Official South Dakota and Montana Democratic Primary Results Discussion Thread

[Sam Spade]

Every year we get some new idiot that everyone trumpets as knowing everything who knows very little actually.  Kind of annoying.

err, where did that come from?

Although it is impossible to actually guess real numbers, a Clinton win of 5% or so would mean that ND and SD aren't really as different of states as I've thought - or at least their Dems aren't.  SD is a closed primary, right?

Yes.

Rant against people proclaiming someone new as a genius.  (part of my habit)

There are at least 5 posters on this site who know more about politics and demographics than almost maybe a couple of people I've encountered IRL and on the Nets.

[Sam Spade]

Bear in mind that we have nearly four hours of voting time left in SD since these exit polls were conducted. 53-47 at this time is a toss-up in my book.

Because Obama historically performs better the more exit poll data comes in?

[Flying Dog]

Bear in mind that we have nearly four hours of voting time left in SD since these exit polls were conducted. 53-47 at this time is a toss-up in my book.

Because Obama historically performs better the more exit poll data comes in?

Yes, in some states and territory's.

[Meeker]

Keep in mind that South Dakota's seven black people tend to vote later in the day

[Eraserhead]

Bear in mind that we have nearly four hours of voting time left in SD since these exit polls were conducted. 53-47 at this time is a toss-up in my book.

Because Obama historically performs better the more exit poll data comes in?

Yes, in some states and territory's.

Dude, I appreciate your enthusiasm but come on...

[Alcon]

This is...interesting.  The college education rates, unless South Dakotans are lying about their education rates more than Indianans, point to a double-digit victory.  If they lie at Indiana rates, it would be about 62-38 non-college.

(0.62*0.4)+(0.38*0.53) = 44.9% for Obama
(0.62*0.6)+(0.38*0.47) = 55.1% for Clinton

What's going on?  Is my math wrong?

[Verily]

This is...interesting.  The college education rates, unless South Dakotans are lying about their education rates more than Indianans, point to a double-digit victory.

What's going on?  Is my math wrong?

Your math is right, but it doesn't square with the other data from the exit poll. So they may have lied more than usual, the weightings may end up removing that inconsistency, or something else is going on. We've have internally inconsistent leaks of exit polls before.

For example, Utah supposedly had a majority of voters college-educated. So high rates of lying are not unlikely. Compared to Utahans, Indianans were downright honest. (+14 from actual in IN, +25 in Utah).

[Sam Spade]

This is...interesting.  The college education rates, unless South Dakotans are lying about their education rates more than Indianans, point to a double-digit victory.  If they lie at Indiana rates, it would be about 62-38 non-college.

(0.62*0.4)+(0.38*0.53) = 44.9% for Obama
(0.62*0.6)+(0.38*0.47) = 55.1% for Clinton

What's going on?  Is my math wrong?

KEY QUESTION:  HOW BADLY DO SOUTH DAKOTANS LIE ABOUT BEING STUPID?

I wonder what a stupid North Dakotan would tell us?  Wait, we have one here, so let's ask...

[Flying Dog]

Bear in mind that we have nearly four hours of voting time left in SD since these exit polls were conducted. 53-47 at this time is a toss-up in my book.

Because Obama historically performs better the more exit poll data comes in?

Yes, in some states and territory's.

Dude, I appreciate your enthusiasm but come on...

Well, look at PR. Exit polls put it at a 70-30 Hillary win. She won 68-32. Indiana was 54-46. I'm not saying it is significant, but not every exit poll has underestimated Clinton.

[Alcon]

This is...interesting.  The college education rates, unless South Dakotans are lying about their education rates more than Indianans, point to a double-digit victory.

What's going on?  Is my math wrong?

Your math is right, but it doesn't square with the other data from the exit poll. So they may have lied more than usual, the weightings may end up removing that inconsistency, or something else is going on. We've have internally inconsistent leaks of exit polls before.

For example, Utah supposedly had a majority of voters college-educated. So high rates of lying are not unlikely.

Yeah, but Utah's bachelor degree rate is 26.1%, and their Democrats tend to be bohemian, so that about fits in with the Indiana number.

But if the lie rate in South Dakota doubled, Obama would still be down by very high single digits.

