Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: InsiderAdvantage Texas


InsiderAdvantage

Texas
Clinton 47, Obama 43

 

Comments
Mike:

This is a discredited polling firm. They had Obama in dead last way at the end in Iowa with Clinton surging way ahead in first.

They also had Obama behind 4 pts. in WI.

I would bet money this is a shilling for Clinton.

____________________

roy:

Every polling firm has bad days...OTOH, this one is pretty hilarious:
http://texaspolls.callvoyager.com/TexasPollResults.pdf

They polled people who had already voted in the TX Democratic primary. The good news for Clinton is she's ahead 41-38. The bad news is that this represents a margin of 12 respondents, while no fewer than 16 were undecided...how the hell can someone who has already voted be undecided? Is dementia that prevalent in Texas? Plus, no fewer than 17%, about 65 people, chose "Otherwise." What on earth does that mean...a massive write-in campaign for Mike Gravel?

I don't like the tendency to dismiss any pollster that comes up with a result you don't agree with, but this campaign has brought out several firms who seem to be pulling numbers out of the wrong orifice.

____________________

RS:

No cross-tabs, and the 47-43 score is actually within the margin of error (4%). Yet the pollster says "momentum shifts in Clinton's favor."

Ummm.... yeah, right.

____________________

Let's back down from that just a notch:

Who are they? This has come up before and I don't remember getting a good answer. There must be a reason they are included here, either because they have some kind of good reputation or they have compromising photos of someone at pollster.com.

I'd like to know who they are, if for no other reason than pollster.com has me utterly addicted to methodologies and "likely voter" definitions. Or what the compromising photos look like.

Thanks!

____________________

Mike in CA:

Don't read too much into this poll. This agency doesn't even provide crosstabs or any data at all. Even the writeup on their page is ridiculous. As Mike said above, they were WAY off in Wisconsin and Iowa (and others). Rasmussen out today shows the EXACT opposite (and Ras is generally considered a conservative pollster).

The writeup on Insider Advantage's page almost screams bias: "shows shift in momentum towards Clinton." To draw such a hasty conclusion from ONE poll that seems to contradict EVERY OTHER POLL, is biased, plain and simple. There is such a thing in statistics as outliers.

Pollster.com -- do you know the methodology they use? I'd be very curious

____________________

joshua bradshaw:

I just looked at it and maybe i am confused by what crosstabs mean but they do have a break down based on several sub groups, but it is questionable that they have undecidedes in the already voted area and they have him winning traditional dems a group hillary has won and according to most polls is still winning. It also has a hispanic sub group but not an AA sub group break down. Do not get me wrong I hope it is write and hillary is gaining momentum, but this just seems fishy. Not the fact that she is ahead, but the way it appears with the breakdowns

____________________

Mike:

By the way, to add to the states they were way off, They had Clinton ahead in Missouri by 12 pts, Obama beating her by just 1 pt. in GA. They "predicted" Edwards squeaks out a win in IA, with Clinton 2nd, and Obama way in the back of the pack. This firm is not only discredited, but I would not even rule out racist. Read some of their commentaries and click on their link to "Southernpoliticalreport.com" to see how racist some of the blogging is.

____________________

Mike in FL:

This is obviously a joke by the Clinton camp to make believe their candidate has any life left. She obviously is a deceptive and horrible person, her supporters not much better since they are for a global war and corporate fascism. Tell your Mama! Vote Obama!
Get hillbullies out of politics. Nighty night girl

____________________

Mike in FL:

This is obviously a joke by the Clinton camp to make believe their candidate has any life left. She obviously is a deceptive and horrible person, her supporters not much better since they are for a global war and corporate fascism. Tell your Mama! Vote Obama!
Get hillbullies out of politics. Nighty night girl

____________________

Otto:

This poll is different because it loaded on Latinos 37% of electorate when likely they will be 24-28%
It is on the low end for blacks 22% while they could be 25%, or almost even with latinos and the white vote is only 38%, 1% less than latino. So this polls suggests that this is a possible result if HRC wins latinos better than she did in CA and other states and that latino vote is so heavy that it equals the white vote and dwarfs the black vote. That is hard to imagine. I looked at Rasmissen today and it seems more balanced.

