Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Bumped, ARG going out of the primaries with a bang, jerome

We can argue how much difference these last two states make, and there will certainly be arguments about the credibility of the pollster, but ARG has startling polls out today from Montana and South Dakota.

First, from Montana, where most people have been expecting an Obama blowout, ARG shows Obama ahead by 4 (with twice that many still undecided):
Obama 48
Clinton 44
Undecided 8

Then, in South Dakota, which was expected to be closer, ARG shows Clinton with a huge 26 point lead:
Obama 34
Clinton 60
Undecided 6

ARG has been widely criticized, and has been way off-base in a number of states, but they pretty much nailed West Virginia and Kentucky.  These South Dakota and Montana polls were both taken on the weekend, which may have tilted them in Hillary's favor.

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

86 Comments

Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Wheezing to the finish line he is...

by Iceblinkjm 2008-06-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
People vs. Pundits..

Who wil win?

by architek 2008-06-02 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

he's limping to the finish line.......

by nikkid 2008-06-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
Except that's not the finish line.

That's the starting line.

by RonK Seattle 2008-06-02 05:41PM | 0 recs
LOL!!!!!!!!

Cherry pick much?

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-02 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!!!!!!!

If there are other polls released today from these two states, could you point them to me so I can add them to the diary?

by markjay 2008-06-02 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!!!!!!!

I don't believe any of these polls...what will happen, will happen...and I don't feel like be set up again, only to be let down.

All I can say is....it has been one hell of a race that kept us all on our toes over a period of so many months.  We had the opportunity to watch history up close and personal.
Both candidates worked their hearts out..and you can't ask for anything more than that.  I am thrilled I was along for the ride and while I might not get another chance to see a woman take this to the hightest level, I can share with all my granddaughters the experience and the thrill of watching Hillary, one by one, knock all the other candidates off...now we have (2) standing and only one can wear the crown...
As for the polls, screws them......I have my own internal poll---it's in my head and I know who won...

by GendraX 2008-06-02 01:51PM | 0 recs
South Dakota, not North Dakota

...and there's already a diary on this.

...also it's ARG, which is nearly as accurate as making monkeys throw their poo at pictures of Obama and Clinton.

by Dracomicron 2008-06-02 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: South Dakota, not North Dakota

Sorry I didn't see the other diary.

As to your second point, according to Poblano, ARG introduces 2.3 points of needless error in its polls.  If that comes true on this occasion, or even if it's twice that in Clinton's favor, it's still an excellent result for Hillary in South Dakota.

by markjay 2008-06-02 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: South Dakota, not North Dakota

What you fail to mention is that Poblano himself even adds this caveat in those rankings:

"Note that these estimates are designed to be applied to general election polling data; the errors would be much higher across the board if we were looking at the primaries." (link)

The truth is that ARG has been terribly inaccurate this primary season, including some big whoopers.  And they hilariously called out Poblano, not something which will endear them to the blogosphere at large.

by DCInertia 2008-06-02 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

ARG has a rather poor showing this primary season. Coming in at an abysmal 23rd out of 33 known pollsters over the length of this primary season.

Not saying it's not going to be close, but this is just to way out there.

by jsfox 2008-06-02 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

I'm not sure whose pollster ratings you are using, but if you are using those of Poblano, the top 30 pollsters are grouped quite closely together.  ARG, for example, is one percentage point off from being ranked 4th instead of 23rd (the average pollster-introduced error by ARG is 2.32, whereas the current fourth place pollster introduced an error of 1.41).  This suggests that ARG is not the most accurate, but the difference between it's polls and the polls by the highly accurate pollsters is very narrow, at least on average.

That being said, I expect this is an outlier.

by markjay 2008-06-02 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

A valid point, but I might suggest the minor point difference comes from ARGs really poor showing in Iowa & CT a 16 point miss, a 25 point miss in the South Carolina Democratic primary and a 20 point miss in the Illinois Democatic primary. Not to mention their 25 point miss in the Nevada Republican caucus or 20 points off a week out in Wisconsin. When they miss they miss big :)

Again not saying it isn't going to be close one way or the other. I just think this polls is a seriously out there. If I was going to guess, and my crystal ball is truly out of whack, I would say who ever wins it will be in single digits.

by jsfox 2008-06-02 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Not to beat a dead horse, but the ratings you linked by Poblano are not judging them based on their performance in the primaries.  

