Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ARG Montana, South Dakota


American Research Group

Montana
Obama 48, Clinton 44

South Dakota
Clinton 60, Obama 34

 

Comments
political_junki:

I read the cross tabs on their website. They say that in South Dakota Clinton leads among voters 18-46 by 20%! Is it me or does it sound absurd to any body else too?

____________________

Nickberry:

On MSNBC within the half hour I heard Andrea Mitchell say that the South Dakota numbers really closed according to Obama campaign. I doubt if they meant that Clinton is going to wipe out Obama as this poll shows... but it sounds to be very competitive.

Montana being competitive is not too fantastic considering the conservative bent of their Democratic governor.

____________________

axt113:

Hasn't ARG been massively off in this primary season?

____________________

Nickberry:

Clinton won the 18-46 vote in both West Virginia and Kentucky by much larger margins. There are a lot of conservative voters of all ages in South Dakota, although I do not have an idea of how many are voting Democrat.

____________________

Uri:

Montana would probably go like Idaho with a significant Obama lead.

SD is unlikely to be this far (I think Obama will actually win), but it has native americans who may vote as a group for one candidate or the other.


If HRC won both, she would have won 5 in a row (WV, KY, PR, SD, MT) but I doubt that would happen and it doesn't matter anyway since the game is already over.

____________________

A few big problems here:

1) According to all the information I can find, this is open to independants but ARG polled 600 Democrats.

2) How many First American voters have telephones on the reservation?

3) This would indicate a complete reversal of opinion since the Wesleyen University poll taken at the beginning of April, which indicated that Obama would see margins similar to those he had in the North Dakota caucus.

4)North Dakota, where Obama still does better against McCain than Clinton should give us some idea how South Dakota will fall.

I predict that Obama will win South Dakota by at least high single digits.

____________________

political_junki:

Nickberry:
I think South Dakota should be closer to North Dakota rather than WV or KY?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Noooo... if this happens, the map of Clinton wins will become less contiguous.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Actually if you look at county level maps - Clinton did relatively well in eastern Wyoming, Northeast Colorado, western Iowa, and western Minnesota; ie. areas that surround South Dakota.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

It would be interesting to see if this was true or not because then it would mean that South Dakota would be islanded by other Obama states and something really has changed.

____________________

Adam_Il:

First of all, both North Dakota and Idaho had a caucus. Given a 15 point swing both in Washington and Texas primary vis-a-vis caucus results, it won't surprise me if Clinton actually wins South Dakota. In fact, if it weren't for caucus states, the democratic nominee would have been some one else. Anyways, it's time to move on.

____________________

Nickberry:

Good point on caucus states vs. primary states. One cannot directly correlate the two in terms of margin between candidates.

Native Americans do not necessarily favor Obama over Clinton... in fact the Clintons have had a very good relationship with the "First Americans" and both Bill and Hillary have been visiting the reservations in recent days and weeks.

____________________

JLPR:

lol what 60%? wow =P
is it me or does it look fishy?
I would have understanded a closer one like Montana but 60% wow

____________________

I guess First American is the term now? Never heard it before. I like it.

Surely the people who regularly-ish poll in these areas have a method for reaching those without phones... or perhaps its not a big factor?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

In Arizona, other (5% of the vote, in a state that is 6% native - so mostly American Indians) went 53-45 for Clinton.

In Oklahoma, other were 8% of the vote but not tabulated. However, we can infer.

Whites were 82% of the electorate and went 56-29 for Clinton (Edwards was on the ballot).
Latinos were 4%, lets say 75% went for Clinton. African Americans were 6%, lets say 33% went for Clinton (both high estimates, which make this a "hard case" as to whether Clinton has native support). Since Clinton won 55% statewide, she would have won 51% of the mostly native "other vote - even under these unrealistic conditions (reality almost certainly reflects a higher percentage for Clinton among natives).

How come she didn't win in any of the mountain states?
1. Natives are probably unlikely to caucus, given distance factors, low income, and generally low native voter turnout.
2. South Dakota is quite native at 8% - only Montana is close, Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico larger (and there you are talking about Inuit, who are culturally quite distinct - not that you aren't talking about different first nations in different states).

____________________

Uri:

Out of topic, but WTF is a "First American"? They are technically the native population, everyone else is descendant from immigrants. I thought "Native american" was PC enough.