____________________

s.b.:

Actually if you go to real clear politics and click on this survey link you get all the cross tabs. Clinton up to tieing obama in the 30-44 age bracket and her hispanic total is back to the 60-30 spread it was before.

Blip?? I don't know but they had Obama up in their poll of two days earlier on the 25th.


And people, pollsters are not rascist (the people they poll may be), nor are the ones that publish their polls paid by CLinton. When you spew stuff like that, you just sound dumb.

____________________

jan:

we all know what the subtext is " smear politics works against Obama" what they are forgetting is that the people who would consider voting for Obama must overcome cultural and emotional innertia that would force them to know the candidate before they decide to vote for him, that is why people say that they trust him. The central point is, in order to consider voting for Obama you must overcome your fear of the "other", and once you did that then there is no way you can be made to fear him. Obama has made himself Arch-american with his history about being related to VP Dick this had a big Play in the media and works to his advantage, that story is as well known as "35-years of experience" line. I think they should do a poll and ask the question " how is Obama related to VP Dick" if over 50% of the people know the answer then you cannot cast him as the un-americans because that would mean casting VP Dick un-american.

____________________

s.b.:

I always compare polls to the polls by the same company. So I compare Rassmusen polls to Rasmussen polls, because they will be using the same sampling screening and weightings as before.

Insider Advantage are saying Clinton is up because she is up 5% from their poll, using the same break downs, methodology, screening etc of two days earlier.

Yes this is within the margin of error, and blips can also happen outside this; but it is a logical conclusion of this pollster and in the fast changing nature of this primary season it is fair to say something happened in those two days to Obama's support. MCCain's attacks, NAFTA debate (texans like NAFTA), Farakhan, the debate in Ohio, etc.

I personally believe the other pollsters are undersampling the Hispanic population, as they are being organized to GOTV this time as they have not been in past contests.

As far as pollsters being way off in previous states contests. In Iowa Obama and Clinton were tied in votes at 31%, until the second choices were made where Edwards and Richardson sent their people to Obama.

In other states the ballot box undecideds broke for Obama in some states (mid west and potomac) or Clinton (South west, non black south, North East except caucuses)

Its not a plot really and aliens aren't involved either. They are just trends.

____________________

bk:

Actually, the biggest red flag for this poll, IMHO, is their party affiliation breakdown: 72% Dem, 16% Ind, and 11% Rep. I don't believe for a second that only 16% of the voters will be independents.

____________________

Greg:

I dont believe anything about a poll that shows that dirty B leading. Theres no f'n way that Hillbilly will win in Texas. We dont care for her kind here. The clintons ruined our world and country and we are not going back to that crap. No sirree

____________________

Anonymous:

the biggest red flag in that poll is that Obama is not up by 10 like hes gunna win. count on it.

____________________

Kabindra:

Mark: You didn't call this poll discredited when it showed Obama ahead. The point they are making is that in less than a week there has been a net 5 pt shift toward Clinton.

____________________

Sasha:

You Obama supporters lack so much manners it is simply unbelievable and I am an Obama supporter myself. Your truly a disgrace. Actually I've had enough of my fellow Obama supporters that I'm going to go vote for Hillary now. What a turn off!

We don't have to like Hillary but there is no need to act like vile immature children, geez.

No wonder Hillary still has such huge and strong support. Obama supporters just keep showing their bad behavior!

____________________

Mike:

Sasha=Mark Penn LOL

____________________

Sasha:

"Sasha = Mark Penn LOL"

^ See this is exactly what I'm saying..

____________________

jam:

if you afraid that of "smear and fear used against SEn Obama" Both rasmussen and Gallup show him Gaining in National Dem nomination. the more she trays to smear the more she is hated and his favored. why is that?

____________________

roy:

Just to be clear, my own earlier criticism was directed at the poll I linked to, not the IA poll. I posted it in this thread because I doubt that the poll will get its own thread, although it got reported on PoliticalWire (which will post anything that calls itself a poll).

