PREDICTIONS FOR MONTANA AND SOUTH DAKOTA?

[RBInMaine]

I say Obama by 10-15 in each. Do any Montanans and South Dakotans in particular have a sense of what will happen? The only poll I've seen is ARG and they SUCK.

[DerekJ]

1. In the single digits in both.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. Double digits in both.

[VotesForWomen]

28. you're kidding, right?

[bilgewaterbill]

3. Are these closed primaries?

[stillcool]

7. I read Montana..

has same day registration and an open primary.

[bilgewaterbill]

13. I hate to say this but I think Clinton wins both by about 3.

[CK_John]

4. They split, Mt for Obama by 5, SD for Hillary by 3. n/t

[dubeskin]

5. Here's what I posted last night

Montana: 57%-42%
South Dakota: 54%-43%
Give or take a percentage, most likely to Obama's advantage.

Granted, that's without seeing any polls, and just running off the idea that Obama will win.

[liberalhistorian]

10. Obama may win here (SD)

but I don't think it will quite be by that margin, I think it'll be less than that.

[Thrill]

6. Obama by 12 in MT and Obama by 7 in SD

[Colobo]

8. My predictions

SD- Obama 56%, Clinton 44%
MT- Obama 59%, Clinton 41%

[liberalhistorian]

9. I'm in South Dakota and I think Obama will win here,

but not by much. His margin in Montana will likely be much higher. I saw his impressive appearance in Rapid City on Saturday. However, at this point, it's a bit hard to say what will really happen in this state tomorrow. The Clintons, all three of them, have been all over the state in full force, especially Bill.

[That Is Quite Enough]

14. Agreed. The Clintons have been blanketing SD. n/t

[still_one]

25. Even McGovern went over to Obama /nt

[VotesForWomen]

29. yeah, i'm not sure that's a good thing. nt

[VotesForWomen]

27. i'll take that bet. the only way O will win is if he's doing a lot better over by SF than he is her

here in rapid.

[JTFrog]

34. Got paypal? n/t

[Median Democrat]

11. Obama Can't Win, They Aren't Caucases.

Kidding!

[cbc5g]

12. Prediction: ARG eats crow in SD n/t

[still_one]

24. I hope so, the 26% lead for Clinton sure seems like it is a skewed poll

based on previous polls

[AtomicKitten]

15. They constitute the end of this long-ass primary season.

Done and done.

[MadBadger]

16. Hillary wont be in SD tomorrow, so something tells me the 26 point lead is BS

SD: Obama 54 Hillary 46
MT: Obama 62 Hillary 38

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Obama wins Montana by 15, South Dakota by 8.

[MattNC]

18. sounds about right n/t

[VotesForWomen]

30. dream on.

[Tonimontana]

19. Because ARG has been very accurate in the last 2 primaries, I say SD will be a blowout

As predicted by ARG today. Montana will not be as close as ARG claims, perhaps.

[stillcool]

20. About ARG

But there are reasons to question ARG polling numbers. In a polling report card of 2008 primary accuracy issued by a rival survey company, ARG ranked in the bottom half of more than three dozen polling firms, among 2008 primaries through late February. It also ranked near the bottom in another ranking of pollster accuracy at fivethirtyeight.com, a Web site that tracks the Electoral College. And, as I wrote last month, the widely tracked polling averages at the political Web site Real Clear Politics don’t include ARG numbers, because of concerns about transparency. Like they’ve been in Pennsylvania, ARG polls also were volatile in previous primaries, notably in Wisconsin, which saw a 16-point swing in just two days.
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/

American Research Group (ARG) does a large amount of state primary polling and is therefore potentially influential in estimating candidate support because they contribute more polls than most other organizations. This week we saw conflicting results from ARG and Time/SRBI polls of Iowa. (See Mark Blumenthal's analysis here.) The discrepancy of ARG polls from others in Iowa has been an issue here before, as has been the question of how much any single poll influences our trend estimates. Today we take another step towards systematically answering that question.

In the Democratic race, ARG has consistently found support for Clinton well above that of other polling organizations. In the chart above, ARG polls are in purple, the blue line is the trend estimated with all polls, including ARG, while the red line is the trend estimate without ARG. The light blue points are all non-ARG polls, while the purple points are the ARG polls.

This lets us compare three things: ARG polls to other polls, ARG polls to the trend, and the trend with ARG to the trend without ARG.

In the case of Clinton, ARG polls are consistently far above the results of other polls. This has been widely remarked upon already. And in the Clinton case, the ARG polls have shown some decline in support in Iowa, while other polls have shown an increase in her support. This is also the case in which ARG exerts a significant influence on the trend estimator. The blue trend line (with ARG included) is well above the red trend estimate which excludes ARG. This was especially true early in 2007 when there were few polls and several from ARG, giving them an extra influence due to lack of non-ARG data. As polling frequency has increased the two trend estimates have converged, but the non-ARG estimate remains a couple of points below the overall trend.
-----------------
It is clear that ARG's estimates for Clinton have consistently been out of line with others, and that this has had an effect on my trend estimates, making Clinton appear more competitive in the first half of 2007.

But let's also look at the other candidates. ARG is less consistent in over- or under-estimating Edwards' support. Some ARG polls have put Edwards below trend, but others have him above trend. While ARG has disagreed with other pollsters in individual polls, the effect of ARG on the trend estimate for Edwards is negligible.

On the other hand, ARG has consistently had Obama below the support found in other polls, and well below the trend estimate.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_effect_of_arg_polling_on_i.php

[Yukari Yakumo]

33. Bye bye dum dum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=221661



(Though I really like to have known the cause of his granite overdose.)

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

21. The Field: Montana & South Dakota Predictions: Obama +3 Delegates

Montana & South Dakota Predictions: Obama +3 Delegates
By Al Giordano

The Field predicts a big win for Obama in Montana on Tuesday and a narrower win in South Dakota, and agrees with the delegate predictions of both Elliot at Election Inspection and PsiFighter37 (Poblano hasn’t offered a regression analysis on either state yet; I’ll link to it if he does):

Montana:

Eastern District: Obama 3 – 2 Clinton
Western District: Obama 3 – 2 Clinton
At-Large Delegates: Obama 2 – 2 Clinton
Pledged Elected Official Delegates: Obama 1 – 1 Clinton

Total:

Obama: 9 delegates
Clinton: 7 delegates

I think the Montana vote will be something close to Obama 58 percent to 42 percent for Clinton.

...more at the link

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1304

[still_one]

23. ARG is saying that Clinton will win South Dakota by 26%, which seems really doesn't seem correct

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

I trust the Field polls much more, but it really makes me wonder how ARG could be off by so much

[kid a]

22. Montana for Obama: 56 to 44

[TexanDem]

26. a thought: maybe Hillary do better in both than expected because people>>>

know it's over, they know Obama will win no matter what, and they'll feel sympathetic to Hillary and say what the heck, give her the final vote...
I hope not. This is speaking more out of fear than anything else. I won't exhale till this is really over.

[VotesForWomen]

31. care to place some bets on that?

[VotesForWomen]

32. at the very least, Hill will win SD by more than she loses MT by, and she may very well win MT.

[ellisonz]

35. Montana 59-41, South Dakota 53-47.

[jefferson_dem]

36. These look about right to me.

:bounce:

[ellisonz]

37. 2,118

So close...:bounce: