Talk Elections

New Wisconsin polling numbers out released by CNN Feb 18

Clinton 49% Obama 43%

Clinton to come from behind and win Wisconsin?

Thoughts?

Great if it's accurate.

Those are ARG's numbers. Enough said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This could be her breakthrough state.  I've half way been expecting this.

It's ARG, people. Don't get too excited.

Are you sure?  ARG was released yesterday.  This is the same poll that has been around a couple of days?

Recent polls show Clinton has a chance in Wisconsin at ending Obama's winning streak. According to an American Research Group poll conducted February 15 and 16, the two candidates are in a statistical tie, with Clinton at 49 percent and Obama at 43 percent. The poll's margin of error is plus-or-minus 4

Straight from CNN. It is the ARG poll.

CNN is just reporting on it today, but, yes, it's the same poll, 49-43. The only other poll to come out recently was the PPP poll with Obama up 13. The MSM has not yet cottoned on to the fact that ARG picks numbers from a hat and still treats them like a serious pollster.

LOL, CNN reporting an ARG poll that favors Hillary might be inadvertently inconvenient for Hillary provided she loses Wisconsin. It makes it more difficult to spin a loss as expected.

I'm not crazy about ARG or Zogby, but some of the other polls have been showing a tightening of the race.

What other polls.  I've paid attention and we're just not getting any polls. Kind of weird.

  All the polls have show'd a basic 5-7 pt Obama lead. No tightening of what you speak.

Rasmussen's 'bots put it at 4 points last week.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=70545.0

CNN=Hillary Lovers united network.  They always give Hillary better chances and spin then she actually has.

His margin was larger, IIRC.  It looks like the race is tightening.  That doesn't mean a Clinton victory, but it does mean a closer race.

Once again, it was one week ago from one polling company. Not saying Obama will win, but there hasn't been a tightening worth noticing.

No. The last time Rasmussen had polled the race was exactly never.

The only pollster to have enough polls to constitute a trend is Strategic Vision, which gave:

Feb 2007: C+15
May 2007: C+13
July 2007: C+16
Sept 2007: C+22
Nov 2007: C+18
Dec 2007: C+7
Feb 2008: O+4

But, given how spread out the polls were, the earliest we can even really look at trends is starting from November.

Correct, CNN has identified the poll to which I refer as an ARG poll.

Now the issue some will be talking about, is that Obama is all rhetoric and not solutions, after using words from Deval Patrick speeches.

David Gergen has said this is not the issue you want the media talking about the eve of the Wisconsin vote.  He says it is not palgarism, but a dumb mistake.

Personally, I do not believe this should rise to the level of a major issue, but, if this throws Obama off track and causes him to fall backwards, and even to lose Wisconsin, then this will be seen as a major mistake on his part.

He should have known, as a smart politician, to avoid this type of potentially controversial and damaging behavior.  It is simply not worth it, given what is at stake, and given the closeness of the contest.

As you know, I never look at one poll; I've been looking at the different polls out there, and it seems to be tightening.

I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion. Discarding ARG, we have, in the past few days:

[Before the SV poll, we'd be going back to December.]
Strategic Vision: O+4 (the oldest, Feb 10)
PPP: O+11 (Feb 12)
Rasmussen: O+4 (Feb 13)
Research 2000: O+5 (Feb 14)
PPP: O+13 (Feb 17)

PPP is apparently using a different turnout model than everyone else, which explains their results. It is important to note that, not only are these all of the recent polls (save ARG), the polls on this post are the only polls to show an Obama lead.

I have not said Obama will lose (though it's very possible); I have said the race seems to be tightening, and is probably below the 5-7 points you've cited.

"I've been looking at the different polls out there, and it seems to be tightening."

I've provided you with "the different polls out there", all of them. There is no evidence of tightening, none whatsoever. The race does not tighten because J. J. says so. You've become as bad as some of the Obama hacks on this forum for making up "facts" to fit your own views of what is going on in the race.

I won't deny that Clinton may win tomorrow by some fluke. But it is not something indicated by polls, by news coverage, by collections of Wisconsin anecdotes, by fundraising, by endorsements, or by anything but J. J.'s analysis of non-existent polls showing the race in Wisconsin tightening.

And they show a race tighter than 5-7 points and the trend seems to be that the margin is shrinking, based on what you've posted.  We'll probably know be this time tomorrow, but I'm getting the sense that this is tightening and fairly close race.

Some of it has to do with Clinton's very aggressive tactics.  This was suppose to be a fairly solid Obama win; it sure doesn't look like it will be twelve hours out.  Sorry if the possibility of a Clinton victory offends you, but it sure doesn't look like the impressive Obama victory a number of Obamites were expecting.

Yes, I wasn't arguing that, although if, as you suggest below, we should be averaging all of the polls into one huge conglomerate, they actually show a 7.4-point margin (not that I put any credit into such things, but apparently you do).


No. First off, I would expect you to be smart enough not to try comparing polls from different pollsters to create a trend. Second, even if you did do so, the trend would be (very marginally) upwards for Obama as the two most recent polls had him ahead by 5 and 13 while the two oldest polls had him ahead by 4 and 11.


