Official South Dakota and Montana Democratic Primary Results Discussion Thread

[Verily]

I'm not sure what you mean, Verily.  Both say that in South Dakota, 55% say Clinton should be the VP.

Oh, wait, I misread Morden's second post. Oops.

[Flying Dog]

CNN:

South Dakota:

18-29 Years Old

Obama 65%
Clinton 35%

65+ Years old

Clinton 65%
Obama 35%

[Eraserhead]

CNN:

South Dakota:

18-29 Years Old

Obama 65%
Clinton 35%

65+ Years old

Clinton 65%
Obama 35%

Uggh...

[Verily]

It does mean ARG was at best fifteen points off (Edit: best for them, not for me)

[Alcon]

CNN:

South Dakota:

18-29 Years Old

Obama 65%
Clinton 35%

65+ Years old

Clinton 65%
Obama 35%

That's probably the biggest age split we've ever seen...which, in South Dakota, is not particularly great news for Obama.

But, yes, that isn't Clinton +26.  You don't win 18-29-year-olds 2-to-1 while losing by 26 points.

[TheresNoMoney]

Poblano has Obama winning SD by 4%-5%. He has been incredibly accurate during this entire primary season:

www.fivethirtyeight.com

He projects primary results based on demographics and statistics, very in-depth stuff.

[Mr. Morden]

It does mean ARG was at best fifteen points off

Not if the 30-64 demo was nearly as Clinton friendly as the seniors, and the under 30 demo didn't turn out....

[Alcon]

Poblano has Obama winning SD by 4%-5%. He has been incredibly accurate during this entire primary season:

www.fivethirtyeight.com

He projects primary results based on demographics and statistics, very in-depth stuff.

I'm the first to trumpet Poblano, but demographics can only say so much.

Plus, one word: Kentucky

[exopolitician]

Break these numbers down for the ones illiterate in exit poll data. Because....I have NO clue whats going on...hah.

[Verily]

It does mean ARG was at best fifteen points off

Not if the 30-64 demo was nearly as Clinton friendly as the seniors, and the under 30 demo didn't turn out....

The odds of which are basically nil.

[Alcon]

South Dakota

Economy voters:

Clinton 58%
Obama 42%

Iraq:

Obama 61%
Clinton 39%

Looks like a very probable Clinton win, but still a definite "lol ARG"

[Verily]

Extrapolating those as 50% economy, 25% Iraq, and the rest split evenly gives Clinton 53-47, which would be ARG's third-worst performance (better than SC and IL only).

[Torie]

CNN:

South Dakota:

18-29 Years Old

Obama 65%
Clinton 35%

65+ Years old

Clinton 65%
Obama 35%

That's probably the biggest age split we've ever seen...which, in South Dakota, is not particularly great news for Obama.

But, yes, that isn't Clinton +26.  You don't win 18-29-year-olds 2-to-1 while losing by 26 points.

It smells to me like a Clinton win of no more than 10% myself, and I bet it is closer to 5% if these numbers are true.

[Mr. Morden]

Extrapolating those as 50% economy, 25% Iraq, and the rest split evenly gives Clinton 53-47, which would be ARG's third-worst performance (better than SC and IL only).

Also better than their performance in the Nevada GOP caucus (if you even want to count that).

[Verily]

Unfortunately, there are no similar primaries to extrapolate %s from. If South Dakota cared about issues in the same amounts Oregon did, for example, Obama would win.

[Alcon]

He'd lose no matter what, actually, in all likelihood.

The "other" issue is mostly Healthcare, which is usually just slightly worse for Clinton than Economy.  I'm going to give her that issue 55-45.

Past issue allocations by state, extrapolated to South Dakota:
Pennsylvania: Clinton +4.3
Oregon: Clinton +2.4
Kentucky: Clinton +7.6
Indiana: Clinton +8.3
North Carolina: Clinton +6.4

The range here goes from a tie (Vermont) to the upper single digits.

[Sam Spade]

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

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?

[Eraserhead]

Sheesh. Weak. Tom Daschle epic failed.

[Alcon]

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.

[Meeker]

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?

I think he's referring to Poblano. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong though

[Verily]

He'd lose no matter what, actually, in all likelihood.

The "other" issue is mostly Healthcare, which is usually just slightly worse for Clinton than Economy.  I'm going to give her that issue 55-45.

Past issue allocations by state, extrapolated to South Dakota:
Pennsylvania: Clinton +4.3
Oregon: Clinton +2.4
Kentucky: Clinton +7.6
Indiana: Clinton +8.3
North Carolina: Clinton +6.4

The range here goes from a tie (Vermont) to the upper single digits.

I was basing those % within the issues off the other states, too. So, when Obama won health care in Oregon, he won by closer to his Iraq margin than to his economy margin (so here it would be around 55-45 Obama). But that's obviously not going to happen anyway.

[Alcon]

Well, then Sam isn't being fair to Poblano.  Poblano has never advanced his model as anything but a statistical model, and that only goes so far.  It's people who take his (pretty excellent) record and assume his model is sacrosanct, who really deserve the ire.

And it really seems to be the best predictive model I've ever seen, even if it isn't near perfect.

[TheresNoMoney]

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

Project much?

Anyway, "Poblano" is Nate Silver, look him up. He's famous for his statistical baseball analysis and runs the leading publication in the country.  He's not some "new idiot". His track record this primary season is better than anyone's.

[Alcon]

I was basing those % within the issues off the other states, too. So, when Obama won health care in Oregon, he won by closer to his Iraq margin than to his economy margin (so here it would be around 55-45 Obama). But that's obviously not going to happen anyway.

True, which is annoying.  Assuming the exit polls haven't reverted to being crappy, this is looking like Clinton +2-7 to me.

New unnecessary information!!!

South Dakota

White, working-class voters (AKA no college degree)
Clinton 60%
Obama 40%

College graduates
Obama 53%
Clinton 47%

[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.