Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary Election Polls => Topic started by: Ebsy on April 28, 2016, 12:40:34 pm



Title: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Ebsy on April 28, 2016, 12:40:34 pm
Clinton: 54
Sanders: 41

University pollster, but their polling of the race in 2008 was pretty good.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/local-politics/IPFW-poll--Hoosiers-like-Clinton-12787113


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: dspNY on April 28, 2016, 12:45:11 pm
Clinton: 54
Sanders: 41

University pollster, but their polling of the race in 2008 was pretty good.

http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/local-politics/IPFW-poll--Hoosiers-like-Clinton-12787113

I think it's a single digit Clinton lead but they did get the polling right 8 years ago. Keep in mind Indiana Democrats are more moderate than Wisconsin Democrats


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Classic Conservative on April 28, 2016, 12:59:20 pm
Do we have any GOP numbers.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Ebsy on April 28, 2016, 01:03:53 pm
I don't think so.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 28, 2016, 01:29:04 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Holmes on April 28, 2016, 01:30:42 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.

Why bother? No need to waste millions anymore.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 28, 2016, 01:36:31 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.

Why bother? No need to waste millions anymore.

Well, a win in Indiana which is supposedly Sanders-friendly territory would be the nail in the coffin and prevent an embarrassing string of defeats in May that may lead to new breathless media narratives about how weak she is.   


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Crumpets on April 28, 2016, 01:39:41 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.

Why bother? No need to waste millions anymore.

Well, a win in Indiana which is supposedly Sanders-friendly territory would be the nail in the coffin and prevent an embarrassing string of defeats in May that may lead to new breathless media narratives about how weak she is.   

What part of 475 delegates in California don't you understand?!?!?!?!! Bernie's down by only about 300 right now!

:P


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: BundouYMB on April 28, 2016, 02:08:12 pm
Quote from: the article
Wolf said the most frequent answer to the question of why a respondent favors Sanders was “not sure,” and the next most common response was a negative opinion of Clinton. Clinton’s supporters most often cited her experience and qualifications.

I'd love to see this type of polling in other states, although I imagine you'd get similar responses pretty much everywhere (bar a few exceptions -- I imagine voters in Vermont would list positive things about Sanders as driving their votes, for example.)


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: standwrand on April 28, 2016, 03:50:48 pm
tbh Sanders isn't really trying in IN or at all now. IN should be going for Sanders rn


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Xing on April 28, 2016, 04:29:14 pm
I could buy Clinton winning Indiana, but I seriously doubt it'll be a double-digit win.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Mehmentum on April 28, 2016, 04:34:49 pm
I could buy Clinton winning Indiana, but I seriously doubt it'll be a double-digit win.
I'm not so skeptical.  Ohio and Pennsylvania were both double digit wins in which Clinton won the white vote and did well in rural counties.  Maybe whatever appeal Clinton has in those states carries over to Indiana?


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Xing on April 28, 2016, 04:49:36 pm
I could buy Clinton winning Indiana, but I seriously doubt it'll be a double-digit win.
I'm not so skeptical.  Ohio and Pennsylvania were both double digit wins in which Clinton won the white vote and did well in rural counties.  Maybe whatever appeal Clinton has in those states carries over to Indiana?

Keep in mind that PA was closed. I'm still not sure why Sanders tanked so much in OH, and that should be a concern for him in Indiana. At the same time, the demographics are more similar to Missouri, which was a true nail-biter, and Clinton hasn't done very well in the Chicago area (in IL or WI), and she needs Lake to come in big for her if she's going to win. Rural IL and MI were pretty strong for Sanders, so I'm not sure we should only be looking to OH and PA for clues about how IN will vote.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Eraserhead on April 28, 2016, 06:00:07 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.

Why bother? No need to waste millions anymore.

Well, a win in Indiana which is supposedly Sanders-friendly territory would be the nail in the coffin and prevent an embarrassing string of defeats in May that may lead to new breathless media narratives about how weak she is.   

She's going to lose certain states like Oregon no matter what.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Landslide Lyndon on April 28, 2016, 06:05:51 pm
I find it curious that Clinton hasn't campaigned at all two days and hasn't spent a dime in ads in the upcoming states.

Why bother? No need to waste millions anymore.

Well, a win in Indiana which is supposedly Sanders-friendly territory would be the nail in the coffin and prevent an embarrassing string of defeats in May that may lead to new breathless media narratives about how weak she is.   

She's going to lose certain states like Oregon no matter what.

Yes, I know that. But if she notches up a victory in the biggest state that votes in May then the narrative will be completely different than losing 4 straight.


Title: Re: IPFW-IN: Clinton +13
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 29, 2016, 02:29:14 am
I could buy Clinton winning Indiana, but I seriously doubt it'll be a double-digit win.
I'm not so skeptical.  Ohio and Pennsylvania were both double digit wins in which Clinton won the white vote and did well in rural counties.  Maybe whatever appeal Clinton has in those states carries over to Indiana?

Keep in mind that PA was closed. I'm still not sure why Sanders tanked so much in OH, and that should be a concern for him in Indiana. At the same time, the demographics are more similar to Missouri, which was a true nail-biter, and Clinton hasn't done very well in the Chicago area (in IL or WI), and she needs Lake to come in big for her if she's going to win. Rural IL and MI were pretty strong for Sanders, so I'm not sure we should only be looking to OH and PA for clues about how IN will vote.

Lake and Marion are key... Clinton won whites 61-39 and Obama won AA voters 92-8... I don't think Sanders will do that well with whites and I don't think Clinton will do that well with AA voters.