Indiana- Clout Research GOP Primary Poll: Trump +2

[Vosem]

Methinks we're calling the race for Trump a bit early. Remember, results in the NE don't tell us much about Indiana.

Mostly agree.  I think Cruz will narrowly win Indiana in the end and do great in Nebraska, proving that nothing has really changed in the Midwest.  But then Trump nearly gets his Northeast numbers on the West Coast, in which case he will still have a pledged majority unless he screws up WV and gets absolutely nothing from IN. 

I don't buy into the IN is similar to the Plains states meme. To me, it is more of an extension of the Rust Belt, Chicagoland and Kentucky to the South, a region where Trump has done well.

I don't see Indiana as Wisconsin.

Keep in mind the only state that Trump didn't win immediately surrounding Indiana is Ohio and that's only because Kasich is a sitting governor.

I agree with your reasoning but not your conclusion. Trump received 35% in Wisconsin, 36% in Ohio, and 38% in Michigan and Illinois, all of which were open primaries like Indiana is. The variation between the results in these states was in which of Trump's opponents did well or poorly. (Incidentally, the parts of Illinois and Ohio that look demographically like Indiana tended to be areas where Trump did worse, not better, than his average in those states).

Trump wins Indiana if backlash from the Cruz/Kasich deal and momentum from his mid-Atlantic wins get him new supporters. If you think Indiana will behave like its neighbors, then the conclusion that Cruz will win is inescapable. The argument for Trump winning here is reliant on a change in the broader electorate having occurred since the Wisconsin vote (since the New York vote, probably).

[Vosem]

Mid-to-high 30s is not his ceiling, but it has been his typical performance in Midwestern open primaries. Trying to draw a distinction between Trump's performance in Wisconsin and Illinois isn't particularly useful, because Trump got 36% in WI and 38% in IL. If the dates of the two primaries were flipped, Trump would've won Wisconsin while the opposition was still divided, and he would've lost Illinois to Cruz. Again, if Trump wins Indiana, it's through new supporters having been attracted either by distaste for the Cruz/Kasich deal or through his mid-Atlantic victories.

Trump had a terrible week because he was losing Wisconsin. He did not lose Wisconsin because he had a terrible week. His performance in Wisconsin polling did not shift at all during that week.

Trying to group Minnesota in with Wisconsin is even less useful, because Minnesota was a closed caucus and Trump performed way worse. The difference is incredibly marginal.

[Vosem]

OK, first of all, I haven't been talking at all about polling: I'm talking about results in areas nearby and demographically similar to Indiana. These will only work for prognosticating Indiana if voter preferences haven't meaningfully shifted. Comparison of Pennsylvania results to New York results shows that, at least in the Northeast, they clearly have.

Numerous leaks from the Trump campaign have indicated the campaign does not engage in internal polling. If you search his Twitter account, his most recent mention of internal polls dates back to when he was considering running for Governor of New York in 2014. Trump internal polls don't exist. An unnamed source on the CNN article talking about the Fiorina pick said that Cruz was down "8 to 10 points" earlier in the week, but that Fiorina helped by "a couple of points". It's fairly obvious that Cruz's strategy here very strongly depends on undecideds behaving the way they did in Ohio/Michigan/Illinois/Wisconsin, rather than Pennsylvania and Maryland. Either chronology matters or location matters, take your pick.

538 has also never rated Clout Research. They have rated St. Cloud State University, which is obviously similar-sounding; St. Cloud received a B-, which isn't a perfect grade but is far from a D.

If you don't know what you're talking about, then sit back and listen. There's no need to make sh**t up.

[Vosem]

I quoted the same CNN article with the "8-10", so I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate with that. The alleged Trump internal is literally from some random guy's Twitter; he has no connection to the Trump campaign besides being a supporter.

I'll give you PJ Wenzel sitting on the board of Clout Research and being anti-Trump. That part's real.

Since when does Trump have internals? The Manafort hirering?

My guess is if these "internals" are true, it would come from the Manafort hiring. He obviously stopped the bleeding with unpledged delegates in PA, so you would think they had some sort of micro-polling available in crucial states like PA, IN and CA.

My guess is if these internals were true, Donald would be promoting them himself instead of leaking them to some random guy with a radio show who is currently arguing with random Twitter users about the Holocaust.