SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

According to SurveyUSA, Indiana is looking a bit like Clinton country at this juncture.

Hillary Clinton: 55 percent (52 percent in March)
Barack Obama: 39 percent (43 percent in March)

Here's where the movement is occurring: Among men, Obama had trailed by 2, now trails by 12, a 10-point swing to Clinton. In greater Indianapolis, Obama had led by 12, now trails by 1, a 13-point swing to Clinton. Among Democrats, Obama had trailed by 12, now trails by 27, a 15-point swing to Clinton. Among voters focused on health care, Clinton had led by 10, now leads by 30, a 20-point swing to Clinton. Among the youngest voters, Obama had led by 19, now trails by 2, a 21-point swing to Clinton.

The SUSA poll was in the field Friday through Sunday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. As a result, the movement in the poll was not statistically significant. What's more, there hasn't been enough polling conducted in the state (at least public polling) for either or Real Clear Politics to develop a trend estimate or simple average. Accordingly, it would probably be sound policy to wait just a tad to see if this trend is statistical noise or real.

That said, Hillary Clinton has led in each of the four recent Indiana polls (conducted since the end of March), with her advantage over Barack Obama ranging from 3 points (statistically insignificant) in a Research 2000 poll to 16 points in this current SUSA poll. For what it's worth, a simple average of the four polls puts Clinton up 52.3 percent to 43.0 percent, a decent baseline lead. Where the race in the Hoosier state will move from there still remains to be seen, however.

Tags: 2008, Democratic primaries, Indiana, Indiana Primary (all tags)



Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

If Hillary wins PA and Indiana then this race is going to the convention.

by karajan72 2008-04-14 01:04PM | 0 recs

Sen. Clinton loses both this is going to convention.  Sen. Obama said it best "You don't beat the champ on points".

by tonedevil 2008-04-14 01:49PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Cause she'll gain a net 20-30 delegates out of them?  Seriously, Obama will grab +15 or more in NC.  Honestly, she's not going to dent his lead with Indiana.  She NEEDS to win NC and win Penn BIG if she wants to have any credibility for bringing this to the convention.

by iowa dem 2008-04-15 04:31AM | 0 recs
not statistically significant?

a swing of 15 among dems?

by rigsoHC 2008-04-14 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: not statistically significant?

How exactly do you get 15 points from that?

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:12PM | 0 recs
thats what the blockquote

says... only among dems, not the poll overall.

by rigsoHC 2008-04-14 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

I'm happy for the turn around in the polls. But I'm not going to jump up and down unless Hillary really does win Indiana.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-14 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Wright... Bitter.... There's NO WAY he gets the Nomination.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-04-14 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Been hearing that since before Iowa... only with the newest 'scandal' of the day inserted.

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

I wouldn't say that. Those controversies are almost meaningless in the Democratic nomination when it comes to the voters.

by RJEvans 2008-04-14 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

I understand you lose 100 delegates if your pastor is a nut and you lose 75 delegates if you call people bitter, so Hillary is up by like 15 delegates now!

Oh wait.

by snaktime 2008-04-14 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

I actually burst out laughing when I read that.  Thank you so much.  I've grown so sick and tired of this primary season that its good to see someone with a sense of humor

...oh wait...

by iowa dem 2008-04-15 04:33AM | 0 recs
Manufacturing Forum blog post

Over on The Economic Populist is a post covering today's Manufacturing forum put on by the Alliance for American Manufacturing.

Links to the raw speeches, transcripts as well as other policy details are in the post.

Most amazing is this forum, on a critical area for American jobs and the U.S. economy wasn't even shown on CSPAN, never mind CNN.

Gee wiz does anyone care about real policy positions and digging the United States out of this economic hole we are in?

It's very important to analyze these position statements, as well as will they stick to them (I noticed Hillary said brazenly to hold her accountable to her campaign promises).

Anyone have more policy position papers please add them on trade, US manufacturing.

McCain of course did not even bother to show up.

by Robert Oak 2008-04-14 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Manufacturing Forum blog post

If digging the United States out of the economic hole it's in involves getting your hands dirty, there's a substantial majority who will prefer not to participate.

It drives me crazy to hear teachers in school say "You have to study hard so you can get a good job.  If you don't, you'll wind up working in a factory."

Some of the smartest people I've ever known were factory workers.  Factory workers built this country, along with farmers and service people.  The United States is not the great nation it is (or was) because of the efforts of lawyers and CEOs.  But they're doing a heluva job of destroying what it took the workers so long to create.

"Manufacturing" has become a dirty word.  How sad.