I have heard several people (in the blogosphere, none in the real world) say that they will cast their vote for President based on the civility of lack thereof of one candidate's supporters. Given that the lives of thousands of people depend on this choice, I do hope that people will base it on something more substantial than pique.

____________________

RS:

@Sasha - please don't try to characterize many by the actions of a few. There are probably plenty of Obama and Clinton supporters here who don't act childish; just as there are bad apples in either camp. Heck, some might even be fake supporters (e.g. "Bob Evans")

Anyway, back to the poll:
Rasmussen has Obama going from -1 (45-46) to +4 (48-44) over practically the same period as IA.
So if anything, Rasmussen cancels IA. I think it's still a toss-up. As Senator Obama said recently, "Don't forget New Hampshire!"

____________________

Shawn:

I'm not sure if some of you are confusing Insider Advantage with ARG or what, but according to this, they never released a Wisconsin poll. Also, they didn't show Clinton way out in front in Iowa; their very last poll showed Obama in front with Clinton last (I remember it well because I was an Edwards supporter and IA's poll had tended to show Edwards in the lead before that).

I find it amusing that so many here think they're clairvoyant enough to project the Latino and black turnout percentages in advance of the primaries. There's clearly no consensus in polls or among local political observers. 37% Hispanic does seem a bit high, but I find suggestions that blacks will equal or surpass Latino turnout equally improbable. Remember that Latinos slightly outnumbered blacks in the non-event 2004 primary. A high-turnout, high-interest primary should produce an electorate somewhat more representative of the state at large. And as was the case in California, that would mean a greater Latino share.

____________________

Sorry, I linked to the wrong page in that last comment.

This is the Insider Advantage poll that showed Obama leading at the end of Iowa:

http://southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_13_107.aspx

____________________

s.b.:

According to SUSA polling report card, rasmussen and Insider advantage are tied in their median error at 7.0. So they are both equally likely to be wrong.

As far as poll accuracy is concerned, Zogby beats both these pollsters with a mediam error of 5.0 and was off by, oh only 22% in the californai primary do to organized hispanic turnout.

It is best to compare polls to previous polls by the same company and races to ones with similar geographic and political characterictics.

I believe Hillary Clinton could win Texas by up to 10% given the polls that have been released. I also believe she Obama could win Texas by 10% given the polls that have been released, and there is still 5 days until the vote. That's almost an eternity in this election cycle.

____________________

Andy:

Will you Clinton sulkers go elsewhere? We don't care about you or your damn periods, hysterics, or anything else. this is a site about numbers and how those numbers mean big wins for OBAMANIA!!!!! Now, go get us a beer. We want to celebrate Obama's 12,13,14,and 15 consecutive victories coming up in a few days. Run along! Stat!

____________________

Patrick:

None of the pollsters is knowingly giving out false or slanted information. They are just reporting the results based on their methodoligies. I think it's pretty clear that Texas is going to be pretty close and could really go either way. It will largely depend on the Hispanic vote and how many Independents vote for Obama vs. McCain. Assuming Clinton wins OH (which is likely) and RI (a sure thing), if she can "squeak out" even a 1-2% win in the popular vote in TX (or come so close that they can't call it by the end of Tues. night), I think she will stay in the race. She'd have new "momentum" and get a bump in the polls in neighboring PA. Plus they can brag that she's won in most all the big, culturally diverse states that Dems must take in Nov. to win the White House (i.e. NY, MA, NJ, CA, MI, OH, FL), several key swing states (e.g. NM, NH, NV, TN, AK), and ahead in the other: PA. Plus it would put heavy pressure on the DNC to figure out what to do about FL and MI (the pledged delegates of which could put her very close in count to Obama) ASAP. Whether you like her or not, you shouldn't count her out yet. But if she loses big in Texas (by 5+ pts), there'll be a lot of pressure for her to drop out.