"I have a sense" is not anything meaningful. I'm fine with you saying that you think Clinton could win. But these baseless assertions of impending Clinton victory really have to stop, especially when you claim that the polls back you up when they don't. (I would say the same to many Obama supporters if I thought I could get through to them.)


I don't know why this was supposed to be a solid Obama win if no polls ever suggested such, unless you are taking our resident Obama fans too seriously. (I admit to having said previously that Obama looked to be favored--and, lo and behold, he is, in all of the polls! Being favored is not leading widely.)


Like I said, it's your ridiculous assertions that offend me, not the possibility of a Clinton victory, though that was a nice attempt at a straw man. Okay, BRTD was wrong a week ago; who cares, it doesn't matter that he was wrong. And if you're using BRTD's positions as a basis for how well Clinton and Obama should be performing... Well, I think you know.

Verily, I don't trust any one poll, but I do look at polls from different pollsters, absolutely.  I hope that you are smart enough to know that most polls use similar, though not identical, methodology.  Each poll presents a "snapshot" of the electorate, taken from a slightly different angle.  They do show general trends.

The "sense" is looking at initial expectations and going from there.  A fortnight ago every indication was that Obama would win a healthy victory in WI.  That would have been my answer.  Now even you are not coming up with a statement of a clear Obama victory.

I have not put in the ARG polls, that are all over the place:

2008-02-12  PPP

Obama: 50%
Clinton: 39%

SV 02-12
Obama     45%
Clinton     41%

Research 2000 2/15/05
Obama: 47%
Clinton: 42%
Undecided: 11%

Rasmussen on 2008-02-13

Summary:

Obama: 47%
Clinton: 43%
Other: 0%
Undecided: 10%


PPP 2/16

Obama    53%
Clinton    40%


There is one poll, much like Zogby in 2004, where one candidate really under performs (probably due to the model), but even there, she gaining slightly.  Factoring that out, we have a 4-5 point race and one in which wasn't expected a fortnight ago.  It's closing and I'd give the  chances of Clinton winning at 50/50 (which even surprises me).

Sorry, J. J., but I'm not buying it. Considering every poll we have had so far this month except ARG's we have:

• Obama being in front in all of them AND
• the only firm having more than one poll, namely Public Policy Polling, actually showing an increase in Obama's lead!

If Hillary wins, it *will* be an upset.

A quick graph of all the non-ARG polls in February. The axis starting at Feb. 10 (the 1) and each since that another day:

()

That's tightening? All it shows is that PPP is giving one set of numbers, and everyone else another set, all numbers in each set within the MOE. In each set there is a trend slightly in favor of Obama, but once again, this is all within the MOE. In other words there is NO statistically significant evidence of any real trend in any direction.

Clinton can certainly win Wisconsin. Anyone who expected Obama to win practically everything from here out is in denial.

Bingo.

Prediction:  On June 1, 2008, the Democratic nomination will not be decided.

I think that after the tremendous win by Obama last week, the perception among the "experts" was that a slight edge to obama in Wisconsin might grow to another double digit obama victory, increasing his momentum for ohio and pa.

the polls never really showed obama increasing his lead, although a couple showed enough of a lead to convince many supporters and experts to assume that the above scenario might be playing out.

in recent days, polls continue to show the race as quite close and you also have the arg poll showing clinton ahead... this has led many who bought into the obama momentum theory to back away...

also part of the theory that obama was rolling to a big win has to do with the perception that obama does well where he goes in and works hard and people get to know him and that hillary was seemingly focused on ohio and texas even before wisconsin got going...

the end result is that many "experts" thought obama would win by double digits... most now feel it's a likely obama win, but could be very tight...

this is the "tightening".  I don't think J.J.'s correct that the "polling" shows a tightening, but somehow the perceptions today are that the race will be much closer than many expected a week ago.

People are just saying that there is no coherent trend in WI polling. Not that she may pull an upset, which she very well may. Nobody is arguing that.

...and it looks like J. J. got seriously clowned. Nice.

I'm not sure where he got his "trend" from.

()

So no comment from J. J.?

You are, without a doubt, the most arrogant supporter of a candidate I have seen in a while.

J.J. has yet to provide any evidence of this supposed tightening and was owned after the actual election.

I love J. J.'s 100% silence on this.

You know, New Hampshire was a long time ago. You should really get over it.

That has nothing to do with it. Read the thread and note his citing of polls that don't exist.

Ah, right here:


The polls were wrong, just like they were NH.

That's an ARG poll. LOL!

Also note the same firm with the +11 Obama came out with a +13 Obama poll right after that.

J. J., your continuing this argument is really disappointing to me.  You were wrong.  Sure, BRTD is a graceless hack, but he fundamentally is correct.  Your argument is intellectually dishonest and I'm pretty sure you know it.