Thank you for posting this, Robert Oak.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Hey, I would take a 15-point win in PA and a 10-point win in IN. I will absolutely love that. These margins will not give her the delegate lead, but who are we kidding, Clinton will not have a pledged delegate lead at the end of this race, but she could definitely have the popular vote lead.

by RJEvans 2008-04-14 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Whash, Gore and Kerry only managed to receive 42 % of the white vote in the general election.  You mean to tell me that Obama can win the general election with such distractions hovering around his candidacy?

by nzubechukwu 2008-04-14 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Our party has lost the White vote in every single election since the late 60's.  That's not likely to suddenly change with either Obama or Hillary at the helm.  

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:26PM | 0 recs

So in the post immediately preceding this one, you cite lack of movement in a 4.8 MoE North Carolina poll as proof that Obama was not affected by "cling to guns and religion", yet a 7-point swing in a 4.2% MoE SUSA poll leads you to conclude that the movement is statistically insignificant.

Yeah.  OK.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-14 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hack

Err... that '7 point swing' is made up of two movements, each within the MoE.  Adding them together doesn't change the fact that each one's change was within the MoE.  That's not how it works.  

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana
this poll underpolls women -
48% men
52% women
by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-14 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

In the new New York magazine issue, top Republican strategist Alex Castellanos is quoted as saying he believes the Clintons would win the 2008 election against McCain "The Clintons don't show up at a knife fight with a gun; they show up with a missile launcher".

The Democratic choice is clear; they can go with a winner in Clinton, or they can go with a candidate whose likelihood of success in November is a total crap-shoot.

by Bob H 2008-04-14 01:30PM | 0 recs

thats a nice quote

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-14 01:31PM | 0 recs

That is a funny quote.

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 03:29PM | 0 recs
DNC should have pressured
 blogs like dKos to stop pumping these kids up with hate.
What they've done is not cute.
Getting the party unified is going to be hell no matter who the candidate turns out to be.
by internetstar 2008-04-14 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

So... what did Obama show up with?  Cause whatever it is, it seems to be pretty effective against missile launchers.  

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana


by snaktime 2008-04-14 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Hmm, a media that couldn't wait to crown him, trumped up race baiting charges against the Clintons, and an amazing ability to GOTV in caucus states.

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 03:31PM | 0 recs
For a "winner"...

For a "winner", she sure keeps losing a lot.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-14 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: For a "winner"...

i guess i am of the alchian world.. survival=winning. Or, the art of winning is not about the battle but the war. I have always felt our party frequently misses this important distinction when crowning a "winner."

by hctb 2008-04-14 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Between the "Clinton is a proven winner" crowd and the "Clinton has a proven economic record (note: this meme is faulty to begin with the 90s boom occured inlarge part due to the internet revolution, something that is not repeatable)" crowd, I'm starting to believe that you guys don't understand that Bill isn't running for president, his far less politically talented wife is the canidate.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-14 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

No pollster has been more reliable all year than SUSA.  It has been right-on-the-money when most other pollsters were so far off the mark, merely eating crow could not salvage their tarred arithmetic.

Yes, indeed, Hillary will carry Pennsylvania quite easily--much as she did my native Ohio, and quite likely Indiana as well.  The demographics there far more favor bedrock Democrats and their values--meaning Senator Clinton, than would favor Senator Obama.

And just as likely she will do very well in Kentucky, West Virginia and still pro-Clinton Puerto Rico.

Most of us bedrock Democrats have never bought into Senator Obama.  Sadly, he will go to the convention having lost every major state save his native Illinois and that near-draw in Missouri.  

He would then be the nominee of Red State and Independent Swing State America.  Not a very comfortable position to be in if one is a Democrat and one absolutely must win blue state America and at least a couple of key bell-weathers.  

And regarding Florida and Ohio (notwithstanding any pollster saying otherwise; if one loses 83 of 88 Ohio counties in the primary, one hasn't a prayer in that state's fall campaign), Obama certainly cannot rely on either of those come the general.

I presume that in the convoluted understanding of the Obama crowd, Colorado and some other mountain states--with nowhere near the electorals of Florida and Ohio--will somehow compensate.

But the truth will out.  Howard Dean's reconstruction of the Democratic Party process--arguing for "proportionate" representation and many unrepresentative caucuses, which has nothing whatever to do with winner-take-all state electorals, will prove a disaster with Obama heading the ticket come the fall.

Those Democrats who, having endeared themselves to the long Clinton-hating media, have decided to trash the Clintons will get a much deserved lesson.  When a party distances itself from its own last successfully elected President and First Lady, in favor of an untested, unvetted Illinois freshman Senator, then that party is on a certain train wreck.

The Democrats were largely in the presidential wilderness (save for the accident of post-Watergate single-term-and single percent victory Jimmy Carter) for decades before the Clintons.

And the Democrats will be in that same presidential wilderness for several more decades if they foolishly turn away from the Clintons now.