____________________

tom brady:

south Dakota is a closed primary, Montana is open, according to Green Papers.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Actually I'm confused about the appropriate word to say down here. In Canada native, first nations or Anishwabe are all PC words. Indian is less PC, but not entirely unacceptable (when the legal terminology was written, "Indian" was the preferred word, and many native Canadians refer to themselves as Indians).

Down here when I say native, people aren't sure what I mean. When I say native American, a lot of white people think I am referring to them (I live near the border between counties where people identify their ethnicity as "American" rather than "German" - despite obviously British names like Smith and Thompson).

http://www.davidlifferth.com/techblog/uploaded_images/C2k_CountyAncestry-772440.jpg

____________________

KS:

This is a clear case of buyer remorse. Another landslide win for Hillary in South Dakota would prove the point. However, it is in the DNA of Democrats to nominate losers. For the last 40 years, they were able to elect only two presidents. This year, even with all of the stars aligning for them, they still find a way to screw it up to nominate a sure loser like Obama.

____________________

Nickberry:

Yes... I meant my quote "First Americans" to be positive. Thank you "eternal triangle" for your discourse. I live on an "Indian" reservation and almost everyone calls themselves "Indian." The U.S. census uses the term "American Indian." One only seems to get in trouble with the term "Native American" among those who have a bias against North America's "aboriginal peoples." (And, yes, many Indians also like to refer to themselves as such.)

Believe it or not, there are telephones (and electricity) on most Indian reservations, although not everyone has a telephone.

____________________

Paul:

There are 31 delegates between SD and MT. Assume Obama wins 16-15. There are 202 uncommitted super-delegates. Clinton would have to win 92% of the super-delegates to get to new threshold, after the MI and FL deal, of 2118. Given Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates, it would seem reasonable that at least 30 of the the remaining super-delegates will turn to Obama which puts him over the top. So from a delegate point of view (despite Clinton's emphasis on the popular vote) a narrow win in SD would turn only 1 delegate. We are very close to point - set - game.

____________________

Nickberry:

By chance that Hillary wins either Montana or South Dakota, the superdelegates may have second thoughts. I do not expect such to happen, because it is after all politics where anything can happen.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

KS,
While I agree Obama is a weaker candidate than Clinton, the 40 years thing reflects a broader historical trend with periods of party dominance.

From 68-04 the Dems won 3, the GOP 7

From 32-64 the Dems won 7 elections, the GOP 2.

From 1896-1928 the GOP won 7, the Dems 2.

From 1860-1888 the GOP won all but 2.

I tend to believe that fundamental, technological, economic and sociological changes explain these long periods of party dominance. The Republicans dominated the late 19th century on the strength of support for protectionism. They dominated the early 20th on the [initial] success of laissez-faire and isolationism. The rise of the welfare state, however, gave the Democrats a stronger case. While the emergence of cultural issues (amplified by the move to party primaries) like abortion to the stage, have reinforced the Republican lead.

How to run the new economy? How to campaign for the votes of [somewhat] post-racial post-gendered post-partisan (but liberal - a la Daily Show/Colbert Report) young people. What about the impact of new technologies in campaigning (which clearly promise a considerable benefit to both Democrats and Libertarians)? How to manage American relative decline economically and technologically vis-a-vis China? How to address transnational terrorism (I don't actually see this being a big issue in the future, but it was in 2004)? How do you have prosperity alongside a healthy environment? How do you turn wealth to solve post-material problems?

On most of those questions, the Democrats seem better-suited than the Republicans. Their advantage among young people does not strike me as merely an age effect either (people forget that generation-X, while young, is strongly Republican). These are the problems and values of a new generation (which, like the baby boomers did in the 60's, is turning out in large numbers). It is far from the majority (which is why Clinton is a better nominee), but I have yet to see much from the GOP that can win these folks over (except for Huckabee's "life doesn't end at conception" message). Indeed, the issues the GOP base stresses involve hitching the party to a falling star that will limit GOP success over the next few decades to sex scandals and nailbiters.

____________________

desirous:

Wasn't ARG 31 points off on Wisconsin? ARG should stay away from that part of the country.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Uri - I suspect the voters in Oregon would be surprised to learn that Clinton won five in a row. :)

I'm skeptical of those SD numbers, but who knows - Clinton has been campaigning hard there, to be sure.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Desirous, ARG's last poll in Wisconsin had Clinton at 42%. She got 41%. Even their "crazy poll" from a few days earlier only had Clinton at 49%.

