Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA Indiana


SurveyUSA/WCPO-TV/WHAS-TV

Indiana
Clinton 52, Obama 43

 

Comments
ByTheNumbers:

SurveyUSA continue to track Clinton at +9, while ARG has Clinton +5 and a group of others are statistically even or as much as Obama +5. This shapes up to be yet another round of dueling poll numbers with hidden issues.

I can't tell from the SurveyUSA site whether they are weighting differently than others, or merely using a different question methodology or 'likely voter' determination. Does anyone have any additional information?

____________________

djneedle83:

The two most pivotal stats

56-39 white voters (87%)

Due to the cities/closeness to Chicago this Prediction will be 55-45 favoring Clinton

78-16 black voters (11%)

This is about blacks lying to pollster..

This prediction 91-9 % favoring OBama


____________________

djneedle83:

Independents/R's only favor Hillary by 2-3 points. I just don't believe that at all.

____________________

Shadar:

"Independents/R's only favor Hillary by 2-3 points. I just don't believe that at all."


Before the republican side wrapped up this number would have been a 10-20+ point blowout for Obama. The fact that it actually shows as a victory for Hillary is shocking, it shows a lot of republicans are doing their best to tamper in the democratic primary. The question is if republicans actually go out to vote for Hillary or if they are just telling pollsters they will.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

David Sirota's theory that there is a "race chasm" where Obama wins the white vote overwhelmingly in states with few blacks is about to be disproved once again in Indiana, where only 9% of the population is black, yet Clinton is ahead in the white vote.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Kingsbridge77, as I pointed out elsewhere, you forget that Indiana is kind of commuter state. People in Indiana live not that far from Columbus, Ohio; Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville - all of which have substantial black populations. Many hoosiers work in predominantly black cities.

As for another matter... Republicans are only 13% of the survey, and so, have a much larger margin of error. Thus the argument that Republicans are "tampering with the race" makes little sense. More Republicans have been voting, but they haven't consistently voted for Clinton.

1. The poll you are referring to has Clinton up 3 points among Republicans. That is less than her lead overall. Obama, relatively, gets more Republicans than Clinton.

2. In Pennsylvania Obama won Republicans by 8 points, while losing the state by 9. In Ohio he won by 2 while losing the state by 10. In Texas, Obama won Republicans by 7 points, while losing the state by 4.

3. You would think that there would be some evidence if there was a large-scale effort to mobilize Republicans to vote for Clinton.

4. There are a number of plausible reasons a Republican might vote for Hillary. Republicans tend to be older, and are predominantly white - two groups Clinton does well in. The latter probably explains why the only state where the "GOP helping Clinton win" argument holds is Mississippi - where politics is deeply racialized.

____________________

Shannon,Dallas,Texas:

Both SurveyUSA and ARG show that Clinton is polling lower than she did in previous polls. However, I believe she will maintain strong support as a result of Evan Bayh's assistance. There is such a great disparity between these polls that it's obvious that someone hasn't quite cemented what the demographics should be.

____________________

ByTheNumbers:

I concur that it's almost certainly a weighting/sample issue. In prior contests in which this kind of dissonance appeared (CA, PA, etc), the difference in polling methodology was fairly easy to spot. In CA, SurveyUSA and Zogby were 23 points apart, and SurveyUSA commented on their site about the weighting issue. In PA, the polls showing Obama very close to even all suffered from some methodology flaws that skewed the responder group.

Here, some of the IN polls suffer from similar issues: they are very long telephone polls that require a substantial number of answers for a response to count, and sometimes lead with an issue question instead of a presidential preference question (e.g. Bloomberg, Downs). I can't tell, however, whether the polls on the other side of spectrum (SurveyUSA, ARG) are clearingly using a different methodology.

____________________

along:

I've been searching in vain for any good Indiana Democratic primary exit poll info, from ANY year at all. I'm very interested in finding out the likely Male-Female breakdown of the electorate. There are plenty of General Election exit polls available, and the most recent one, from 2004, shows a 52F-48M breakdown for all the major races:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/IN/P/00/epolls.0.html

Even though this will be an open primary, that breakdown is probably not a good metric to use as it includes a full Republican component. But both the new SUSA poll (C52-O43) and the recent Research 2000 poll (O48-C47) projected exactly that ratio:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=fbedb864-ec9d-47ab-87f2-c41203a87585&q=45558

http://www.southbendtribune.com/assets/pdf/SB44325424.HTM

Could the Indiana Democratic electorate really be that balanced? I doubt it just on principle, but esp. with Clinton running. Do you guys have any actual M-F numbers from recent Indiana Democratic primaries? And will you be doing a demographic post on IN like you did for TX, OH, and PA? Pretty please?

____________________



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