The Clintons will survive.  The Democratic Party, as a presidential contender, will not.

by lambros 2008-04-14 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

Wait...  now Obama is back to being "the nominee of Red State and Independent Swing State America"?  I thought he was a latte sipping San Francisco intellectual who was totally out of touch with these sort of voters?

by Whash 2008-04-14 01:45PM | 0 recs
There should be a daily racing form...

like at the horse races.

by tonedevil 2008-04-14 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

SUSA has been incredibly accurate with their last poll before the vote... not so much with their intermediate polls.

by JDF 2008-04-14 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

"not so much with their intermediate polls. "

How can one assess the accuracy of intermediate polls?  What is the "truth" of the state of an election weeks before it is held?  The only way to answer that is to have the election held three weeks earlier.  Else, your claim is bogus.

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

I'm not sure how you define "major state," but since you mention Missouri, let's use their total number of delegates as a baseline: 72.  

Of states worth 72 or more delegates, he won Texas, Iowa, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia,  and Wisconsin.  

She won California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Ohio.

There is almost no chance he (or she) wins Texas, but the others he won are probably in play in the general.  

Illinois almost certainly votes Democratic for either of them.  California, New York and Massachusetts will definitely vote Democratic no matter who the nominee is.  New Jersey will probably vote Democratic but not necessarily.  Ohio may be a state that only Hillary can win.

With these numbers, I'll take my chances with Barack.  Kerry lost Iowa, Georgia, Virginia, and barely won Minnesota and Wisconsin.  If Obama can win those first 3 states that's 35 extra electoral votes, exactly offsetting Ohio's 20 and New Jersey's 15.

I'm not sure if that's enough for either of them, but he's got at least as good a chance as her, even before taking into account her very high negatives.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-14 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

If Obama is at the top of the ticket, CA, NY and MA then become total crapshoots. Having lived and voted in all 3 states for a number of election cycles each, I can say with certainty that the blueness of those states is a piece of mythology that's only been applicable the past several presidential elections, beginning with Dukakis.

Right now, CA is governed by a Republican, with NY and MA just only now electing Dems for governors after long periods of GOP leadership.

Hillary will win those 3 states because she's a Clinton, not because of her gender. Obama, OTOH, has sealed his fate with the Reagan Democrats in all three. He has no chance.

by SoCalHillMan 2008-04-14 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

I lived in upstate NY for 18 years and suburban MA for 10 and there is no way either state votes for McCain, I promise you.  I now live in Pennsylvania, and the difference between here and Massachusetts is astounding.  Except for parts of western Massachusetts, it is an absolute bastion of liberals.  As for New York, lots of upstate is full of moderates and conservatives, but the New York city vote will trump it no matter what.  

Kerry was a flawed candidate and an elitist and he won Massachusetts by 800,000 votes.  He won New York by a million and a half.  

Gore won by nearly identical margins.  

Clinton won by almost exactly the same in 1996 and in 1992 (2 million in NY, 500,000 in MA), despite Ross Perot's presence.  

In 1988, Dukakis, another flawed candidate, won NY by 300,000 (4%) over the sitting Vice President to an extremely popular 2-term President.  Dukakis won MA by 200,000 (8%).  

Reagan won MA by 3% and NY by 8% in 1984 against Mondale and Reagan won MA by .15% and NY by 2.5% in 1980.

Carter beat Ford, a sitting president, by 4% in NY and 15% in 1976. nal.php?year=1988

[change the year in the website address to see other election results]

The lesson is:  Reagan bucked the trend because he was a change candidate.  In the last 5 elections, and 6 of the last 8, MA and NY have gone resoundingly Democratic.  If you think McCain is going to win, let me just say: I remember Ronald Reagan sir, and John McCain is no Reagan (one is more than enough).

I guarantee you both states go for whomever the Democratic nominee is in the fall.  I'd put money on it.

As far as governors go, Massachusetts has flip-flopped back and forth every 10 years between Democratic and Republican governors, mostly because Beacon Hill legislators are notoriously wasteful.  And Romney and Cellucci were both moderate Republicans at best; most people would have characterized Romney as a liberal.  Swift was not, which is why she got booted.

And Pataki (also a relative moderate) came after 20 years of solid Democrats in New York.  

New York and Massachusetts may someday go Republican, but this is not that year.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-14 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

That line about Carter should say "4% in NY and 15% IN MA" in 1976.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-04-14 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds

Um, proportionate reprensentation has been in since at least 1988 (maybe 1984), so yeah, but hey hey I guess it does have a bias towards good polticians enabling them to have a shot against the establishment, but hey a guy like you probably hated Bill Clinton's rise in 1992 as much as you do Obama's today.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-14 05:53PM | 0 recs
Have the Obamaniacs gone nuts or what?

All day today, Americablog has been posting one attack after another on Hillary. Now this is supposed to be a "progressive" blog and you know what their main sources on these attacks have been: Matt Drudge and Politico (which Aravosis linked to multiple times). WTF?!!!

by TruthCounts 2008-04-14 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Have the Obamaniacs gone nuts or what?