____________________

Patrick:

I agree with Shawn. Why are people so beligerant or accusatory? None of the pollsters is knowingly giving out false or slanted information. They are just reporting the results. I think it's pretty clear that Texas is going to be pretty close and could really go either way. It will largely depend on the Hispanic vote and how many Independents vote for Obama vs. McCain. Assuming Clinton wins OH (which is likely) and RI (a sure thing) and Obama wins VT (a sure thing), if Clinton can squeak out even a 1-2% win in the popular vote in TX (or come close enough that they can't call in by Tues. night), I think she will (and should) stay in the race. She'd have new "momentum", probably get a bump in the polls in neighboring PA, and she'd have time to raise more money. Plus it would put pressure on the DNC to figure out what to do about FL and MI (the delegates of which could put her very close in count to Obama). Whether you like her or not, you shouldn't count her out yet. But if she loses big in Texas, there'll be a lot of pressure for her to drop out.

____________________

Kabindra:

Can we avoid sexist comments please?

____________________

I'm not going to belabor this, but I'm speaking up in favor of Sasha. Obama is courting the votes of people like Frank S. and Mike who are taking the opportunity of his candidacy to get their rocks off about Hillary. Obama hasn't said word one about sexism and misogyny in this primary - because it works in his favor (he's shown no such reticence in talking about racism). These are not the actions of a good man.

Not voting for him in the general, and I've converted two people to my position (a symbolic victory for me). And yes his campaign supporters have a lot to do with it. I started out actually liking the man.

Carry on, folks. Its statements like the ones from Frank and Mike that give my little protest some juice.

____________________

John:

There appears to be some interesting demographic differences between this poll and the one they released on the 26th. For example, in the first, for voters over 65, the gender split was about fifty-fifty but for this one it is 65-35. Or for those who are under 30, in the first poll the split between Latinos/AAs/White was roughly 67/15/16 but this one has the split at 44/42/11. Perhaps a lot of AAs had their eighteenth birthday in the last two days. I don't know if this changes the overall result but it makes looking at individual catergories, (gender, age, race), somewhat pointless.

____________________

John :

There appears to be some interesting demographic differences between this poll and the one they released on the 26th. For example, in the first, for voters over 65, the gender split was about fifty-fifty but for this one it is 65-35. Or for those who are under 30, in the first poll the split between Latinos/AAs/White was roughly 67/15/16 but this one has the split at 44/42/11. Perhaps a lot of AAs had their eighteenth birthday in the last two days. I don't know if this changes the overall result but it makes looking at individual catergories, (gender, age, race), somewhat pointless.

____________________

Anonymous:

Good for you sasha, Frank must have been one of those Children left behind ! You dont call the Former First Lady a Dog ! There seems to be a trend of this type of mentality that support Obama, you can have your inmature views and your Candidate as well - Texas for Hillary !!

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Ima White middle aged man and im ready for a woman President ! OBAMA SAYS WE NEED CHANGE, WELL THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY BIG CHANGE !!! And a good one - Go Hillary !

____________________

Mike:

Everytime Obama gets critized they will make it a "race issue" I'm voting for Hillary, but I reserve the right to critize any president if they mess up the economy more than it already is. FYI : The Federal Reserve is a private bank owned (57%) by the Rothchilds among others.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


SB - Your numbers may be real close. I spend just over half the year in Texas and I can tell you that Hillary has a HUGE support from Latinos and guess what? There's a Lot of em down there and there not all Illegals like some Bozo said earlier. There called Tejanos, Proud Native Texas Americans with a culture all their own, and they outnumber African Americans by a BUNCH. Obama may have sold his "talk" in Houston, Beaumont and South Dallas (Where I was born), but Texas is a BIG State with millions of people - How come you never see him rally in Brownsville or El Paso ? Hillary's right, he's all hat & no cattle.

____________________

RS:

I agree that folks shouldn't behave stupidly - name-calling is so immature.
But that immaturity is not the exclusive province of certain Obama-supporters. For example, there's the note from the NYC-NOW chapter abusing Senator Kennedy (thankfully, the national NOW distanced themselves from that). Or feminists painting any woman who doesn't support Senator Clinton as betraying the feminist cause.

