ARG has Hillary Clinton up by 26 points in South Dakota. The only other poll of the state had Obama ahead by 12. But that poll was conducted two months ago and had an extremely small sample size, so ARG is essentially flying blind here.
This much for certain: Clinton's South Dakota stock is a ridiculous bargain on Intrade right now. But South Dakota isn't all that idiosyncratic a state, and 26-point win just doesn't make any sense in the context of what we know about the demographics of this race. The national tracking polls are fairly stable, and the campaigns aren't behaving like South Dakota is a 20-30 point Clinton win.
As far as methodological nitpicks go, I don't really have any, because ARG does not disclose all that much about their methodology. It's considered less than ideal to poll entirely over a weekend, but that's something that happens fairly routinely (by ARG and most everyone else).
It's either a genius call or ... something the opposite of genius. You know on which side my bread is buttered.
6.02.2008
On which reputations are made (or lost)
@ 1:54 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments
Didn't they have Clinton winning Iowa by 13? Maybe they want to finish as well as they started 5 months ago.
ARG's largest misses thus far in the primaries are: a 30-point miss in the Nevada Republican caucus, a 25-point miss in the South Carolina Democratic primary, a 20-point miss in the Illinois Democatic primary, and 16-point misses in both the Connecticut primary and the Iowa caucus.
Why don't you run a regression?
That does not include, by the way, polls where ARG refreshed/revised its result with a last-minute poll that differed substantially from its previous polls. They had a poll a week in advance of Wisconsin that missed by 20+ points.
What would be hilarious is if ARG overpolled HRC supporters this weekend, because the Obama supporters were at his rallies...
(Ok, I know that's not mathematically possible, but...)
ARG didn't poll SD, they averaged KY, WV and PR and guessed. Seriously, if Obama wins SD, no one should ever EVER link to ARG again. This could be the death of them. This one will stand out as being the end of their outfit... which is essentially a drunk monkey and a bango anyway.
Nate: I think you've got to run your model here. It would be an excellent test for your model: can it beat a reputable pollster (well, sort of reputable) when either the pollster or the model generates surprising results. So far, your model has had mixed success -- incredibly good for Indiana, NC, but not good at all for Kentucky. This would be the tie breaker!
I doubt that'll be the result, but it may show the trend. The Clintons have been down on the ground in SD alot more these last couple weeks than Obama has. They're a small state, who don't get paid much attention, so actually getting to meet these people might influence them alot. Not enough to swing the result by 50 points, but maybe enough to squeak out a win for Hillary, where Obama may have otherwise won it handily.
sigh...i hope it is wrong =(
he needs to come away tuesday night with combined wins that give him at least 300,000 more popular votes in those two contests than hillary gets from them, that way he takes that argument away from her altogether--otherwise there will remain a whisper from now until the convention that he didn't really win it, that more people wanted hillary, that he stole it, that he is not the legitimate candidate. it doesn't matter that it won't be true--he has to be able to silence that claim altogether. by my count if he can walk away tuesday night with 300,000 more votes than hillary gets, he can do that effectively, because that erases her "lead" and gives him a few votes to spare (fingers crossed)
(and toes too)
There's no way there's going to be more than 400,000 total VOTES in Montana and South Dakota combined, Mr. Anonymous.
As the great Jerry Seinfeld says, ARG, Good luck with aallll that.
Here's a "for what it's worth" comment. I'm being vague on identifying details because I don't want to get a staff member in trouble.
I was an Obama volunteer in a state with a primary last month. An Obama field staff member that has moved on to SD started sending out urgent emails last week looking for volunteers to head up to SD to help with GOTV. (Odd as we are a loooong way from SD.)
They forwarded an article about the Clintons spending lots of time in the state and perhaps being able to pick up enough votes there to end up ahead in popular votes. (This was all before Michigan/FL decision and before PR.)
Personally, I don't put any stock in the popular vote argument... also I took the whole episode with a grain of salt as it is probably hard to keep field staff focused when the race has been essentially over for weeks.
Nonetheless, in the multiple emails it implied campaign polls showing a Clinton lead at a level not being picked up by the national press.
Maybe ARG is playing Intrade? (You were looking for their business model, weren't you?)
It's a pity you do not publish a projection, really. It's unfortunate that readers look at this as if a projection is a game in which Nate may "win" or "lose" and so Nate is now led to project only where he believes he will "win". Projections are best considered as experiments, in which any outcome is of interest, "predicted" or otherwise (indeed, in an experiment, an unpredicted result is often more interesting, in that it reveals some new reality).
Anyway, even if we don't have Nate's MT-SD Clinton/Obama projection, we do have his against-McCain 538 regression, which is at least an indication of the demogaphics. The gap against McCain is identical, an Obama 7 points advantage (i.e. Obama loses in both cases, but by about 7 points better than Clinton does), which agrees well with the 10-20 Obama victory that everyone expects. However, heavy campaigning is worth about 5 points by Nate's model, i.e. this can well be very close in SD. (In other words, MT-SD can be a very nice experiment to study the impact of campaigning, clearly the one factor distinguishing the two).
Hard to believe that this poll is accurate given the results in neighboring states:
IO - O+8
MN - O+34
ND - O+25
NE - O+35
WY - O+24
Admittedly, all of these are caucus states. But, even if you assume an Obama caucus advantage of 15 or so points (about the difference between the Texas primary and Texas caucus results), Obama would still seem a solid favorite. As Nate notes, there also hasn't been any significant movement in the national polls. Thus, if this ARG poll is accurate, it would seem the Clinton SD campaign has really moved the electorate somehow.