They were off the margin by 7 points (23 using their crazy poll, but I restate, that poll was not their last pre-primary one taken.

____________________

Uri:

@Snowspinner: You're right, my bad. For some reason I thought Oregon, IN, and NC were the same night, and that WV and KY were on independent days. My bad. I was on a cross-country trip during that months and everything blends together by now.

____________________

carl29:

I wish we had more polls from Montana and South Dakota. What a bad luck that just ARG from all pollster came out with a poll. You know the problem with this pollster. With very, very few exceptions, West Virginia and Kentucky, this guys don't "shine," to say the least. It's not that I'm saying that they are completly wrong, but they just don't inspire confidence. I believe this is going to be more like Indiana than the Appalachian region. Montana is safe for Obama. However, I believe that South Dakota will be very tight because it is an old state, the 8th in the nation. Let's see. I think this is like a blind primary!!!!

____________________

eternaltriangle:

On what basis is South Dakota (or Montana) "like Indiana". That seems kind of random. Even if they end up both going narrowly for Clinton it doesn't make them similar.

Indiana is an industrial rust belt state, #1 in the country in terms of the share of mfg. in employment. South Dakota has among the least industrial jobs (22.5% in Indiana vs. 9% in SD) at 37th place.

South Dakota has twice as many farmers per capita.

Indiana is relatively densely populated, with the midwest's largest city. South Dakota is sparsely populated.

South Dakota has no African Americans, while Indiana has many. Indiana also has a large college student population. South Dakota has a large Native population.

So very different states.

____________________

Pavo1313:

Wow, if Obama actually loses by 30 points here, it could point to an actual problem. But I can't think of any event that could account for the wild difference between the only other poll before this one, and this one. The Reverend Wright stuff happened before that previous poll. But has ARG ever been off by 30 points or so?

____________________

carl29:

When I said Indiana, I meant the numbers. In case you had not noticed it, I was referring to the numbers in these polls. I think the numbers may be more like Indiana than West Virginia. That's all. Montana is Obama's country, at least from this state there is another poll from a local station or newspaper which shows a sizable lead for Obama. But from South Dakota there is nothing more than this. So, let's see tomorrow.

____________________

carl29:

Ah, Terry McAllife(or something like that), Hillary's strategist projected they would win South Dakota. Montana? No a word. He also did not mention margins in South Dakota, which leads me to think the margins are not that big. They think that they would win but is not like West Virginia or Kentucky. They are behaving more like the way they did for Indiana, saying they would win but no mentioning numbers. We all know how Indiana came out, less than 15,000 advantage out of more than 1,000,000 votes.

____________________

KS:

eternaltriangle,

I completely agree with your analysis. If this election is about issues, Democrats will win hands down this time. But when you have a white running against a black, all issues will be thrown aside. Emotion takes over. Afterall, Hillary or Obama are not that unique a candidate. What's unique about them is black vs woman. Do you think 34 million people come out and vote for issues? No way - most come out to vote for their race or gender. There are not that many Democrats (34 million) in the first place. Many are independents, first time voters or even Republicans who are pulling for their unique candidate. They don't come to vote for the party. They come to vote for Hillary or Obama. The losing side will not stick around because their loyalty is to the candidate's uniqueness, not the party. That's why Democrats must nominate the strongest candidate. Relying on massive turnout is mere delusion. Just watch, this fall's election will not be about issues, it will be about white vs black. Race issues energize people more than anything else. For sure, we will get a massive turnout in November. I think it is a foregone conclusion that Obama, a weak minority candidate, will lose at the end. Americans can overlook race only if the minority candidate is supremely better than the majority candidate. Someone like Colin Powell would fit that decription. But Obama is way, way off. Just watch - this election will go down as the ugliest in American history.