ARG has gotten most primaries drastically wrong, often by exaggerating the margin HRC would win by (such as OH, PA, IN) and underestimating Obama wins (such as SC, IL, and IA).

by DCInertia 2008-06-02 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls
it is funny that voters in WV, KY, PR, SD even in MT trying to tell something to Democratic Party and superdelegates, and supers keep ignoring that message and will of the people.
Democrats will pay huge price for that in November.
I hope she will not drop out and will not endorse bad candidate.
She is fighter, great finisher, has excellent chance to win in November and her own party prefers a loser instead of her.
I also hope she will start to play hardball after tomorrow, because at least half of Democratic base supporting her and Democrats simply cannot rely on Obama's half-baked candidacy with a lot of flaws.
by engels 2008-06-02 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Bizarro thinking here.

by Reeves 2008-06-02 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Don't worry about engel.  Engel is bad writer.  Engel not bizarro, just crazy.  Engel love Hillary.  Engel not love Obama.  Engel think Obama bad and Hillary gud.

by reconad 2008-06-02 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls
Obama's 10-point lead over Clinton continues for fourth day, 51% to 41%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107626/Gallup -Daily-Both-Democrats-About-Even-McCain. aspx
by politicsmatters 2008-06-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls
the same Gallup saying she ahead of McCain but Obama is not.
Keep in mind that Obama will be less competitive against McCain when some Hillary supporters will start supporting McCain if she will stop running.
by engels 2008-06-02 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Keep in mind that Obama will be less competitive against McCain when some Hillary supporters will start supporting McCain if she will stop running.

You can hope! If you volunteer for McCain, you can even help! Woohoo!! Go Democrats!!!!

by Metrobot 2008-06-02 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

when some Hillary supporters will start supporting McCain if she will stop running.

Are you talking about yourself?

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-02 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

how about 20% of hillary supporters?

by engels 2008-06-02 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

The ones that Rush sent over?

by antiHyde 2008-06-02 03:30PM | 0 recs
What about voters in Oregon and North Carolina?

They were apparently speaking a different language.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-06-02 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Reenactor angry.  Reenactor smash!

Obama campaign not half-baked.  Obama campaign fully baked!Obama serves baked campaign. Flaws actually tasty part.  Why Engels not eat? Engels not too good with numbers either.

by reenactor 2008-06-02 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Considering that the Clinton campaign expects to lose in South Dakota (and lose big in Montana), somehow I don't think we should put much faith in ARG.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-06-02 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

actually terry mccauliffe predicted a win on tv today in south dakota

by lori 2008-06-02 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

He was drunk.

by venician 2008-06-02 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Terry McAulliffe predicted a win for democrats in 2002 and 2004 when he was the most worthless head of the DNC in the history of the party.

by LordMike 2008-06-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

It might be interesting to note that Sen. Obama is stumbling / wheezing across the finish line in Montana and SOUTH Dakota. (North Dakota being mentioned in the title of the diary.)

by arkansasdemocrat 2008-06-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Well done Jerome. Your big contribution of the day is bumping up ARG polls favorable to Clinton. Please tell us that you will come to your senses after tomorrow.

by wasder 2008-06-02 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

LOL.  I missed that part when I saw it.  I was thinking...  what the heck is this doing on the front page?  Now I get it.  

Bravo Jerome!  Bravo!

by SpanishFly 2008-06-02 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Well I myself have been critical of Jerome, but I have to defend him here.  I don't think he bumped these polls because they were good for Hillary.  I think he did it because ARG's South Dakota poll was so far off conventional thinking.  It was more of a "Well look at how ballsy ARG is releasing this poll for SD."

by jturn17 2008-06-02 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Yea, it is that way.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-06-02 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Fair enough. Just hadn't heard from you in a while and then this, which didn't seem to rise to the status of front page worthy.

by wasder 2008-06-02 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Can't we fix the title now that it is on the front page?

