IN SurveyUSA: Hillary leading by 12

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hillary is not going to win 21% of blacks though we can chalk that up to subsample MoE. I highly doubt that blacks will make up only one percentage point more of the electorate than they make up of the state at large though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

arg, I wanted Obama to win here. Now he's going to fail to seal the deal. Again.

I never expected Obama to win here and no one should've with the demographics. I care more about holding Hillary to only a net 5 or so delegate gain.

So now  the Obamites are trying to discredit the most reliable pollster of this primary season because it doesn't fit their hypothesis of St. Obama's performance in Indiana. Nice.

Yet if Obama was up 12 in Indiana, you'd all be extolling the virtues of SurveyUSA's terrific track record.

*sigh* Can you at least argue with the numbers rather than just use ad hominems?

I don't think the poll is THAT far off but one can hardly argue the internals look right. And if you think it's not setting up to my expectations read what I said above.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The internals look just fine. Hillary seems to be picking up a bit of black support

Do you have any proof of this other than the poll? I even gave the reason for that, the black subsample has a size of around 67. Thus a margin of error of around 12 points.

and white numbers look just right. Even if Obama gets 90% of the black vote, he will still lose by close to 10 points.

Yes. Not too far off from what I expect and within the MoE actually, but I think common sense would say that blacks would make more than 10% of voters in a Democratic primary in a state that's 9% black.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Do you have any proof of this other than the poll? I even gave the reason for that, the black subsample has a size of around 67. Thus a margin of error of around 12 points.

My proof is in this poll, from the most reliable pollster of the primary season.

With a sample of 67 and a margin of error of 12. Jesus Christ.

Your "proof" is your own wishful thinking.

No, it's math.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

but which is still an impressive victory for her.

Considering the state's demographics, not really.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

but which is still an impressive victory for her.

Considering the state's demographics, not really.

So Obama has an excuse in states with a large amount of whites?

What will his excuse be in the general election? Will he write off whites in the general election?

He won't be able to get away with 40% of the each state's electorate being black in the general election.

This would be an impressive win for Hillary, and to say otherwise is hackery at its finest.

Indiana is even worse demographically for Obama than Pennsylvania and Ohio, so how is underperforming those states if she gets only 8-9 points impressive?

And Obama can write off Indiana in the general election, because he'll never win it in a million years (and neither would Hillary.) Obama will however win my lily-white state, and he would've won it in a primary too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To further explain things, while SUSA's subsamples are dubious for the reason listed, they might be helpful in determining on which side of the MoE the poll falls. In this case it's clear that the black sample is too pro-Hillary (though within the subsample's very large MoE), and blacks were undersampled. True, if you adjust the black vote you still get Hillary by 8-9 points, within the MoE, but that's exactly my point. I'm not arguing the poll is "wrong" by any chance, just that it's not nailing the exact result, something that no one should expect.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...