|
Yes, I do agree that the American Research Group has not had the best track record.
But that does not mean that the data contained in their surveys needs is irrelevant and useless.
ARG gives us the following value of the likely voters, based on whether they are white, black or Latino. It is consistent with each and every poll we've seen, including 2004 primary exit poll data.
Whites - 53% of the electorate
Blacks - 22% of the electorate
Latinos - 23% of the electorate
Now, let's go in depth about what data ARG recieved from each and every one of these demographics:
Whites- ARG tells us that Clinton leads 51-40 among white voters that were polled. Is that a realistic assumption of what could happen on March 4? Yes it is. He did it in Arizona, winning 40% of white voters in that state. He did it in New Mexico. He's came close, split or won the white vote in almost every state after Super Tuesday.
Blacks - ARG tells us that among black voters, Obama leads them 76-19. Is that a realistic assumption of what could happen on March 4th? Yes it is. Obama has done that repeatedly. In fact, you cannot rule him out getting to about 80-85% of the black electorate, because he has done that many times.
Latinos - ARG tells us that among Latino voters, Obama leads them 44-42. Is that a realistic assumption of what will happen on March 4th? Probably not. Hillary will likely win this demographic. But even if Obama only wins 40% of Latinos, he will can win the state. He won 40% of the Latino vote in Arizona. He won 40% of the Latino vote in New Mexico. It is well within the possiblity that he gets close to that in Texas - or even does better, given that he is going contest Ohio much more than he did New Mexico and Arizona, in addition to being a fixture in that state for two weeks and spending a good deal of money. We've went over this many times - California Latinos are much different than Southwest Latinos, and to project Hillary's success with California latinos over to Texas Latinos is foolhardy.
The problem I have with a good amount of these polls that are still a few weeks away - they tilt the white vote to Hillary by a wide margin. But we know that every time Obama steps in a state, starts campaigning and meeting people, that he makes strides among this demographic. I just can't see Hillary winning the white vote by a 2-1 margin like some of these early polls indicate. It goes against all the trends we've seen over the last few weeks. I am under no delusions that Obama will win the white vote in Texas - he probably won't - but you can be sure that he will come close. And that is all he needs to do to win the state.
So please, don't just say that ARG sucks. explain why ARG sucks. Explain why the poll that you feel does the best job of representing your candidate is right. Enough of these blanket statements about how ARG sucks. They did a survey of the electorate that is well within the possibility of what could happen. Will the Latino vote break Obama's way? Likely not, but it doesn't need to for him to win Texas.
I'd like to say one more thing - Texas is too close to call, and anybody who thinks otherwise is delusional, regardless of any polls two and a half weeks in advance. You just can't project what will happen 2 and a half weeks away when within the next week candidates will start spending money there, meeting people.. and most importantly, changing minds. Who wins Texas will be decided within the next weeks, and polls two and half weeks away are fools gold. This state will be won on the ground.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
