Clinton To Take Wisconsin?

[Verily]

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

  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

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.

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.

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

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).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"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.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[J. J.]

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).

[Angel of Death]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[TomC]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[elcorazon]

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.

[Flying Dog]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

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

[Person Man]

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So no comment from J. J.?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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 spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[Gustaf]

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

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[J. J.]

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:

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

The polls were wrong, just like they were NH.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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:

J. J., with all respect, it's virtually impossible to justify saying that Wisconsin was "tightening."

You might as well just admit you were wrong so that BRTD will shut up for a while and we can all go on with our lives.

You mean:

02-16   ARG   C +6   
02-14   Research 2000   O +5   
02-13   Rasmussen   O +4   
02-12   Public Policy Polling   O +11

I'm sorry, but a +6 Clinton is a tighter race that +11 Obama.

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.

[Alcon]

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:

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

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[exopolitician]

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

[Alcon]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[The Hack Hater]

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.