Clinton To Take Wisconsin?

[Verily]

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

[Verily]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Verily]

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

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.