Also, how many people want to bet that ARG's South Dakota prediction is within, say, 20 points of being correct?

by Steve M 2008-06-02 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Maybe Jerome can fix it.  I just tried to but can't.  I guess when he bumped it I can no longer edit it.

by markjay 2008-06-02 12:07PM | 0 recs
I'll take that bet.

I'm pretty sure Obama will get AT LEAST 14%.

by DaveOinSF 2008-06-02 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll take that bet.

And no more than 54%?

To be clear, I was referring to the predicted 26-point margin of victory in favor of Clinton.

by Steve M 2008-06-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
So was I

And I'm pretty sure Obama will keep it within 46 points.

by DaveOinSF 2008-06-02 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls
These polls are a joke. arg always overestimate Clintons support. I think she may win SD but it would only be by a small margin.
Obama will win Montana by at least a dozen. ARG is the poorest pollling outfit out there, don`t get to excited and besides Hillary is about to drop out no matter what happens.
by JOEL1954 2008-06-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

They are not overstating Clinton's support.
You saw that on Saturday, the number of people who have Hillary's back.

If she wins one of the two primaries tonight, she would have finished the primaries a close 2nd to Obama.  Obama never knocked her down, never accomplished defeating her decisively.  And Hillary has energized the "old" coalition and the real core of the democratic party.

In the end, Hillary proved herself the better candidate, the better choice for the nominee.

And as usual, the Democratic Party snatches failure from the Jaws of Victory.

by stefystef 2008-06-02 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

I fail to understand how you can reconcile these two quotes you have provided:

"a close 2nd to Obama."

"In the end, Hillary proved herself the better candidate, the better choice for the nominee."

I don't believe I've ever seen a situation in which 2nd place was considered the "better" anything.

If she was better she would've won. End of story.

by PSUdan 2008-06-02 12:24PM | 0 recs
Not really

We have a history of not nominating our strongest candidates.

She is the stronger candidate for November.   That said, is Obama a good candidate? Yes.  Can he win?  Absolutely.  Should we be supporting him?  100%

by activatedbybush 2008-06-02 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Are African-Americans and the youth the "fake" core of the Democratic Party?

Seems to me that for a party of diversity like the Democratic Party, the core would be a whole heck of a lot more diverse.

by DCInertia 2008-06-02 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

It's really the Democratic White Women's Party, don't you know?

by antiHyde 2008-06-02 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

YOU ARE INCORRECT.

It is the "Democratic White Working Class Women From Appalachia Party"

by xodus1914 2008-06-02 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

The number of people who were at Hillary's back?  You mean the few dozen that showed up outside the RBC meeting?  Or the ones heckling inside?  They expected 10,000... they got about 100...  some support!

by LordMike 2008-06-02 12:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Umm.. How about the close to 18 million who have voted for her, and the 420,000 in PR who came out yesterday despite being told by the media for a week their votes made no difference, and who were they anyway?

Keep talking about unity, though, as though you mean it.

by dembluestates 2008-06-02 01:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Too bad only 100 or so showed up to the meeting... that's what the person I responded to was referring to.

by LordMike 2008-06-02 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

Part of why Clinton is doing well at this point is that people want to give her a tip of their hats at the end of the process.  

by politicsmatters 2008-06-02 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

I've always found that to be one of the funniest arguments in this process.  Funny because of how dumb it is, of course.

But that's not to disparage anyone who gets their jollies by repeating it.

by Steve M 2008-06-02 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

That's some deep analysis.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-02 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

As deep as the "analysis" I was responding to, don't you think?

Personally, I think it's pretty contemptuous to say "Clinton's supporters don't really want her to be the nominee, they're just giving her a little hat tip."

by Steve M 2008-06-02 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and North Dakota polls

I don't suspect it plays a large role in the voting, but I wouldn't call it (a.) contemptuous or (b.) dumb because it's funny.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-02 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

According to Marc Ambinder, the Clintons believe they will lose Montana in a blowout and lose South Dakota by about ten so that discredits this poll.

by MJJLWolf 2008-06-02 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

The Clintons were always pretty good at winning the expectations game :-)

by markjay 2008-06-02 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Yes indeed.  After all, they expected to win the nomination.  

by reconad 2008-06-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Lowering expectations. Then she'll out-perform expectations.

by TCQuad 2008-06-02 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

For what it's worth, Poblano suspects that they're a little screwy.

by rfahey22 2008-06-02 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

I think Obama will probably lose South Dakota.