[Aizen]

Any info from Montana? Don't tell me Obama will lose there too...

[Mr. Morden]

There are at least 5 posters on this site who know more about politics and demographics than almost maybe a couple of people I've encountered IRL and on the Nets.

Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence? 

"....know more...than almost maybe a couple of people I've encountered..."?

Is that supposed to be "....know more...than all but maybe a couple of people I've encountered..."?  Because I'm not understanding your meaning here.

[Flying Dog]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

[Verily]

This is...interesting.  The college education rates, unless South Dakotans are lying about their education rates more than Indianans, point to a double-digit victory.

What's going on?  Is my math wrong?

Your math is right, but it doesn't square with the other data from the exit poll. So they may have lied more than usual, the weightings may end up removing that inconsistency, or something else is going on. We've have internally inconsistent leaks of exit polls before.

For example, Utah supposedly had a majority of voters college-educated. So high rates of lying are not unlikely.

Yeah, but Utah's bachelor degree rate is 26.1%, and their Democrats tend to be bohemian, so that about fits in with the Indiana number.

But if the lie rate in South Dakota doubled, Obama would still be down by very high single digits.

I edited the Utah data. Utahan college-educated rates were inflated at almost twice the rate Indiana's were (25-14).

[Sam Spade]

There are at least 5 posters on this site who know more about politics and demographics than almost maybe a couple of people I've encountered IRL and on the Nets.

Is this supposed to be a comprehensible sentence? 

"....know more...than almost maybe a couple of people I've encountered..."?

Is that supposed to be "....know more...than all but maybe a couple of people I've encountered..."?  Because I'm not understanding your meaning here.

Ya, I know.  Occasionally, I have to throw out a little rant to keep things entertaining.  And a little insult.  And a little flouting of forum rules.  And an incomprehensible statement.

Seriously, posting would get boring if people knew what to expect all the time.

[Eraserhead]

Any info from Montana? Don't tell me Obama will lose there too...

If he does, the MT Democrats (like Tester) will have to endorse Clinton because they said they would endorse whoever won the primary.

[Alcon]

Eh, we'll see I suppose.  I still maintain that Democrats in Utah are probably unusually educated relative to Republicans, but we shall see.  Not that it really matters.  A loss is a loss for Obama, and this is a loss; at this point it really just matters for how humiliated ARG will be.

Seriously, posting would get boring if people knew what to expect all the time.

Content?

[Mr.Phips]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

Anybody who thinks Clinton would bring about change is smoking crack.  She is the ultimate status-quo candidate in this race, even more so than McCain. 

[Alcon]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

Sorry, what's the question on that?

[exopolitician]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

Anybody who thinks Clinton would bring about change is smoking crack.  She is the ultimate status-quo candidate in this race, even more so than McCain. 

Obama won that category in both states I thought.

[Verily]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

Anybody who thinks Clinton would bring about change is smoking crack.  She is the ultimate status-quo candidate in this race, even more so than McCain. 

Which is why Obama tends to win that question with at least 70%. IIRC he won it even in Kentucky. (In fact, he won it in every state except West Virginia and Arkansas.)

[Flying Dog]

Candidate who brings about change:

Montana: 55%

South Dakota 49%

Sorry, what's the question on that?

I'm unsure. It was on MSNBC

[Sam Spade]

Eh, we'll see I suppose.  I still maintain that Democrats in Utah are probably unusually educated relative to Republicans, but we shall see.  Not that it really matters.  A loss is a loss for Obama, and this is a loss; at this point it really just matters for how humiliated ARG will be.

Seriously, posting would get boring if people knew what to expect all the time.

Content?

Never.  Why do you think I start trash threads to get people riled up?

You gotta admit, it's better than BRTD's starting trash threads to display his own narcissism.  And the amount, geez...

[Verily]

In Oregon, 50% cared about change. In Indiana, 51% cared about change. Obama won it with 70% in Indiana and over 80% in Oregon. (Indiana's a better comparison for absolute measures because it was close.)

[Flying Dog]

In Oregon, 50% cared about change. In Indiana, 51% cared about change. Obama won it with 70% in Indiana and over 80% in Oregon.

South Dakota = Indiana 2.0?