____________________

carl29:

Nominations are won with delegates. Sen. Obama has more delegates. That said, I don't think this is about who is more "electable." This is about how deserves it based on their harder work reflected in the numbers of delegates accumulated. With Obama's candidature, the democratic party also has a moral responsability towards AA's, the most loyal constituence in the nation. After decades of voting 90% for the democrats, AA's have the chance for the first time to vote for one of their own for the highest office in the nation. The democratic party will not slap AA in the face by taking away the nomination from Obama. AA's mean a lot for this party, without them democrats would not be able to win states like Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania. Since Lyndon Johnson democrats have constantly lost the white vote but then AA's came to their rescue and made up the difference. So, do you wonder why they are not braking the way Hillay wants them? The Democratic party would rather lose the election than to betray AA's.

____________________

jd-winterbottom:

carl29 wrote:
"I don't think this is about who is more "electable." This is about how deserves it based on their harder work . . . The Democratic party would rather lose the election than to betray AA's."
-----------------------------------------

At first I thought the above post was satire. I had to read it another couple of times before it sunk in that carl actually meant it.

The thing is, I think he's right, in that his views are representative of many in the party. It seems to me, looking at the totality of the election results and exit polling (where it might reasonably be thought trustworthy), that Obama's star has been in decline since NC and Indiana. The fact that he could not win Indiana, I thought was hands down, was the lead story of that night.

The results since then only confirm this. That this presumptive nominee could lose, SD and MT, the last two primaries, by ANY margin is stunning. If arg data turn out to be anywhere near correct, only the profoundly dumb would think it a good idea to endorse Obama.

I don�t know if carl wrote in sorrow or in affirmation, but he has cut to the core of a psychosocial pathology that has plagued the Democratic Party for generations. A party that would act this way does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Over the past few weeks, as the voters moved away from Obama, the super delegates moved to endorse him. That is, they acted in a manner precisely contrary to their express purpose (which is ensure the head rules over the heart, to prevent another McGovern debacle). This is painfully stupid

J.D. Winterbottom

____________________

cinnamonape:

Obama just got a very important endorsement today. Billy Mills, the Sioux 1964 Olympic 10,000 meter champion. Mills is something of a demi-god in the Black Hills because of his athletic achievements...he's also a Marine Corps Vet, involved in Youth empowerment programs, and...an independent who frequently has supported Republicans in the past.

____________________

South Dakota has a closed primary.

____________________

jac13:

Tom Daschle told Russert on MTP last Sunday that SD would be very close, and he declined to predict who would win.

____________________

carl29:

Good morning guys!!! First of all, I think that May 6th, the day of Indiana and North Carolina primaries, was the day when Obama sealed the nomination. Just let me post some information regarding Indiana just before the primary: RCP Average 05/02 - 05/05 -- 49.0 44.0 Clinton +5.0

Obama's internals and Hillary's internals the night before the primary showed Hillary by 12% above Obama. The exit polls at the end of the day, the day of the voting, showed Hillary up by 7%, so they(Hillary's people) were expecting that as soon as the polls closed in Indiana the state would be called on her favor. If you noticed they said that the state was "too early" to call, which means that there was a clear winner according to exit polls, Hillary, but they needed to see actual votes. The votes came in and it no longer looked like she was the clear winner. So, the race was then "too close to call."

You could see it in Bill's face; he knew this was the wrong outcome. They had wished that Indiana would be a double-digit victory for Hillary and North Carolina an upset or a close margin defeat. They had rehearsed in their minds: Indina called as soon as the polls closed, and North Carolina too closed to call. It was Obama who was blessed with such scenario: North Carolina was called as soon as the polls closed and Indiana in the middle of the night with Hillary winning by a margin of 1.4%. The guy beat expectations after a horrible week with Rev. Wright making his "I'll show you tour" and Hillary and McCain pounding him with the gas tax, which looked like people were buying.

Polls the day before the Primaries in Indiana and North Carolina:

INDIANA: RCP Average 05/02 - 05/05 -- 49.0 44.0/ Clinton +5.0 Result: Hillary by 1.4%

NORTH CAROLINA: RCP Average 04/28 - 05/05 -- 50.0 42.0/ Obama +8.0 Result: Obama by 14.7%

See?

____________________

carl29:

P.S: I'm sorry guys if my posts are not that clear, but you know that I'm a second language speaker. I learned English as an adult, then some times my Spanish gets in the way :-).

____________________

IQ:

Hillary will sweep s dakota, and narrowly win or loose montana, the final outcome remains unknown .... between now and november anything can happen in politics and it is too close to call or nominate a controvertially unkown candadte such as obama

____________________



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