
The ARG median error is about 8%, Rasmussen is at 7,5% and SurveyUSA at 4%.

I think it is clear that Texas is at least competitive for Obama- at least they will be tied with the delegates.
In OH she could a get a 15% Margin of Victory, but even that would give her just 20-25 delegates more than him. Vermont should balance Clintons victory in RI for Obama, and that was it. Maybe she can get 10 delegates more than Obama on 4/3, but this is nuts.

____________________

Greggie:

G.G.,

+152 Obama is the official NBC news PLEDGED delegate count, per Chuck Todd, their number cruncher. The real total is within a couple of delegates of this one way or the other. Anything showing a +65-100 gap is including publicly committed Superdelegates. But this is misleading, since they can change their minds at any time, and probably will if Obama wins the pledged delegate race.

____________________

Chris S.:

"Referring to SurveyUSAs pollster report cards, ARG is not much worse as Rasmussen is."

SUSA's pollster report card uses a questionable methodology, in which the final pre-election poll for each organization is used, even if that poll was taken weeks ahead of time. Anyway, ARG has a track record of being worse than the poll average (often by a lot) in most of the high profile races this year. Here are some of their final pre-election polls this year:

IA: Clinton up by 9
NH: Obama up by 9 (granted, everyone else got this one wrong too, but ARG was farther off than most others)
MI: McCain up by 1
SC: Obama up by 3
SC: Huckabee up by 7
FL: Romney up by 2
CA: Romney up by 2

And those are just the final pre-election polls. If you look earlier, their polls get even more crazy. Like the gigantic swing they showed in WI over just a few days, or the fact that they had Clinton leading by double digits in Iowa throughout most of 2007, even during stretches of time when every other pollster had Edwards leading, or how about in mid-January, when they had Giuliani leading by double digits in California, at a time when every other pollster had McCain leading?

____________________

Shane:

Greggie,

G.G. is referring to the New York Times' skewed counting procedure. Basically, they don't count a large number of caucus delegates (supposedly because they are "up in the air," but most of the caucuses do, in fact, represent the actual results), but they DO count the superdelegates. Why they count one set of up-in-the-air delegates (which can actually change their vote at any time) and not the other (which cannot change their vote and are VERY LIKELY to stay consistent) is anyone's guess.

But here's my guess: the New York Times has endorsed Clinton for the presidency.

____________________

rowjimmy:

"1) What would happen if things finished as they are currently polling? What would it mean for the overall delegate race?"

You did not analyze that especially well though.

"2) Is the polling in Texas accurate (no- they are undersampling the black vote and underrepresenting pro-Obama turnout)."

What is your evidence for this? You could be right. But where are the data to support this claim? It's only a 50/50 chance to be right/wrong.

Rasmussen dropped hispanic turnout from 31 to 26% in their latest poll. They bumped up the black turnout a percent or two. Focus on why you think those numbers are still off. Or are you just giving your opinion?

"3) Specifically, ARG is sampling more blacks. They are also showing Obama stronger among Hispanics that other polls "

Do we know that they are sampling more blacks? I did not see that information, as cross-tabs do not seem to be available.

____________________

Anonymous:

"But here's my guess: the New York Times has endorsed Clinton for the presidency."

Shane, they also endorsed McCain, and we saw that did not stop them from running a terrible piece of "journalism" against him last week.

Any more conspiracy theories you want to try out here before running them on DailyKos?

____________________

Independent Voice:

"Source of your delegate count, Greggie? As I noted, sourcing mine, the New York Times has a difference of only 5 delegates between Clinton and Obama. The media tallies of delegate counts are all over the place, so it is useful to cite which source.

Posted by: G.G"

Uhhh, what?? Only crackheads think there is a difference of 5 pledged delegates between the candidates. Probably a typo on the NY times part. It is closer to 200. Super delegates mean NOTHING right now. They will all switch to whoever has the PLEDGED delegate lead - some are starting to already. They will not overrule the pledged delegate total, as that will certainly lose the general election for them. Half their base won't show up.


Some really stupid posts here lately. Wow. No, Obama hasn't won it yet, but it is the 4th quarter, with 10 seconds left, and he is up by 14, with the ball.


Yeah, it is not looking good for Team Clinton. She needs two turnovers AND two Hail Marys in a row. That would be a miracle, and only Huckabee deals in miracles......or something like that.

____________________

Shane:

Anon,

Listen, I only call them as I see them. Anyone who thinks the New York Times wants a GOP president should look into some beach front property I have for sale in Iowa. The fact of the matter is that the New York Times is using the most asinine way of determining delegates imaginable. Caucus delegates are not final, BUT they are broadly demonstrative of what will be final. In some caucuses, for example, we are only one step into the process. However, the delegates picked at stage 1 will go forth and support their candidates in stage 2 and so forth. This means that, broadly speaking, the caucus results, as we see them now, will not change a lot in the near future.

Superdelegates, however, change every day.

I understand that this is a conspiracy theory, but, honestly, can anyone else really defend their system of counting delegates?

If I endorsed Obama, and then I counted only delegates that supported Obama, people would probably call me out as well.

____________________

joshua Bradshaw:

Just as a point of information I live in montana and will tell you that the dems are having a primary. The repubs had a caucus, but the democrats are not. Also we here are more conservative dems, except maybe the Missoula area which could be more liberal. also if you look at our congressional delegation we have 1 repub, and 2 democrats the dems are senators, and both are conservative dems. Our governor is popular, and he is a dem, but again is a conservative dem and actually had a repub for a running mate. One thing that could hurt Hillary is the dynasty issue, We very much like term limits hear. I do not personally like the term limits, but many other do and the argument of two families for many many years could hurt her.

____________________

Lenore:

And "winning" a state is almost irrelevant at this point; the key is getting a lopsided victory to rack up more delegates than the other guy. Otherwise the margins don't change. If Obama gets a significant edge in either Texas or Ohio, he stands a chance of starting to look really go for the nomination. If Clinton narrows the count she stays viable so long as there's a chance of seating Florida and Michigan. So it ain't over 'til it's over.

Shane, of course the NYT likes Clinton. The erstwhile Gray Lady has never been one to follow impetuous movements like Obama's. And, after all, New York as well as the NY political machine have benefited by having Senator Clinton on their side.

And I enjoy learning more about how you guys do this stuff. Biased calculations and mutually insulting rhetoric make it hard for me to pick out the serious posters.

____________________

Shane:

Anon,

Also, your McCain example actually works to my favor. They had that information for MONTHS, but, oddly, they didn't run it until now. I wonder what changed in the last few months for McCain? Anyone have any ideas of anything that changed for McCain lately?

Oh yeah, he wrapped up the Republican nomination. Strange how they waited for their endorsed candidate to win the nomination before they attacked him....

Not even Clinton's site (http://www.delegatehub.com/) tries to argue that Caucus delegates don't matter.

____________________

John Tucker:

I agree SHANE!

The NY TIMES is lookin more and more like the Enquirer every day. They are a joke. I pick one up every time I'm running low on TP.

They make no real sense whatsoever. It's like Slick Willy said: Hillary needs to win both Texas and Ohio (and by 60-40 or more in each) to even sniff the nomination.

No way, no how folks.

Hillary should stop spending the millions people have given her - it would otherwise go to Democratic candidates' campaigns or charity. Hmmmm, doesn't appear she has good judgement fiscally either. What a LOSER!

____________________

John Tucker:

I agree SHANE!

The NY TIMES is lookin more and more like the Enquirer every day. They are a joke. I pick one up every time I'm running low on TP.

They make no real sense whatsoever. It's like Slick Willy said: Hillary needs to win both Texas and Ohio (and by 60-40 or more in each) to even sniff the nomination.

No way, no how folks.

Hillary should stop spending the millions people have given her - it would otherwise go to Democratic candidates' campaigns or charity. Hmmmm, doesn't appear she has good judgement fiscally either. What a LOSER!

____________________

rowjimmy:

Polls seem to indicate a continued, though moderate movement towards Obama in Texas. I do not know what their projected turnout model looks like, but I hope that Hillary concedes if she does not win both states. OH looks decent for her, TX increasingly not based on the new CNN poll which shows him with a 5 point movement.

____________________

Dewreye:

Hmm, the time factor is getting hillary - and how.

____________________

Doctor Frank:

I think we can all agree that - - whatever the specific numbers - - ARG, PPP, and the rest show a narrowing race in OH and Obama up (bigger or smaller) in TX. Probably should add that almost all the polling since Super Tuesday has consistently underestimated Obama's final numbers. He seems to be able to push more voters to the polls on ED than Hillary.

The delegate math shows that it's almost impossible for Hillary to go ahead in the pledged delegates. OH and TX are largely symbolic - - i.e. victories there will add to the case made to superdelegates. It's about the margin of win or loss now, and not really about the delegates anymore (a reversal of the February contests).

Personally, I believe that Obamas 2008 Primary campaign, whatever its ultimate fate or his possible November fate, will go down in the history and poli sci books as a superlative example of political campaigning.

____________________

illinoisindie:

Does anyone have any information on the early voting in texas and who that is favoring. My hunch is Obama ...anyone with Stats???

____________________

Cal:

It's interesting that Clinton is leading among Democrats. If Obama is ahead, it's because of the huge influx of Republicans and independents into the Democrat primary.

____________________

RS - I was referring to the Dowd column yesterday and Kristol column today, in the Opinion section. I have the links in the post I wrote about it over at The Lurking Canary.

I saw the photo on the news of Obama all dressed up - they didn't say "muslim." I forget what they did say, but I'm pretty sure they didn't mention Islam. Nevertheless, I'm sure plenty of our voters will jump to that conclusion. Ignorance is one of our core competencies.

Ed, my point is "live by the sword, die by the sword."

____________________

rowjimmy:

"Does anyone have any information on the early voting in texas and who that is favoring. My hunch is Obama ...anyone with Stats???"

IllinoisIndie:

Rasmassen said that 29% had voted already and that this group went "handily" to Obama (no % though). http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/texas/texas_democratic_presidential_primary

SUSA said that 25% voted early and that this was a 51-46 margin for Clinton.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c6190368-049d-43a8-b5e7-d28f3a3eba96


I do not know why two samples of roughly the same % would have diverging results.

Also note the differing projected turnout of those over 50.

SUSA says 42%
Rasmussen 51%

My guess is that every projection will turn out to be off, and off in a way that ends up favoring Obama, if for no other reason than that's been the trend for 10 contests now.

____________________

illinoisindie:

rowjimmy
Yeah variance in statistical estimates who would have thunk it (im an actuary by the way). Ramussen has a higher % of over 50 and that poll favors Obama??? are they "predicting" another demographic shift. I tend to go with the SUSA, their margins are better... All in all I guess were are going to have to wait to count the votes, what a concept. wonder what the Dodd effect is going to be today

____________________

Joseph:

" (naive young Dems, scared white men and the political media)" I love quotes like that. :) It really removes all doubt that Ciccina should become a Republican.

____________________



Post a comment




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