Face the facts - Senator Clinton has suffered 10 heavy losses in a row primarily because her campaign was not prepared for post-Feb 5 elections. And apparently that was because her campaign was run by loyalists rather than competent folk. Remind you of someone?

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Mike, Im glad to see your able to cut through the smoke and mirrors. Its time that Obama be held to the same scrutiny that Senator Clinton has been subjected to and lately there have been some serious charges and he's not deflecting them all that well. Hillary has taken her shots and she comes back fighting, because she has been tested. He, simply, has not.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


RS - Ithink we agree that the namecalling is ridiculous and Im sorry I know nothing of The NYC - NOW chapter but I have not seen anything about it in mainstream media. I will disagree that all ten loses were "Heavy" though, most of them in States with very minimul dlegate votes (Not all, but most). Hillary has done very well in the Big States and that says alot - despite the fact she (and the voters) were robbed of their constitutional rights in Florida & Michigan. I still think that these two States will come into play at the convention. Afterall, it was The Democratic Party that was at fault in those States, NOT the voters but yet they are punished. Very UnAmerican. Also dont forget, she leads in Ohio, Penn & RI - and if anybody noticed she actually won the Delegate count in Alabama.

____________________

Anonymous:


Another Classic example of the Non-thought process that has rallied to Obama's side. I think you and Frank were probably part of the same Child left behind program.

____________________

Jason:

"were robbed of their constitutional rights in Florida & Michigan."

Oh grow up! Quite youre crying you damn baby! Your candidate lost fair and square. Stop being Mark Penn and Hillbillys cheerleader. Grow some.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


I love it when these kind of people come out of the woodwork - they prove some of the type of people that Obama attracts. You dont see Hillary supporters doing that. Come on, post another one - lets see how many more Obama supporters you can turn off ?

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Jason, Jason, Jason - seems as though we've struck a nerve with you ! I see you may want to debate the Florida & Michigan issue? LETS DANCE.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

By the way Jason, QUIT is spelled without an E. Maybe you could ask a Hillbilly for a little help ? Seems like we have more work than I thought with the "Just about every child left behind program" . Your Volley.

____________________

Jason:

Michigan and Florida broke the rules. They cannot and will not count. End of story. Go cry to mommy.

____________________

PJ:

It's pretty clear to everyone else here that all these so-called Obama supporters are actually just trying to make him look bad by association, right?

What is the over/under for number of unique posters in this thread? I'll say 4.

____________________

Jacky:

OBAMA was not even on the ballot in Michigan

Nobody campaigned in FL & MI

Hillary folks should just GROW UP

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Jason your back ! I thought we lost you. Here's a little political Science lesson for you laddie, The Democratic Party broke the rules, not the voters - if you think wont matter, you better think again. You can't disenfranchise over 4 million people. Funny thing though, had these been Obama wins, I'd bet you would be fine and dandy with that ! End of story will be August 25th in Denver - watch and see.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Jacky - Why wasnt he on the ballot, he had every right to be. Could be a devasting oversite on his part, though i will admit that another vote in Michigan may be the way to go. All I'm saying is that these people must be accomodated. Even Democratic Party chairperson Donna Brazile agrees with that, in fact "Accomodated" are her words. Bottom line neither candidate will have enough delegates to make the nomination - this goes to the convention.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


PJ - I would say some of them are doing a pretty good job of it !! LOL

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


Well, I guess thats all the rhtoric they could squeeze in today. I hope it was a learning experience. At least we learned how to spell QUIT !! LOL

Good night all !

