Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ARG Indiana Dems (4/24)


American Research Group

Indiana
Conducted April 23-24, n=600, margin of sampling error +/- 4%

Clinton 50, Obama 45

Thanks to Pollster reader BC

 

Comments
mago:

55-45? Now _that's_ pushing the undecideds. I believe it should be 50-45.

____________________

richard pollara:

With Rev. Wright certain to dominate the next few days news cycle, Obama struggling to revamp his message and late deciders historically trending to Mrs. Clinton, this cannot be good news for Obama. You can say what you want about Mrs. Clinton, but she has had the courage to change a losing campaign and now has a message that is both more compelling than Mr. Obama's and more in tune with the mood of the country. Sitting on a lead is a bad stragey in basketball, football and Presidential politics. He has had a chance to deliver a knockout blow in NH, Super Tuesday, Texas, Ohio and Pa. Each time he has failed. Indiana may be his last chance.

____________________

n8yboy:

Yes, Mark mistyped.

____________________

steve:

Overall 50-45 but Obama way behind among Democrats 58-38. Indiana's totally open primary presents a problem for Obama as some Republicans may vote for Clinton to extend the race and help McCain.

____________________

steve:

Overall 50-45 but Obama way behind among Democrats 58-38. Indiana's totally open primary presents a problem for Obama as some Republicans may vote for Clinton to extend the race and help McCain.

____________________

mago:

That's right, Richard. If Obama loses Indiana by 3 delegates, he should just drop out. He'll have no more chances. Or wait, one is no longer permitted to mention pledged delegates, is one?

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Yes, Mark mistyped. Thanks for catching it an apologies for my haste. I spent much of yesterday traveling and participating in an all-day panel, so I didn't see the new ARG poll until after sleeping late this morning.

____________________

Michele:

Is anyone stopping you from mentioning pledged delegates, mago?

____________________

Patrick:

If Clinton pulls out even a small victory in IN, the race will go on until at least June. Even if it's very close, why should she stop now? After PA, she got a big influx of cash and a big bump in the national polls. And all you hear from the national pundits and talk radio is "Why can't Obama close the deal?". And now we hear the DNC is meetng next month to discuss MI and FL. Plus she's got huge (possibly "blowout") wins coming up in KY and WV and maybe PR. And it gives her another 6 weeks for the media to question Obama's electablity, just as the Rezko trial starts calling witnesses. The Superdelegates are being reminded daily from several sources that they were created to exercise independent judgment. And they are equal to pledged delegates. At this point, the undecideds will just wait until June to decide, especially if Hillary wins IN (a state that borders and shares a media market with Obama's home state). Stay tuned...

____________________

Jonathan S. Fox:

I'm pretty sure that should be 50-45, not 55-40. :)

____________________

mago:

Michele,

Yes, pledged delegates seem to be a taboo subject in many quarters. For example, a Clinton supporter above cites Texas, a state Obama won, as somehow indicating his failure.

The basic point is that a lot of people don't seem able to grasp that we do not have winner-take-all primaries. There is very little difference, under the rules we're playing by, between a 2-point win and a 2-point loss in a give state. It's understandable that the Clinton campaign should try to muddy the waters, but it's disappointing that the media are not bright enough to figure it out.

Nobody objected to the rules when they were being made, so objections made now are just special pleading.

____________________

Dan:

Everyone here needs to take a chill pill. We've got a few IN polls showing Obama ahead, and a few showing Clinton ahead. That's just how it's going to be for the next 10 days: volatile. Ultimately, it will depend on turnout and GOTV operations. For that reason, I give Obama a slight edge at this point. E.g., he has the party machines in northwest IN working on his behalf, especially in Gary; and he also will benefit from a large college and high school turnout (17-year-olds can vote in primaries in IN, and Obama has been registering them in large numbers).

ARG shows him leading with 62% of independents and Republicans. So, no, I don't think having an open primary will at all hurt him. He's always won independents. As for Republicans--the so-called "Limbaugh effect" has been grossly overstated. In Indiana, for instance, there are a number of key Republican primaries on May 6 (e.g., in the 5th CD). I just don't see a lot of Republicans foregoing their right to a Republican ballot, just for the sake of wreaking havoc.

____________________

bonncaruso:

The numbers you published are INCORRECT!

It is:

Apr. 23-24

Clinton 50 (not 55)
Obama 45

here the link:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/indem8-702.html

____________________

richard pollara:

It is interesting to see Mago describe Texas as a state which Obama has won. Maybe I missed that headline. Pledged delegates are talked about as though they are the litmus test of Democracy. They are not. Many of them come from caucus states and even the ones that are apportioned in primary states do not represent one man one vote. Compare Pennsylvania and Ohio to Kansas and Idaho. In Pa and Ohio, almost 4.5 million people voted. Mrs. Clinton's margin was nearly a half a million votes. She netted 19 pledged delegates. In Kansas and Idaho a total of 58,000 people voted. Obama netted 26 pledged delegates. Mrs. Clinton's margin in Ohio and Pa. was almost 10 times the total number of people voting in those two states yet she netted 7 less pledged delegates. Those are the rules of the game and to his credit Mr. Obama has played them much better than Mrs. Clinton. But it is disingenuous to argue that the pledged delegates are sacrosanct and that a superdelegate voting for whom he thinks is most electable is somehow thwarting the will of the people. If either Obama or Clinton loses to John McCain it will not be the fault of the candidates. Both have run tremedous and historic races. It will be the fault of the idiots who designed a primary system that is unable to chose between two terrific people.