ARG also says Obama's only up 4% in Montana.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
First of all, Nate, might I say this site is one of the greatest developments in the history of wonking.
Second, might I beg that you consider taking on the BCS next.
Third, regarding the above post, have you any thoughts on the ARG Montana poll? Montana is, as you know, one of the whitest and blue-collar-est states in the Union. So it was somewhat surprising to see last week that Obama was polling (Lee Newspapers) almost 20 points ahead of Ms. Clinton. But now we see ARG suggest that the two are locked in a statistical tie. What gives? Sadly, neither one of the polls is by what I would consider a very reputable source, so I'm not sure we can really draw any solid inferences from them. What do you think?
First of all, Nate, might I say this site is one of the greatest developments in the history of wonking.
Second, might I beg that you consider taking on the BCS next.
Third, regarding the above post, have you any thoughts on the ARG Montana poll? Montana is, as you know, one of the whitest and blue-collar-est states in the Union. So it was somewhat surprising to see last week that Obama was polling (Lee Newspapers) almost 20 points ahead of Ms. Clinton. But now we see ARG suggest that the two are locked in a statistical tie. What gives? Sadly, neither one of the polls is by what I would consider a very reputable source, so I'm not sure we can really draw any solid inferences from them. What do you think?
How the hell did that post twice? I swear I only clicked once. Really!
Nate, will you post projections for SD and/or MT? I will certainly be looking forward to them if the answer is "yes."
Yes, we will definitely have projections up later.
I don't see how Obama loses Montana, nor South Dakota as he's already dominated the North Central and Pacific Northwest regions.
Reason 1: the non-coastal states are all fairly consistently red Republican states as far as General Elections. The voters in Democratic primaries thus tend to be more liberal than traditional Democratic voters in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions.
Reason 2: This area of the country has a much more significant Libertarian streak (evident in both Republican AND Democratic voters) than the rest of the country. These voters are turned off by Clinton's Universal Health Care initiative (big government program mandated over the objections of ordinary citizens like them). They also remember the incidents at Ruby Ridge, Idaho and Waco, Texas which occurred during Bill Clinton's presidency. Voters on the coasts may have forgotten about these events but Rocky Mountain and Plains states citizens still bear a strong resentment of Federal government as a result, especially the Clinton-led Federal government.
There's not a lot of evidence that Obama could flip any of the states from Idaho to Nebraska in November, but it is clear that Hillary Clinton wouldn't have a snowball's chance of doing it if she would be the nominee.
Well, I hope Poblano's numbers come back with Obama on top or close in SD. It will help me sleep more easily tonight. Of course, Obama is going to get the nomination. But if Clinton did somehow win by 25-30 points in SD, I think she might not drop out right away. The end of primary will just go down a lot smoother without another Clinton blow-out win at the very end. Come on Nate's numbers . . . give me a good night's sleep.
My fear is that if there is a blow-out Clinton win in South Dakota, then she will be pushing the claim that Obama's big wins in similar caucus states like Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa were really just a fluke of the caucus system. Sure, I know this is a bogus argument for various reasons (e.g., the rules set up caucuses as the mode for apportioning delegates in those states, and we've got to play by the rules). But I don’t want to have to hear these arguments and worry about it anymore. Can we please just have an Obama win in SD or a small Clinton victory and be done with this?
I will be highly disappointed if Obama loses SD particularly by such a wide margin.
I really want Obama to finish up strong in the final 2 primaries. God Damn why won't Hillary lay the hell off?
Anon 4:21, this is my concern, too. It's becoming like the neverending story except without the luckdragon.
Seriously, ARG is a joke. It tends to slant WAY to far towards Clinton, especially in this region of the country. Furthermore, Obama did some substantial early voting GOTV. I'd believe that SD will be close... But I just don't see Clinton winning any state west of the Mississippi and north of the 36th parallel, particularly not by double digits. In either case, neither candidate is likely to get more than 8 delegates out of SD... Obama will get 9 in Montana.
Is there any chance that ARG accidentally stumbled upon The Lost Tribe of Appalachia and polled them heavily?
I'm beginning to see where Obama's gonna get his delegates from in the next 24 hours or so. He only 24 or so delegates below where he needs to be right now... Then there's the 15 Senators Harkin's been talking with (admittedly, not all will go), but...
Then there's 6 Pelosi Club Members...
Then there's Cylburn's an whatever he brings with him...
And then, of course, whoever else Obama has in his pocket.
When I saw the numbers posted I thought it was a typo (they had the two reversed). Maybe they hit Chelsea and Bill hotel room in their three person poll.
Is it just the ARG poll that's influencing the Intrade numbers for SD (also MT)?
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/
I don't know why people view these numbers suspiciously. Obama has essentially abandoned the primary campaign to focus on McCain, while Bill and Hillary are still going all out. In a state the size of SD, that can easily represent a 30-40 point swing within a matter of weeks. I think we're going to see a lot of stunned faces tonight. It will be interesting to see how Obama spins the results if, in fact, the loss is as wide as ARG is projecting. It will be equally interesting to see what impact this has on the Clinton campaign strategy over the coming days.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
歌詞帝國
當舖
關鍵字
當舖
關鍵字
seo
當舖
專利
專利
專利
商標
商標設計
自創品牌
商標
商標
自然排序
存證信函
存證信函
存證信函
當舖
網站排名
當舖
關鍵字
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
歌詞
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment