17
   

Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:49 am
Nimh, a study of some of the internals of the PPP and SUSA polls.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/4/21/10827/5540

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 12:54 pm
ehBeth wrote:
The pattern showed up, but it seems the reporting didn't seem to catch it (or maybe didn't comment on it) initially. I've been re-reading a number of old threads here - and direct media sources - recently.


I've seen it crop up often enough, from the start - New Hampshire was a very striking example, after all. The turn to Hillary in the last two days there yielded her an upset victory. That sure caught the media's attention.


ehBeth wrote:
The scent of "voters who are smart/follow campaigns vote Obama" vs "voters without a clue vote Clinton" seems to be getting stronger. Maybe it's somehow attached to the "elite" issue.


Really? Eye of the beholder, I guess... whereas about two months ago, it seemed like there was general benevolence to Obama, the snideness and agressive - dare I say it - bitterness of both conservatives and Hillary supporters has reached a shriek by now, to my ears. It's like he's becoming some kind of hate figure or something. It's becoming increasingly hard to cut through the personalised clutter and find some discussion on substance now.

When it comes to the conservatives, that was bound to happen to any Democrat, I guess. But Hillary supporters weigh in even more sharply. Not just here, on blogs generally. And I mean, talk of that Obama should drop out for Hillary's sake, for example (also not just here)... truly, either there's some serious loss of perspective, or the sense of entitlement about Hillary's presidency has some pathological depths.

I just hope this'll all be over soon.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 01:15 pm
nimh wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
The scent of "voters who are smart/follow campaigns vote Obama" vs "voters without a clue vote Clinton" seems to be getting stronger. Maybe it's somehow attached to the "elite" issue.


Really? Eye of the beholder, I guess... whereas about two months ago, it seemed like there was general benevolence to Obama, the snideness and agressive - dare I say it - bitterness of both conservatives and Hillary supporters has reached a shriek by now, to my ears. It's like he's becoming some kind of hate figure or something.


errr, I wasn't suggesting that it was a positive thing. I guess I should have been clear that scent meant stink in this case. On both sides. It's nasty.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 01:20 pm
I realised that's what you meant. That's why I was like, uh, really? OK... my impression was kind of the opposite, namely...

But yeah, it's gotten nasty, thats for sure.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 01:23 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nimh, a study of some of the internals of the PPP and SUSA polls.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/4/21/10827/5540

Thanks, Cyclo!

Also, for some reason this made me laugh. TPM headlines its item on that PPP poll that has Obama ahead in PA: "Just to Confuse Everyone" Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 02:57 pm
Way back in February, almost two weeks before the Texas and Ohio votes, Michael Currie Schaffer wrote a preview of the Pennsylvania race in TNR.

It's a good re-read. Things did roughly go the way he suspected. In particular, the demographic and cultural specificities of the state that he describes have indeed dogged and challenged Clinton and Obama until today.

You could copy/paste whole bits of it into a "day after" analysis of "what happened", to be printed on Wednesday.

Quote:
The Perils of Pennsylvania

After Ohio and Texas, Pennsylvania looms as the key battleground for the Democratic nomination. Demographics and the state's political machine favor Hillary Clinton. But maybe neither will matter.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Will Pennsylvania be the new Iowa, a focus point for national politics for weeks on end? Barring any major developments in the Democratic nomination fight, that looks very likely. Unless Barack Obama delivers a W.W.E.-caliber electoral pile driver to Hillary Clinton in Texas and Ohio early next month, both campaigns will assuredly press on to the Keystone State, which can look forward to a six-week frenzy of door-knocking, town-hall-attending, and mundane-local-issue-pandering--the sort of spectacle more typical in wholesome rural states with absurdly early caucuses, not rusty industrial provinces that vote late [..].

In fact, the spectacle might just prove more energetic than the earlier flesh-pressing. Iowa and New Hampshire at least serve as quadrennial distractions from one another. For the six weeks starting March 4, the Pennsylvania primary--soon to be known as "the crucial Pennsylvania primary"--will be just about the only show around.

If the candidates themselves are surprised by this turn of events, just imagine how it feels to those of us who live here. When Pennsylvania failed to join the rush of other big states that shifted up their primary dates, it seemed like just another case of a hidebound legislature unable to get with the program. Now, by chance, our shrinking electorate is about to be wooed as fiercely as a gaggle of undecided Democratic superdelegates.

Unfortunately, that's an honor for which this state seems singularly unprepared. While Iowans trumpet their nerdy earnestness by asking detailed policy questions of presidential wannabes every fourth winter, Keystone State politics are entirely un-self-conscious. This is an old example, but a relevant one. The last year the Pennsylvania primary mattered, in 1984, one of the more memorable moments came when Walter Mondale met with the ward leaders who ran Philadelphia's Democratic machine. When the former vice president took questions, one of them rose to ask ... how much street money he could look forward to on Election Day. Not the sort of thing you usually hear in Cedar Rapids.

Such a scene suggests this could prove a tough state for Obama. Guys who badger former vice presidents about street money tend not to swoon for idealistic plans to change the national discourse. [..]

The question, though, is how much the state Democrats' top-down political style has changed in the ensuing quarter-century. In Philadelphia, where I covered City Hall for four years, one of my colleagues at The Philadelphia Inquirer used to refer to the city as a living museum of American political history. On Election Day, the now-integrated city political machine--sorry, "organization"--still chugged along mostly unmolested, collecting City Council or Traffic Court votes in exchange for the various streetlights and potholes its operatives have tended to over the years.

It's easy to imagine those same operatives rounding up votes for Clinton this year. In a political culture with a long memory and a reflexive respect for hierarchy, the Clinton name remains powerful--more so, I'd bet, than among the more fluid populations of the Potomac primary states. The demographics help, too: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the state had the second-highest percentage of senior citizens in the country, after Florida (no insult intended to the fine leisure opportunities of greater Scranton, but you can't chalk it up to the amenities). In typical past Democratic primaries, veteran Pennsylvania pollsters G. Terry Madonna and Michael L. Young have written, about half of voters were from union and Catholic households. Roughly fifteen percent were African American. The electorate is also "more moderate and centrist in ideology." Governor Ed Rendell, for one, has speculated that some of the more conservative among them could prove unwilling to vote for a black man. Though Obama's numbers with blue-collar folks improved in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania still doesn't represent what you'd call his base. Plus, the state has a closed primary, so there won't be any independents (a group he won by almost 30 points in Wisconsin) to pump up his numbers.

Still, beneath the surface there has been something of a generational battle among the state's Democrats. Rendell rode a successful stint as Philadelphia mayor--during which he largely ignored the ward leaders and stuck it to the city unions--to the governor's mansion. His status as the first Philadelphian governor since 1910 was aided by support in the once-Republican suburbs, where voters were pleased with his reputation for shaking up the sclerotic city and accustomed to voting for Democratic presidents starting with Bill Clinton's run. Today, those suburbanites may like the Clinton name, but they lack a long history with the party establishment busily organizing on her behalf. [..]

That same statewide establishment has even taken its knocks in the city. Last year, a wonky Councilman named Michael Nutter, best known for tweaking old-line Democratic mayor John Street by sponsoring ethics and tax-reform bills, took over City Hall. He won despite the active opposition from the Democratic machine, the largely white building-trades unions, and an African American rival who implied that Nutter was insufficiently black. The old hierarchy doesn't have quite the muscle its supporters claim. Not that his rise ought to be interpreted as a definitive sign of some new anti-establishment mood: Like Rendell, and like Street, Nutter has now embraced Clinton and plans to throw his organizational weight into her campaign.

