Polls: Hillary Gaining Ground in Oregon

by Deb Cupples  |   Polls have been known to be wrong, of course.  Remember the pre-election polls before primaries/caucuses in New Hampshire, California, and Iowa?  That said, I do find it interesting that Barack Obama had a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in Oregon's primary (tomorrow).  The Boston Globe reports (via Memeorandum):

"Obama had been leading by double digits in Oregon, where he expects to win on Tuesday, enabling him to declare victory in the pledged delegate race and perhaps sew up the nomination.

"But the latest polls in Oregon show Clinton within striking distance. Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent with 8 percent undecided and 6 percent refusing a response, according to a Suffolk University survey released this morning. An American Research Group survey puts Obama's lead at 50 percent to 45 percent."

We'll know soon enough which polls were right -- or wrong.

Comments

[Adam]

I'll stick with poblano's demographic analysis, which still predicts double digits for Obama. He hasn't put anything up for Kentucky, but I'm guessing his projections won't be too different from the 30 points win most polls predict.

As an aside, Ariana Huffington's essay today (main story on the website right now) puts Hillary's campaign in an appropriate historical context, I think. Obama's and Hillary's campaigns were both historic, and national politics are forever altered by the nature of this nomination fight.

[Adam]

Poblano's Kentucky projections are far below the polling numbers - he has Hillary winning by a bit under 20%, with Edwards/uncommitted taking a full 7% of the vote. Unlike North Carolina (the only other time he was far off of the polling averages) he doesn't really trust his own numbers this time.

He also notes that KY-5 (eastern Kentucky) is probably the least favorable congressional district for Obama in the nation, and there is a chance he will fail to reach the delegate viability level (15%) in a district for the first time all year.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

We'll know soon enough!

[Adam]

Looks like he was right to distrust his own numbers.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

Strategically speaking, it's good to express doubt about one's own numbers (or speculations). if they pan out, one can say "See, I was right form the start."

If they're off, one can say, "See, I didn't trust them."

Qualifiers are a major rhetorical tactic, most popular (I think) with politicans, bureaucrats and lawyers.

[Adam]

You're right about hedging his bets, of course. However, he's been pretty sparing with qualifiers. The only other time his demographic-based projections were a major outlier from the poll-based predictions was North Carolina. That time, he basically said, "screw all y'all, I'm right and everyone else is wrong". And he WAS right. So when he says, for the first time all year, "I don't really trust these numbers", I'm willing to give him a little credit for his gut instincts.