____________________

Anonymous:


Well I guess thats all the rehtoric we could drum up today ! I hope it was a learning experience for everyone, at least we learned how to spell QUIT !! LOL

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

OOPS - I missed the "e" in Rehtoric first time over - So i quickly corrected myself. I wouldnt want to confuse Jason !! LOL

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Just playing - RHETORIC

____________________

RS:

@John - Spokane:
1. Google "NYC NOW Kennedy"
2. Alabama delegate count is Obama 27, Clinton 25 as per CNN (not quite proportional to the 56-42 vote share, but still an Obama "win")
3. Senator Clinton was not "robbed" of her constitutional rights in FL and MI. I will let Harold Ickes, one of her campaign heads, say it:
"With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them... I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton." [But now I want them to count, since I am working for Senator Clinton.]
4. The post-Feb 5 states included WA, MD, VA, WI - with a total of 70-85 pledged delegates, and Louisiana with 56 pledged delegates. Senator Obama had pretty big margins (>17%), ending up with a pledged delegate lead of ~150 after Feb 5 states. I wouldn't call those "light" wins. Besides, isn't the "insult 40 states" strategy bad for the general election?

By the way, know your Democratic Party - Donna Brazile isn't the chairperson, that honor goes to Howard Dean.

____________________

RS:

Sorry, that should have been "WA, MD, VA, WI with 70-85 pledged delegates EACH."

____________________

John:

I found this interesting and I think you would also.
www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html

____________________

Benjamin:

This poll shows a couple of notable trends. Back in Wisconsin it appeared that Hillary had totally lost White Men - but here she's actually winning them 46-42%. Could this be due to things like Farrakhan getting lots of play in the MSM?

It also shows 11.2% Republicans, and Hillary is actually winning them 49-43%. I know for a fact that Limbaugh and Hannity have campaigns going to convince Texes Republicans to cross-over and vote for Hillary - in order to keep the Democratic civil war going.

Who knows? But I do know that - contrary to popular belief - the Clinton campaign is well organized in Texas. In the most recent SurveyUSA poll, Hillary was up 51-46% with early voters.

I think this primary will likely come down to African-American versus Latino turnout.

____________________

Benjamin:

This poll shows a couple of notable trends. Back in Wisconsin it appeared that Hillary had totally lost White Men - but here she's actually winning them 46-42%. Could this be due to things like Farrakhan getting lots of play in the MSM?

It also shows 11.2% Republicans, and Hillary is actually winning them 49-43%. I know for a fact that Limbaugh and Hannity have campaigns going to convince Texes Republicans to cross-over and vote for Hillary - in order to keep the Democratic civil war going.

Who knows? But I do know that - contrary to popular belief - the Clinton campaign is well organized in Texas. In the most recent SurveyUSA poll, Hillary was up 51-46% with early voters.

I think this primary will likely come down to African-American versus Latino turnout.

____________________

illinoisindie:

Somebody please moderate... I volunteer

____________________

roy:

Ugh, what a bloody disaster of a discussion.

Replying to a rare fragment of actual content, there isn't really much question whether large numbers of moderates will go for McCain or Obama in TX, since almost nobody is voting in the Republican primary. Last I saw, 3/4 of the primary votes were on the Dem side.

____________________

Steve:

Anyone who thinks that only Obama supporters are acting childish, must be only reading this board. I see just as many Clinton supporters acting in the same manner.

Here's some advice, you vote for a president, not their supporters. Only the person themselves should influence your decision.

Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these posts were fake, to try to influence other voters.

____________________

Steve:

Anyone who thinks that only Obama supporters are acting childish, must be only reading this board. I see just as many Clinton supporters acting in the same manner.

Here's some advice, you vote for a president, not their supporters. Only the person themselves should influence your decision.

Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these posts were fake, to try to influence other voters.

____________________

John London:

The polls with Clinton ahead are fantastic!!! It will make sure more Obama voters get out and vote

____________________

Anonymous:

>>Anyone who thinks that only Obama supporters are acting childish, must be only reading this board. I see just as many Clinton supporters acting in the same manner.

Evidence, please?

____________________

Caleb:

We can safely say after reading these comments that in actuality, although Obama supporters cry "race" with any criticism of him, it it them who are racist against the Latino community.

____________________

Another Mike:

With all the Obama bashing here, I'm donating another $50 to Obama. Everytime I read another assinine Clinton argument for her candidacy, I send more money. Keep it up. She needs to concede now and stop her bitterness. Anyone who votes for her is not a true Democrat.

____________________



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