Nevertheless, clearly, the race isn't a lock for anyone. Compared to the frenetic pace ahead of Tsunami Tuesday, the lead-up to the Pennsylvania primary feels like a lifetime. Call it the Pennsylvania Perambulation: Enough time to reach out to the shy idealist hiding underneath that foul-mouthed Eagles fan. Enough time for a photo-op in front of every public works project of the Bill Clinton years. Or, alas, enough time to buy off every ward leader or associated hanger-on from here to Erie.


(PS - I grinned at "the Pennsylvania primary--soon to be known as "the crucial Pennsylvania primary"'...)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 03:29 pm
Here's a map that could be useful to keep in view or in mind when you're listening to the results coming in tomorrow night ... for comparison's sake. May give you an idea of what kind of results Obama needs to get, where in the state, in order to stay close.


Quote:
2002 Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results Map

Cogitamus
March 24, 2008

First of all, let me apologize to those who have complained about my color selection, as I am now finally in a situation where it's hard to tell the difference between dark green and dark purple.

Second, thanks to Chris Bowers pointing me at the data, here's a map of the primary contest between Bob Casey, Jr. and current governor Ed Rendell, who won 56-43, which should give us a flavor for the upcoming primary.

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/images/2008/03/24/pennsylvania_gov_dem.png
(Click to enlarge)

Essentially, Rendell won not just Philadelphia, but also all the farther-flung counties in its media market, some of them by very large margins. He won State College and held Casey's margin in Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to just under 10%.

While it's unlikely that the Presidential primary will exhibit the same level of polarization, this map isn't very comforting for Barack Obama. He's unlikely to win Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties by the 85-15 margins that Rendell earned; places like Reading and Bethlehem where Rendell won seem to have demographics that favor Hillary Clinton; and even if every student at Penn State voted for obama, it wouldn't be enough to make up the difference.

To win, Obama's in-person appearances on his six-day bus tour will have to charm enough folks in the Johnstowns and Beavers and Williamsports of the world to hold the margins in rural and mediumtown PA to 60-40. It worked Iowa, and it almost worked in Texas, so we shall see.

Posted by Nick Beaudrot
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 03:41 pm
More from Nick Beaudrot at Cogitamus: I think I already posted a map he made, earlier, about where in the state most of the newly registered Democrats resided. But I'm pretty sure I didn't post his later update.

Again, these are maps to keep in mind when watching the results come in tomorrow night. The maps look very encouraging for Obama. But watch the numbers by county: if counties with high numbers of newly registered voters or switchers nevertheless show pedestrian numbers for Obama, that's bad news, and the Hillary win can be expected to be big. If they show much higher than expected Obama numbers, however, that would suggest that a wave of new voters and switchers has boosted him, and the outcome could be close.


Quote:
Yet More Pennsylvania Registration Maps

Cogitamus
April 07, 2008

............First-Timers......................................Switchers......................................Total

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/images/2008/04/07/pennsylvania_registration_dem_new_2.png http://www.cogitamusblog.com/images/2008/04/07/pennsylvania_registration_dem_switc.png http://www.cogitamusblog.com/images/2008/04/07/pennsylvania_registration_dem_total.png
(Click any of the three to enlarge)

My final update on Pennsylvania registration
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 03:49 pm
nimh wrote:
More from Nick Beaudrot at Cogitamus: I think I already posted a map he made, earlier, about where in the state most of the newly registered Democrats resided. But I'm pretty sure I didn't post his later update. [..]



Politico.com has an interactive version of this map. It doesn't provide you with the colour-coded, at-a-glance overview of where the new voters and switchers are concentrated; but it does provide way more detailed information.

Just move your mouse over each county to see the exact number of new voter applications for both parties and of voters who switched their registration to the Democrats/Republicans.

Politico: Pennsylvania Voter Registration Map
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 06:45 pm
nimh wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nimh, a study of some of the internals of the PPP and SUSA polls.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/4/21/10827/5540

Thanks, Cyclo!

Yeah, that was definitely interesting.

I just read through most of this Brookings paper about the political geography of Pennsylvania:

The Political Geography of Pennsylvania: Not Another Rust Belt State

Fascinating stuff. 28 pages of info about the regions of the state, what characterises them in terms of labour market, educational profile, racial make-up and of course voting trends, and what the trends look like. Co-authored by Ruy Teixeira, of "Emerging Democratic Majority" fame. Most striking finding: the Democrats have been doing well in the parts of the state that are still, or again, dynamic and relatively upwardly mobile, and badly in the most stagnant/declining parts.

What surprised me is that, on the one hand, the general patterns in voting trends can be easily correlated to the educational/professional and age/race make-up of the regions, right - that's basically at the root of the whole paper. But the paper also reveals some striking differences in voting patterns or trends between regions that are otherwise quite or wholly similar. That's the only thing I was a disappointed about; that there was little analysis about how come.

For example, the Allentown/Scranton/Reading region in the northeast and the Harrisburg/York/Lancaster region in the south/southeast are by any standards of the given tables similar. Same racial make-up, same educational make-up, roughly the same labour market. Both, overall (Scranton excepted) fast-growing regions. Yet the Harrisburg/York/Lancaster region is solidly Republican, while the Allentown/Scranton/Reading region is fairly to strongly Democratic, depending on whether you look at presidential or congressional elections. Both are distinctly trending Democratic, but the Allentown/etc region more rapidly, so the difference will only grow. Why? No idea.

By ways of another example, both areas are still largely (44%) blue collar, with a quarter actually working in manufacturing and production; low-income, with 60% earning less than $35,000; and have a solid majority without college. Both are overwhelmingly (90%) white, and have a similar share (20%) of 65+ voters. All of this also goes for the West of the state (minus Pittsburgh itself). Pittsburgh's suburbs and exurbs and neighbouring towns, the county that's part of the Youngstown/Warren agglomeration across the border in Ohio, and Erie, together make up a region with the same demographic profile, just a little bit more so still (95% white, 60-70% under $35,000). The only difference is that this area is losing residents while the ones in the east are gaining them.

But the political difference is stark. The Western region used to be a Democratic bulwark, voting for even Dukakis by >10%, but is strongly trending Republican, and voted for Bush in '04. The Allentown/Scranton/Reading and Harrisburg/York/Lancaster regions in the East, meanwhile, are trending Democratic, in part strongly so. The Allentown/etc area voted for Bush Sr. over Dukakis by >10% and still preferred Dole over Clinton, but broke even between Bush and Kerry. Why the opposite trend? I dont know.

Anyway, after reading about all of that I thought I'd gotten something of a feel for the state's regions, Cyclo, and then I clicked on your link. Whoa! I'd still never expected that the regional differences within the state would be SO pronounced. No surprise that Pittsburgh's suburbs go for Clinton, but by 68% to 26% in at least one of those two polls? And the northeast, that Allentown/Scranton region, which you'd expect to be a little less Obama-hostile (what, with the growing economy and population there), 65-69% for Hillary? Dayumn!

He'd better do real good in Philly and its suburbs, score wins in the city of Pittsburgh and Centre county (where State College is), and keep things close in Erie and some of that Harrisburg/York/Lancaster region...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 07:06 pm
An InsiderAdvantage poll of Pennsylvania has Clinton up by 10%, landing it at the top end of what pollsters are saying.

For breakdown by age, race and gender see http://tinyurl.com/4gb5ee.

Obama winning just 33% of whites seems low, though it's true that that's about what he got in New Jersey and Ohio too (his two lowest scores of the white vote from Super Tuesday on outside the South).

71% of blacks must be too low, though: in the 23 states so far where there's been exit polls and a black population of note, he's only done worse than that in Massachusetts and New York.

Other weirdnesses in this poll include there being no gender gap at all, and Obama only leading by 1 among young voters but leading by 2 among 45-64 year olds.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 10:45 pm
Clinton by 10 or more in PA, but the real story here is the ineptness of both candidates, each failing to take advantage of the others weaknesses, because of their own weaknesses. It is now not the strength of Clinton that is causing this, but the increasing weakness and questions in regard to Obama. The voters yearn for a clearly good choice, but are forced to choose between the old hack, Clinton, or the greenhorn, Obama, so neither one seems to be able to finish the other one off. The party fell head over heels for Obama, thinking they could finally be rid of the Clintons, but now it is becoming increasingly likely that he is the worst of the two, and probably the weaker candidate in November.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 07:13 am
Zogby's final edition of its daily poll in Pennsylvania has Hillary Clinton extending her lead to 10 points.

TPM comments:

Quote:
She's up five points from two days ago and six from five days ago. The latest expansion of three points is larger than other recent gains, suggesting the possibility (if Zogby is right) that the late-breakers are turning her way.


There's a relevant warning from Pollster.com here, not specifically about the Zogby poll but about the last-moment developments in general. It notes that its trendline now has Clinton leading by 6.6% (and its sensitive trendline has her ahead by 8.4%), but this leaves

Quote:
some 8 percent of [undecided] voters on the table. They will go somewhere, and if they break disproportionately for Clinton you have a "huge win", while if they go overwhelmingly for Obama you have a nail biter or a dramatic come-from-behind win. In previous primaries, the "winner" has usually enjoyed a significant increase in support beyond what the last polls showed.

That last sentence would be the warning: the leading candidate usually wins by more than was polled for. That would be Hillary, in this case.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 07:18 am
nimh wrote:
There's a relevant warning from Pollster.com here [..]. It notes that its trendline now has Clinton leading by 6.6% (and its sensitive trendline has her ahead by 8.4%)


This is also not a good sign, of course. The sensitive trend will reflect the impact of the last-minute polls more, and it shows those last polls pulling the trendline into a larger Clinton lead, suggesting that she's got the momentum.

Much more detail in this Pollster.com post (click on this pictures to enlarge):

Quote:
Franklin's Final Pennsylvania Updates


http://www.pollster.com/blogs/04-22_PASensitivity-thumb.png


Clinton has increased her lead in the trend estimates over the course of the last polls to 6.6 points using the standard estimator, and to 8.4 points using the sensitive estimate. Last minute polls have given her bigger margins.

Now the key question is whether undecideds push her over a 10 point win, or whether increases in turnout by new "unlikely" voters raises Obama's total.


http://www.pollster.com/blogs/04-22_PAPrimaryPollsterCompare-thumb.png


Still a good bit of variation and some pollsters see a strong trend, others not so much. [..]

But remember, since the polls don't allocate undecided, both they and the trend estimates are leaving some 8 percent of voters on the table. They will go somewhere, and if they break disproportionately for Clinton you have a "huge win", while if they go overwhelmingly for Obama you have a nail biter or a dramatic come-from-behind win. In previous primaries, the "winner" has usually enjoyed a significant increase in support beyond what the last polls showed.

-- Charles Franklin
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 07:38 am
okie wrote:
Clinton by 10 or more in PA

At this moment I'm expecting a Clinton win by 8-9 points..

I would be happy with less of course, but I'm not really expecting it anymore, while I think Hillary's lead will be in the single digits but fear a last minute, inside-the-booth lurch to Clinton that moves her into the double digits.

I dont like this last-moment movement in the Zogby poll (I know, it's just Zogby) and the pollster.com trendline; I dont like the tendency of the winner to outdo the polls as undecideds break to her/him (since we know Hillary's going to win this one); and yes, I suspect that the Bradley effect will play a role.

I fear that a lot of PA undecideds, whose number is higher among whites than blacks and non-college educated voters than college educated voters, are people who will vote against the black candidate once they're in the polling booth.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 08:09 am
I'm going to say Hillary by 11. And I really really hope I'm pleasantly surprised instead.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 01:46 pm
Today's the day! Six weeks of waiting, and finally...

I've had about 10 different predictions in the course of reading things today. I just plain don't know. I think that the 11-point thing from Drudge tends to indicate that Hillary thinks she'll win by 11 points. But is she right?

Consensus seems to be that undecideds will break for her. Wonder if Bill's latest whoopsie will have any impact on that? (He said that Obama's campaign "played the race card on me" yesterday and then when asked about it today denied having said so. Even though it's on tape and everything.)

Then there's that element (already mentioned) of turnout amongst new Dems. "Chaos" people? ("Keep her in it so we can win it.") Mostly Obama people? How many of them?

Weather's nice (here too, gorgeous) and turnout's high, evidently. Could be good.

Read something about Philly returns tending to come in late, so might look like a huge margin for Hillary for a while and then Philly will (hopefully!) even things out either a little or a lot.

Sure hoping it's a lot, not really counting on it.

Expectations game seems to be going pretty well though. Hillary is pushing the idea that it's a big deal if she gets a win even though Obama vastly outspent her, can't tell how much traction it's getting. Obama's campaign seems to be managing expectations pretty well. Lots of well we're the underdogs, probably won't win, etc., but hey were were down by 20 points not too long ago...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 02:00 pm
So lets say Hillary wins by 12; does that mean everyone now thinks the so called "momentum" is on Hillary's side so everyone who is left switches to Hillary? Why? Does she have more to offer than she did just two days ago before Pennsylvania. I never remember a primary being so nerve wracking before. If Obama looses; I just don't know how I will be able retain any interest at all. (which gives credence to the whole 'McCain benifits from the Hillary/Obama thing; but I CANT HELP IT. I'll try real hard though.)

As far as Bill and race card; if anyone been playing it; it has been their side by appealing to those who fear "white blue collar workers" would not vote for a black man so if they want to beat McCain they had better vote for Hillary. I don't understand why people dont' see this open argument as racist on the face of it even if it is true.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 02:06 pm
I really really doubt he's going to win today, but that's OK, and part of the long-term plan. Long-term plan is to be in the neighborhood of 100 delegates ahead by the time the primaries are over on June 3rd (looks like it'll probably be more than that), and then get a critical mass of superdelegates. He's blown her out in several states -- everything's aligned for her to get this one.

With undecideds, not totally sure if I understand what you meant but the idea is that they often break towards the apparent winner. As in, if all of these polls are showing that Hillary is ahead, and someone who's genuinely torn is standing there trying to figure out what to do, that person is more likely to shrug and vote Hillary than shrug and vote Obama.

That's the idea anyway.

We'll see!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Apr, 2008 03:27 pm
Just to confuse things a little further still, the tentative indicators of the last-minute voters breaking to Hillary is contradicted again by a final poll by InsiderAdvantage.

Yesterday, IA had Hillary up by 10; today, she's up by 7, as Obama picks up three points. They have it at 49 by 42 now. The accompanying article says:

Quote:
The undecided vote moved slowly downward between our Sunday night survey and our Monday night round of polling. Since both samples had virtually the same number of respondents, it is fair to conclude that the last minute voters were moving more in Obama's direction.

Take it with a grain of salt though; 39%, 42%, 's all in the margin of error.

One thing that does give me some hope is looking at the crosstabs. IA is not a broadly recognized pollster, and as I posted at the top of this page, its poll from yesterday had some odd crosstabs. Today's numbers seem more believable, with Obama getting 34% of whites and 79% of blacks, with a clear gender gap (Obama getting 48% of men and 38% of women), and with Obama's vote by age group gradually dropping the older the voters. Thats all expected stuff, so this seems more like a "normal" poll.

I had the same impression looking at the crosstabs of that last Survey USA poll; all feels like standard, recognizable numbers. And that poll also had Obama at 6 points from Obama. So perhaps that's realistic after all?

Well, we'll know soon enough.

Oh, the InsiderAdvantage guy says:

Quote:
If I had to guess, and it would be a guess, I would see this as a 53% or 54% Clinton win.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 10:23:00