I too have noticed a considerable increase in attack pieces on Clinton on the blogs. It's like they were given the marching order. Who knows...

by RJEvans 2008-04-14 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

They began early voting in Indiana on April 7th.  Why doesn't anyone mention that?

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 01:54PM | 0 recs
That is great news.

Please join C&L and the ACLU to tell your members of Congress: Don't Look the Other Way on Torture: please-join-cl-and-the-aclu-to-tell-you r-members-of-congress-dont-look-the-othe r-way-on-torture

by gotalife 2008-04-14 01:56PM | 0 recs
I am so sick of "no way he/she can win"

That argument is inane.  Either one will win in November unless they run the worst campaign in history.  The current GOP president is at 29% popularity and McCain has been his water boy for years.  McCain is old and crotchety and wants us to fight a neverending war that everyone hates.  

McCain is essentially tied in the polls with Clinton and Obama even while they spend 95% of their time campaigning against each other.  Wait and see, as soon as we have a nominee (I would imagine early June) his or her poll numbers against McCain will immediately jump 10%, and they will never look back.

The idea that losing one or another state in the democratic primary implies that our candidate will lose to a different candidate with a different electorate is statistically flawed at such a basic level, get over it!  Is McCain going to lose Alabama this fall because he lost to Huckabee?  Come on now people, we are going to be fine.

by snaktime 2008-04-14 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: sick of "no way he/she can win"

" Either one will win in November unless they run the worst campaign in history."

It is the Democrats.

And Donna Brazile may be available.

So, never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory  :-\

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

As a resident of Indiana and Indianapolis, specifically, I am amazed at Hillary erasing the lead in the capital city.  The 7th District, which comprises most of Indianapolis, has a very large African American population and those "latte" (their words, not mine) sippers who should be knocking down Obama's door.  In fact, the 7th went for John Kerry in 2004.  So, it shouldn't be this close.  Indeed, if Hillary wins the state, I figured Obama would make up some of the delegates with a big win in the 7th.  For her to be ahead just amazes me...

This is totally anecdotal by me, but Obama has been blanketing the airwaves with commercials for over two weeks now.  Literally, every commercial break during the news and popular shows, and I think that my be having an adverse effect.  Hoosier's get annoyed easily, especially with repetition, and we're not used to getting this kind of stuff thrown at us.  I think it could be some Obama fatigue.

by FitnessNerd 2008-04-14 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

You Hoosiers are getting a taste of what we Hawkeyes experience every four years.  It does get wearing and you just wish it would be over.  

The DNC should pass a rule that no state can hold a primary or caucus before May 1.  That, at least, would give us a chance to recover from the holidays before the political merry-go-round starts.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 08:24PM | 0 recs
Double Statistical Standard (DSS)

Jonathan wrote: "The SUSA poll was in the field Friday through Sunday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points. As a result, the movement in the poll was not statistically significant."

While this is technically true, I will ask several questions and make several comments.

1.  The previous poll from IN (SUSA) was Clinton +9.  What would you be writing (and what would the Obamacrats) be saying if it went 7 points the other way to Clinton +2?

2.  I submit that all the Obamacrats here would be all over the "movement" in the polls.  Just recently, Liberal Avenger was talking* about "movement" within the Quinnipiac poll from PA which went from Clinton +9 to Clinton +6  * 5/4902 Even though there was no movement in the poll, everyone was writing Clinton's obituary because the polls were "tightening" based off Quinnipiac, according to Liberal Avenger anyway.

3.  Since the movement is not "statistically significant," what does it matter if Clinton is now up 16 or 2 in Indiana?  It's all the same, right?  In your words Jonathan and those of statistical significance, they are both the same.  Yet, experience in the real world tells us they are not the same.  If you think they are, would you rather be up +16 from +9 or up +2 from +9?

In the future, I urge you to post with the same skepticism of the MOE as you did here and for Clinton and Obama supporters to stop talking about movement unless the movement is 2x MOE, since that's the standard that was established with your diary.  

Accordingly, if in SUSA's weekly release on PA, Clinton is "down" to a 13 point lead from an 18 point lead a week ago, or something to that effect, I'd like it reported that there was no movement.  Because under the guidelines established in this diary, there would be none.

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Double Statistical Standard (DSS)

Jerome please replace Johnathan w/ Alegre already!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-04-14 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

Wow.  Interesting numbers.  Thank you, Jonathan.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama himself said IN

he sure did!  the loser of IN should drop out!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-04-14 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA: Clinton Holds 16-Point Lead in Indiana

"Now it's time to start female rule" -Dalai Lama 30_dalai12.html

by Swing Vote 2008-04-14 10:14PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads