|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2020, 07:36:29 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls
  SD-Targeted Persuasion: Clinton +3
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: SD-Targeted Persuasion: Clinton +3  (Read 3764 times)
Ebsy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 30, 2016, 01:07:43 am »

Clinton: 50
Sanders: 47

I know almost nothing about this pollster, but apparently they had an Indiana poll that had Sanders +4.

http://media.wix.com/ugd/88a96b_6157397e1fb647dda9365d6067b5e0d9.pdf
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,899
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.23, S: -7.48

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2016, 01:11:48 am »

Well, for what's its worth almost all the counties bordering South Dakota in Minnesota voted for Clinton ... in a caucus.
Logged
Ebsy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2016, 01:15:00 am »

Here are all of their other polls: http://www.targetedpersuasionpolls.com/#!public-polls/szoo1

They've only done 5 other states, but they've gotten the right candidate all 5 times (Sanders in Indiana, Rhode Island, and West Virginia and Clinton in Kentucky and Connecticut).
Logged
Jacindamania 2: Electoral Wololo
Fubart Solman
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,601
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2016, 01:25:13 am »

A South Dakota poll? I'll take what I can get.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,917
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2016, 01:35:13 am »

This could end up being a close race, though I'd expect Sanders to win, especially since Clinton is unlikely to put up any effort in South Dakota.
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 43,512
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2016, 02:54:37 am »

It could be accurate. I think South Dakota and New Mexico will probably be the closest states on 6/7. I'm hoping Sanders pulls it off just for the sake of the final primary map.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,849
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2016, 03:52:42 am »

It could be accurate. I think South Dakota and New Mexico will probably be the closest states on 6/7. I'm hoping Sanders pulls it off just for the sake of the final primary map.

New Mexico will be a closed primary where almost half the voters will be minorities. I don't see how it will be close unless the state's Hispanics vote radically different compared to those in Texas and Arizona.
Logged
Buh her emails!
diskymike44
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2016, 04:20:00 am »

Everyone loves Hillary here, trust me lol.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,958
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2016, 04:43:05 am »

This is around the same as Nebraska...except Nebraska was a closed beauty contest and this is an open real primary. I'm skeptical. Especially since independents will have nowhere else to go except for the Dem side, as the GOP side is closed and already over.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,958
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2016, 04:44:33 am »

It could be accurate. I think South Dakota and New Mexico will probably be the closest states on 6/7. I'm hoping Sanders pulls it off just for the sake of the final primary map.

I'd be surprised if she didn't win NM easily.
Logged
Shameless Bernie Hack
Chickenhawk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,163


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2016, 04:48:39 am »

I mean, after the layoffs I don't expect Sanders to have much of a campaign there either beyond those lovely and oh-so-effective TV ads that Devine, Mulvaney, Longabaugh make.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,517
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2016, 08:55:43 am »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,958
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2016, 09:14:51 am »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.

She likely only won it because she campaigned there while Obama ignored it and pivoted to the general (sound familiar?)

Besides, she got crushed in a state she won by 40+ points last time, so it seems quite safe to disregard it.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2016, 11:54:51 am »

Hey, Hillary won South Dakota in 2008:



It could happen again.  It's a semi-closed primary and I think USD (10,000) is the only university.  Native Americans are the largest minority group though, not sure how they feel about Clinton but she did poorly in Oklahoma.

I'd really like to see Hillary win Montana.  Get that nice big gold chunk on the map.
Logged
Mehmentum
Icefire9
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,541
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2016, 12:48:43 pm »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.

She likely only won it because she campaigned there while Obama ignored it and pivoted to the general (sound familiar?)

Besides, she got crushed in a state she won by 40+ points last time, so it seems quite safe to disregard it.

If you look at nearby states, there are a lot of similar patterns between 2016 and 2008.  Clinton did much better in Nebraska than in Kansas, and did better in Wyoming than in either state.  Its also important to note that Clinton has improved upon her 2008 margin in every state that borders South Dakota.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,032
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2016, 01:11:16 pm »

I'd really like to see Hillary win Montana.  Get that nice big gold chunk on the map.

Are you kidding? The map is ugly enough as it is already. Clinton winning South Dakota alone would put a huge gold blotch right in the middle of the map.
Logged
Ebsy
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2016, 01:30:41 pm »

I mean, after the layoffs I don't expect Sanders to have much of a campaign there either beyond those lovely and oh-so-effective TV ads that Devine, Mulvaney, Longabaugh make.
Sanders was on that air only briefly last month, and hasn't been back on since.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,226
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.16, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2016, 02:19:42 pm »

"Targeted Persuasion" sound like it might be a push poll.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,264


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2016, 03:52:28 pm »

I mean, after the layoffs I don't expect Sanders to have much of a campaign there either beyond those lovely and oh-so-effective TV ads that Devine, Mulvaney, Longabaugh make.
Sanders was on that air only briefly last month, and hasn't been back on since.

Both Sanders and Clinton are on air in California.  I don't think anyone is on-air in South Dakota.  I'm not sure why - it is very, very cheap.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,517
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2016, 05:23:46 pm »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.

She likely only won it because she campaigned there while Obama ignored it and pivoted to the general (sound familiar?)

Besides, she got crushed in a state she won by 40+ points last time, so it seems quite safe to disregard it.

West Virginia and Kentucky do not equal South Dakota. Totally different states with totally different economic situations.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,917
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2016, 05:29:42 pm »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.

She likely only won it because she campaigned there while Obama ignored it and pivoted to the general (sound familiar?)

Besides, she got crushed in a state she won by 40+ points last time, so it seems quite safe to disregard it.

West Virginia and Kentucky do not equal South Dakota. Totally different states with totally different economic situations.

That's true, but I think IceSpear's point was that Hillary only won SD in '08 because she actively campaigned there, while Obama mostly ignored the state. This time, it will probably be the other way around: Sanders will likely be visiting the state quite a bit, while Clinton will probably ignore it.

Also, something which merits mention, since someone brought up New Mexico: Even though Hillary did very well among Latinos in 2008 as well, she just barely won New Mexico (by about 1.1%.) Then again, she did much better in AZ this time around, so the same could be true for NM.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,849
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2016, 06:07:57 pm »

South Dakota went for Hillary in 2008 by 10 points. Let's not disregard that.

She likely only won it because she campaigned there while Obama ignored it and pivoted to the general (sound familiar?)

Besides, she got crushed in a state she won by 40+ points last time, so it seems quite safe to disregard it.

West Virginia and Kentucky do not equal South Dakota. Totally different states with totally different economic situations.

That's true, but I think IceSpear's point was that Hillary only won SD in '08 because she actively campaigned there, while Obama mostly ignored the state. This time, it will probably be the other way around: Sanders will likely be visiting the state quite a bit, while Clinton will probably ignore it.

Also, something which merits mention, since someone brought up New Mexico: Even though Hillary did very well among Latinos in 2008 as well, she just barely won New Mexico (by about 1.1%.) Then again, she did much better in AZ this time around, so the same could be true for NM.

Sanders has visited the state only once IIRC and both he and Clinton will likely spend the entire next week in California.
Maybe it would be better for her to send Bill and other surrogates instead.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,364
Nepal


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2016, 06:16:56 pm »

Hillary winning here in 2008 was definitely more of her putting effort into doing so, rather than than the state simply being anti-Obama like WV and KY. 

Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,849
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2016, 06:30:44 pm »

Hillary winning here in 2008 was definitely more of her putting effort into doing so, rather than than the state simply being anti-Obama like WV and KY. 



Obama also had the entire SD Democratic establishment supporting him (Daschle, Johnson, Herseth), so her win was a considerable embarrassment for them.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2016, 09:55:39 pm »

"Targeted Persuasion" sound like it might be a push poll.

It's the name of the company, and I imagine they do robocalling/phonebanking services, and do polling as a sideline.  Not inherently suspicious to me.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.3 seconds with 14 queries.