I also think that Obama has reached the point of diminishing returns on these primaries now that he's pretty much acknowledged as the nominee. It's a gut feeling, but I'd imagine Clinton supporters are more likely to actually turn out to vote now, both to booster her popular vote total and to protest Obama.

As a point of reference, look at McCain getting only 75% in the recent primaries; his long-vanquished opponents' supporters are still turning out to voice disapproval with McCain months after the race ended. The only difference in our race is that Hillary is certainly no Huckabee or Ron Paul--she's a tremendous candidate who's still in the race, so greater motivation among her supporters certainly can affect the voting by at least a few points.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-06-02 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

by libertyleft 2008-06-02 12:31PM | 0 recs
Is this snark?

Serious question.

:)

by SpanishFly 2008-06-02 12:49PM | 0 recs
Is this an open primary?

Not to take away from actual voters (for any candidate of any party), but the election-disparaging Limbaugh crowd are in absolute frenzies of joy over this entire primary.  I have not been listening to Right Wing Radio recently (I often do), but I can imagine Rush and his dittoheading clones will not be satisfied until they have done as much damage as possible.

The fat bastard was last I looked still crowing about how effective his little anti-democracy effort has been, and there is every indication that the numbers of his followers disrespecting Thomas Jefferson is measured in the thousands at least.  Not enough to literally change anything, but perhaps enough to add fuel to the Popular Vote fire.

May have to tune in and listen to the old windbag again and see how many of his callers gloat about pissing on the American political system this time...

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
DON'T DO IT!

No matter what scientific reason you may have, there is no reason to subject yourself to that blather.  It can be mind-numbing and you may never be the same.  

by SpanishFly 2008-06-02 12:50PM | 0 recs
LOL!!

Thanks!

Don't worry, I carry good anti-malware in my cranium, so I'm OK.  Thanks for worrying about me, nonetheless.

Certainly you should know by now that I don't shy away from Dissenting Opinions.  ;~)

The dittoheading of the Limbaughnians is my greatest disappointment with an American demographic.  My greatest fear is that the Democrats start to do the same thing.

As a Great Lady once said: "A ship in port is safe, but that is not what ships are for.  Sail out to sea and do new things."

My ship doesn't stay in port very often...

-thanks

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-02 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Is this an open primary?

South Dakota is a closed primary.  Only registered Democrats can vote.

Montana is an open primary, but, according to polls, it is Obama, rather than Clinton, who is winning the lion's share of non-Democrats.

by markjay 2008-06-02 12:53PM | 0 recs
Thanks

I don't think (or iow I Hope) that those non-Dems who are voting for Obama are like me - serious about it.

I have no problem with non-party-members supporting a candidate, as long as they are not "supporting" a candidate.

Frankly, the whole party system is not something I am overwhelmingly happy with. One of the things I have learned during this primary is that the Founding Fathers weren't happy with the idea of political parties, either.

Does everyone remember Sept-Oct 2001?  There was this little window in time when we all seemed to forget which party we belonged to.  It would be nice to get there again without anyone dying to make it happen...

-best

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-06-02 01:47PM | 0 recs
logical inconsistency alert

don't think (or iow I Hope) that those non-Dems who are voting for Obama are like me - serious about it

I negated my logic, there.  just to be clear, what I meant was:

I Hope that those non-Dems who are voting for Obama are like me - serious about it

by chrisblask 2008-06-02 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

You had a typo there... the correct spelling is AAAAAAARGGGH!!!  

by LordMike 2008-06-02 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Lets look at ARG in the area
Wisc   (HRC/Obama)
 American Research Group         2/15-16/08        600 LV        49        43

Iowa HRC/Edwards/Obama
ARG    12/31/07-1/2/08    600 LV    34    21    25

Dartboard.

by PantsB 2008-06-02 12:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Where is Rev. Wright?

