Clinton To Take Wisconsin?

[J. J.]

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

[J. J.]

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

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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.

[J. J.]

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 and the trend seems to be that the margin is shrinking, based on what you've posted.  We'll probably know be this time tomorrow, but I'm getting the sense that this is tightening and fairly close race.

Some of it has to do with Clinton's very aggressive tactics.  This was suppose to be a fairly solid Obama win; it sure doesn't look like it will be twelve hours out.  Sorry if the possibility of a Clinton victory offends you, but it sure doesn't look like the impressive Obama victory a number of Obamites were expecting.

[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).

[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.

[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.