____________________

People need to chill out. It's a freaking ARG poll. I will wait for the next SUSA poll before making any judgments on the state of the race.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

I don't understand the comments here. In the last month Clinton went from 53 to 50 and Obama went from 44 to 45. If we consider the margin of error that basically means there's been NO movement (or very slight movement in Obama's direction). The undecideds also increased.

All this basically says is that Clinton has done NOTHING to reverse the trajectory of this campaign. All the spin and all the hype and all that crap means nothing. Nothing has changed. People are not as easily swayed by SINGLE news cycles as the Clinton's may want you to think.

____________________

RS:

@richard pollara: It is still a better system than 1968!

While primaries have greater participation, caucuses have their advantages. Folks can talk and argue - hopefully in a healthy fashion - about who's the better candidate. Racism makes less of an impact (unless the neighbors are also such). And yes, caucuses can be dominated by activists - who are most involved with the Party and spend a lot more time and effort learning about the candidates and thinking about the issues.

Somewhat disingenuously, Senator Clinton disses the activist-dominated caucus system as undemocratic, while making the argument that superdelegates know the candidates better and hence know more than ordinary voters... Go with what helps you win, I suppose. Here's a Daily Show clip where she makes the "superdelegates are better than voters" argument (via The Jed Report):

http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=abc238bd-7e27-4ee7-ac64-b54b86b9ace3

I agree that pledged delegates are not sacrosanct - it's the total number of delegates that count, including superdelegates. If superdelegates really think only Senator Clinton can win and be a better President, good luck to them.

Finally, I used to think this would have to be a joint ticket given that only ~150 delegates separate Senators Clinton and Obama. But after Senator Clinton's continued campaigning saying that Senator Obama is not ready to be President - "I will bring a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience, Senator Obama will bring a speech" - I doubt that can happen. She has definitely painted herself into a corner on that one.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Hmm! ARG had Clinton ahead of Obama 57%-37% 10-days out from the election in Pennsylvania (a 20 point lead); then that reduced to 54%-41% (a 13 point lead) just a day before the election. That suggests that ARG is overestimating demographics that bias results in Clintons favor.

So if it's only giving a 5 point lead now by ARG in Indiana I'd suggest that this isn't a very good sign for Hillary. All the other polls in the last week indicate a very tight race.

SUSA also tends to have results that bias in Hillary's favor several weeks out, but converge rapidly to the other polls and hits very close. It's not a very good predictor until the last few days. It can be way off a week or more before the election. Because it pushes "Undecideds" (the most volatile section of the electorate) it tends to have greater flux than the other polls.

____________________

axt113:

ARG is frequently off, so i'd tak this with a large grain of slat

____________________

axt113:

ARG is off in a lot of recent polls, so i'm going to take it with a grain of salt

____________________

americaferreraisafatho:

richard pollara and patrick-


Still plugging away at the Clinton BS "arguments", eh? Good luck with that.

I really feel sorry for all those people who donated to Hillary - and keep donating. Didn't she make $100 mill the last few years. What does she need the money for now? What a waste of money on a doomed campaign. You want to help the economy Hillary - give the money back to the people!


____________________

stephen:

Indiana is a must-win for both campaigns.

If Clinton loses, all her momentum will be stopped cold and there will be a huge flood of super delegates to Obama. She would still win big victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, but she would then have to win Oregon as well, not an easy task, especially if her momentum has been stopped in Indiana. (She CAN'T win North Carolina with 40% of the democratic electorate being African-American, and no one expects her to.)

If Obama loses Indiana,the doubts about his candidacy will hit magnum force which will then be magnified by huge Clinton victories in West Virginian and Kentucky. Oregon then switches and becomes a must-win for Obama or his candidacy would be in shreds. She would have all the momentum and an upset here in Oregon would not be impossible. Other than Eugene, south and central Oregon are quite conservative, as is the east around Corvallis. That leaves Portland and anything can happen here.

So my guess is that whoever wins Indiana wins the nomination.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

stephen,

your last comment indicates that the Clinton "spin" out of PA is working since you bought it. "Whoever wins Indiana wins the nomination" is just complete crap. Delegates are awarded proportionately, and a "win" is not like a "win" in the General Election. The Clinton campaign has somehow wrestled control of the media's conscience and is now pushing these "Obama is unelectable" memes full force.

Why would Obama's candidacy be "in shreds" if he lost Indiana by a point (or even 5)?? There's just absolutely no rational. His candidacy would be in the EXACT SAME PLACE IT IS NOW. Probably very very little change in pleged delegates (or "popular vote"). The media and the Clinton campaign have managed to push that scenario into the public's consciousness so forcefully that people are really starting to believe it.