America's chicken's are coming home... (pause) to ROOST!... Wow.

by nzubechukwu 2008-06-02 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Wow. Can I say wow again? Wow.  

by grlpatriot 2008-06-02 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

This is getting REALLY interesting now.  

I wonder if any Superdelegates ever thought that it would come down to one, maybe two percentage points difference in the end?  And that Hillary would be the one with closing momentum and by far the better numbers?

They've been getting SWAMPED for weeks by Obama's  propagandists distorting the actual margin separating the candidates.

by dembluestates 2008-06-02 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

What?!  Superdelegates are so ignorant that they can't look at the numbers themselves and make their decisions accordingly?  Sorry, but that is silly.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-06-02 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Well, if the SD poll is correct, I'll take back all of the mean things I said about ARG.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-06-02 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

I'm in South Dakota, making calls for Obama.  I would guess it will be close, though in my area, the support seems stronger for Obama.  The Clintons have been campaigning here every day, which is quite a big deal for South Dakotans since our votes have been taken for granted by republicans and democrats for some time. The Clinton supporters are louder, but I don't think there are more.

by bittermom 2008-06-02 01:21PM | 0 recs
ARG has consistently erred in Clinton's favor....

but 26 points up in South Dakota scares me. I mean if ARG misses by over 30 points I will be slightly stunned, but I will be equally stunned if ARG is close.

I can guess that Montana is a typical pro-Hillary result and that in the end Obama wins there comfortably (lets say between 7 and 17 points), but even if ARG is way off In South Dakota, Obama could lose by 10-15 points???

I would like to see some internals. Are only old ladies home and did ARG forget to weight the results?

This poll is astounding.

I would like to see Survey USA or Rasmussen with another poll before the voting begins, but I doubt that will happen.

I am not sure how to evaluate this, but while ARG has shown a pro-Hillary lean, I am not ready to dismiss 26 points as statistical noise from a bad polling firm. Its scary.

by keithdarlingbrekhus 2008-06-02 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re:

I hope Clinton finishes with some big wins. I've been proud to support her, and if the worst happens she'll have my full support in 2012.

I think she'll win both. Obama really is limping across the finish line

by liberalj 2008-06-02 01:44PM | 0 recs
From a Realistic Obama Supporter

ARG tends to be off in Hillary's favor so we can assume that Obama is still likely to carry Montana and maybe by as much as 10%.

But unless they've totally lost it the SD poll suggests Hillary will win by double figures.

What does it mean?  Beyond the initial Clinton and media spin, nothing.

Limping to the finish line?  Well the reality is that he has again made a strategic choice to put more time into places he thinks are more important while the Clintons have spent mucho time in South Dakota. Should he have spent more time there and perhaps won?
Maybe. But his strategic decisions have paid off so far. He figures South Dakota results will be forgotten in a few weeks while Minnesota and Michigan will be critical in the general election.

The fact is that he has it sewed up.

Analogy. Football team that leads the league loses it's last game
but still finishes first and is the one that plays in the Super
Bowl. It would have been nice to finish on a big up note, but attention shifts immediately to the big games ahead.

MP

by markpsf 2008-06-02 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Agreed. I haven't been bothered that he isn't spending time here.  South Dakota just isn't going to go for him in the general.  I'd rather have him out fighting for the general.  Unfortunately, Senator Clinton might squeak out a win here, but if she does, I suspect it will be close.

by bittermom 2008-06-02 01:58PM | 0 recs
For anybody who believes these numbers

I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. ARG is notorious for being one of the worst pollsters of this cycle.

by Phil In Denver 2008-06-02 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: For anybody who believes these numbers

I don't believe their numbers.  But, off by 30+ points?  I hope so, but that seems a little too much even for ARG.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-06-02 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Those polls are just wacky!  It would be a mixed blessing to win in South Dakota.  

Might make the Clinton campaign think that maybe, just maybe, they should have actually put forth a little effort in all of those irrelevant podunk consistently GOP-voting caucus states out West.

by Rick in Eugene 2008-06-02 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

Are any other pollsters polling SD and MT this week or last week?

by poserM 2008-06-02 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Startling Montana and South Dakota polls

I think he did it because ARG's South Dakota poll was so far off conventional thinking.

by anasky123 2008-06-26 10:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------