The Clinton +6 poll from ARG was a clear outlier.  Other polls around it were showing clear gains for Obama, and in fact it was a gain from ARG's last poll for Obama too.  You have to really go out on a limb to make such a number appear to be "tightening."  Besides, your original quote was:


You provided evidence with...an ARG poll.  So what non-ARG poll showed tightening?  There was none.  PPP went from O+11 to O+13.  Research 2000 and Rasmussen both recorded moderate Obama leads in their first polls - Strategic Vision did too, shortly beforehand.  To make your argument, you would have to:

1. Trust ARG above all other pollsters;
2. Create a trendline that totally ignores pollster's past relative slants on the race;
3. And ignore the swings observed between ARG's last poll and their newest ones that everyone but ARG was seeing.

And you're too competent for that.

While I haven't payed close attention to this little feud and I have a lot of respect for JJ, yeah, he has been a little bit hackish for Clinton (though nowhere near the level of many, if not most, Obama supporters on here) but I think we all know the reason why you're going after him so incessantly. And I think you proved your point and had your fun. As I said, New Hampshire was a long time ago, and it's time to give it a rest.

Who cares? Obama won...Clinton lost...that was weeks ago..lets me on yeah?

I'm confused about what New Hampshire has to do with this?  Have I been missing a BRTD diatribe?

I have respect for J. J. too.  Which is why it pains me to see him wasting his analytical skill with unapologetic hackery under the guise of objectivity.  He's way better than this.

JJ predicted that Clinton would win New Hampshire by 2%. BRTD laughed at it and even posted it in the Comedy Goldmine. Much ridicule followed. Ever since he goes after JJ at every turn, digging up every statement he makes on the race, using language that is unusually aggressive even by BRTD's standard. I think the connection is pretty clear.

As I said, I haven't followed the Wisconsin stuff closely, but I do think JJ has entered into the land of hackery at times, which is sad because, yes, he is better than that. By the general forum standard though, I don't think he stands out in the field of hackery at all though.

Man, all this poll crap drives me nuts! Unfortunately, I probably would only have the time to just post one or two instead of trying to figure out how they work.

Back to the original topic, I don't completely discount the possibility of Clinton taking Wisconsin, but the demographics are nowhere near favorable enough to get her a 7 point lead. Maybe 1 or 2, but Milwaukee would make it close. However, Obama may well rebound enough to keep that from happening. As one guy said a couple of days ago, Wisconsin is right next door to Illinois, so there's a certain influence from there.

Uh, no. That was Eraserhead. Get your facts straight.

Anyway are you willing to defend JJ on this point or do you agree he's citing polls that don't exist? If he's done something that blatantly hackish and dishonest I see nothing wrong with bringing it up later as an attack on credibility, hell this sort of thing happens in court and the legal system all the time.

Another recent example:

Alcon: While Obama tends to overperform in caucuses, that doesn't happen in counties with large Hispanic populations. There he tends to underperform his primary performance, as we saw in Texas.
J. J.: Go look at California.
Alcon: What? What's that have to do with it? *cites many examples of heavily Hispanic Texas counties where Hillary did much better in the caucus than primary*
J. J.: *silence*

Yes, which is why I'm ignoring BRTD and don't bother holding him up to any standard whatsoever.  But I think you may be confusing him with someone else...


No, but I think he's pushing pretty insidious hackery...competent-sounding hackery.

Most of BRTD's stuff is just meaningless "CLINTON SUCKS!" stuff.

Just because J.J. was wrong once doesn't mean he's automatically wrong in the future. Yeah, it's used in court to assail someone's credibility, but it's clearly a logical fallacy. You need to attack his argument on the facts and not just on the fact that he was wrong in the past....I'm sure everyone on this forum has been wrong on something, probably multiple times.

I agree he was hackish in Wisconsin, but he ended up being dead on in New Hampshire when everyone else was way off. Win some, lose some.

The difference is he made an out on a limb prediction in NH and turned out to be right. Here he didn't just make an out on a limb prediction and say "I think the polls are wrong and Hillary will have an upset in Wisconsin." He's basically saying the polls said something completely different from what they did. It's the worst case of hackery I've ever seen on the forum and not a single person will defend him on it and he's been attacked on it by many people who usually disagree with me.

And before anyone responds saying that I'm a hack too: I've never denied this. But as Alcon said, J. J. tries to pass off hackery as objective fair analysis.

Does prescience run in your family, J.J.? First the NH prediction and then this. Very impressive.

TBH, by mid-February this wasn't unlikely at all. I don't think we'd had many polls of TX and OH yet, but what polls we had at the time showed Clinton's support holding up, better than it actually did in the final results. And, of course, delegate numbers were, after February 5, never going to be conclusive to the point of true mathematical impossibility (just improbability) earlier than the end.

I don't think I was venturing predictions at the time, but I thought Obama had the nomination sewn up, and still do.

LOLZOMGPWNED

It seems like I was completely mistaken about the New Hampshire thing. While I did remember Eraserhead was the one orginially posting it I could have sworn BRTD was involved in it too. He PMed me saying that it wasn't the case and after having checked it it does seem like my memory tripped me up. So I'd like to extend an apology to BRTD over that and hope he believes me when I say that it was an honest mistake. I will continue to disagree with him and criticize him on many scores, but this time I was wrong and he was right.