I don't think a 51-49 Clinton win in Indiana proves her "electability" any more than a 51-49 win in Indiana for Obama proves his. It just makes no sense. Choosing a nominee is based on delegates. Plain and simple.

Metaphor time:

In a 4-quarter football game a team can "win" one quarter by getting more points than the other team, but if they have less points AT THE END, then THEY LOSE. It just makes no sense, both "teams" (Obama, Clinton) played the game, played by the rules, and one team is losing. Unless she wins with more points, Obamas candidacy is not "in shreds". This crap needs to stop.

____________________

n8yboy:

Mark mistyped again.
50 - 45 buddy.
oy!

____________________

n8yboy:

Mark mistyped again.
50 - 45 buddy.
oy!

____________________

axt113:

Mark is having quite a few freudian slips with thei poll

____________________

stephen:

Mike in CA...

You misread my post. I said Obama's campaign woulkd be in shreds if he lost Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and then Oregon. And it would be.

If Obama ends the campaign by losing the popular vote in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, and Oregon, and only wins North Carolina, his candidacy would indeed be in shreds here at the end of the race, just as Clinton's was when Obama won 11 contests in a row. But this is like college football: if you lose a game, it's better to have it be at the beginning of the season than at the end.

Remember---both candidates need the super delegates to put them over the top.

You are focused on the premise that the candidate with the most pledged delegates would automatically be the candidate who is nominated. That is only one possible scenario. Super delegates were created to make independent decisions if neither candidate has enough pledged candidates going into the convention, which will be the case here for both Obama and Clinton. The number of pledged delegates is only one criteria they can consider. They can also consider popular votes, etc, but the single most important factor will be electability: who will fare better against McCain.

Super delegates can also change their minds at any time before they vote at the convention. My point is and was: if Obama wins Indiana, there will be a flood of super delegates to him, including those who may now be backing Clinton. If she wins, and continues to win, that scenario could and would flip.

We'll see.

____________________

Tom:

ARG has been all over the map this cycle, although they've gotten better. However, they tend to be slightly more favorable to Clinton this cycle. That said, their numbers show that she had a nine point lead three weeks ago, and other polls show her number lower.

The only internals they showed was the D/I&R breakdown, which was 69/31. Those numbers show that Obama has a significant lead among Rs and Is. There doesn't appear to be too much crossover voters trying to mess up the Dem primary. Even when that is happening, it is moving the race maybe a point or two.

____________________

tokar:

Posted on April 26, 2008 4:39 PM
axt113: ARG is off in a lot of recent polls, so i'm going to take it with a grain of salt


You dont read polls that much do you?
Final ARG polls for the last handful of states:
PA - HRC+16 56-40 (4/21) {actual=9.4,HRC@54.7}
MS - BHO+16 54-38 (3/10) {actual=14.5,BHO@61.2}
TX - HRC+3 50-47 (3/03) {actual=3.5,HRC@50.9}
OH - HRC+14 56-42 (3/03) {actual=10.3,HRC@54.3}
VT - BHO+21 60-34 (2/21) {actual=20.7,BHO@59.3}
RI - HRC+12 52-40 (2/21) {actual=18.0,HRC@58.3}
WI - BHO+10 52-42 (2/18) {actual=17.3,BHO@58.1}

I can go on and on. Basically, for the most part, ARG has been rather spot-on with their final polls in most states, especially in Texas, Vermont and Mississippi. All the other states they got the trends almost exactly right - i.e. the numbers might not be exact, but they have gotten them to the point where they match the overall trend (blowout in PA, OH, RI for Hillary, blowout for Obama in WI).

____________________

illinoisindie:

@Tokar,
Hopefully you'll agree that ARG being off by 7pts in PA is "significant". If they are off by 7 pts in this current poll it could mean and Obama win or a Clinton blowout, so I dont know if I would use the words "spot on". Except for the failure of everyone in NH, the week before the election the polls are reasonably predictive. So when ARG polls this week getting closer to their "final" poll, then we will see where they are.

____________________

tokar:

this is true illinoisindie...7 pts is not exact, but I was looking more at the fact that it was +16 and a 56% number for Hillary (their 4/19 poll was +13 with Hillary at 54%) which is why I quoted the poll results (56-41 in the case of the +16 PA poll). Yes, each of these polls have an undecided number, and rarely anyone pushes the "no vote" button on their voting machine (I didn't), but no one tracks that number when they quote these polls on TV - well no one except Olbermann with his "Keith number".


If you want a polling agency that is 100% unreliable, look no further than Public Polling Policy. Three of their final four polls from PA (mind you they only did five polls total) all showed Obama with marginal leads:
4/20 - BHO+4
4/15 - BHO+3
4/07 - HRC+3
4/01 - BHO+2
3/16 - HRC+26

Zogby also needs some improvements. They were the ones predicting a landslide victory for Obama in California (2/04 - BHO+13), marginal victories for Obama in Texas (four of last five polls showed Obama with average 3 point lead, though final poll was HRC+3) and Ohio (the average of their five OH polls was HRC with a 0.20 point win - 2 ties, 2 HRC for +3 total, and 1 BHO for +2), and a landslide Obama win in New Hampshire (last two polls averaged BHO+11.5).

____________________



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