home

SD and MT Polls

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 12:58:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Just for fun, ARG has some incredible polling for Clinton in South Dakota and Montana:

South Dakota

Clinton 60
Obama 34

Um what?

Montana

Clinton 44
Obama 48

Hmmm. It is ARG, but just for fun.

By Big Tent Democrat

< A Good Question To Opponents Of The Unity Ticket | Updated Caucus-Primary Statistics : Through June 1 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SD and MT Polls | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Was waiting (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    for your post on this poll.

    Incredible in every sense...all I've been hearing is that SD is close.

    That doesn't seem close to me! LOL

    SC Demographics Favor Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by flashman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    So says the AP

    Parent
    Well, it's ARG (none / 0) (#21)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    ARG has basically been wrong on every election thus far.  Not even close.

    Parent
    They have nailed some. (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    And they seem to have a 4-5 point Clinton bias in the others, but that can't explain this result.

    Parent
    Not with Kentucky or West Virginia. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    Right on the money.

    Parent
    Except in CA ... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    They were the only ones that predicted a Clinton win and for the precise margin on Clinton win. Just saying....

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Shawn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    They were way off on most of the early primaries, but they did ok in TX, OH, PA, WV and KY (granted, it was pretty hard to screw up the last two). That SD poll is really out there though - maybe they only polled the Indian reservations?

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    They got the Kentucky spread exactly right and were only off there by 1%.  They were actually better than SUSA there.

    Parent
    that explains their (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:26:14 PM EST
    unreliabilty.

    They're run by pirates, matey.

    Parent

    They need a few (none / 0) (#62)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    extra "R"s in there, then.

    The name of the pollster would then be:

    "ARRRRRGH!"

    Works for me! ;-)

    Parent

    I'm beginning to think it's money. There's no (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    other rationale explanation other than all the Superdelegates exist in a bubble, along with the MSM, protected from any interaction with ordinary people and their views. I wish we had a psychoanalyst on this blog to decipher this condundrum for us.

    Parent
    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    andgarden disagrees with you...see downthread. :-)

    Parent
    That's their reputation (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    but I think they've actually been better than Zogby.

    Parent
    Weren't they correct one time? (none / 0) (#136)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST


    Parent
    That's fun! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM EST
    A split at the end, or even better a Clinton twofer would be the perfect capstone to this insane election season.  Do you think Obama will call SD the tiebreaker between MT and PR?  /snark

    No, he'll just get the rules committee to (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    give him all the delegates no matter what the voters decide.

    Parent
    MSNBC will just tell us NA's aren't Americans (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:49:09 PM EST
    That'll do the trick for Obama in SD.  I wouldn't put it past Tweety and KO to tell us Native Americans belong to other nations.  I'd insert snark here, but I'm only half joking.

    Parent
    Well,I can explain. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by MarkL on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:02:09 PM EST
    Someone was explaining to me that Obama does better in smaller states, where he is able to introduce himself to more of the voters.
    SD is quite a big state, so this argument doesn't apply. Montana is even bigger, but Hillary may have trouble reaching all the voters there as well. I'm not sure.

    ah, the real reason Obama will lose the GE (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    (snark alert) Your post gave me the idea for the new why I lost the GE story for him. The country is big. You know, like the big states. So of course he can't win the whole country, it's too big. Snark.

    Parent
    That's right and so the (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:39:59 PM EST
    leaders of the Democratic Party will demand that in November all the states have caucuses.

    Parent
    Just my opinion (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    I used to live in Gillette WY and visited Rapid City a lot for shopping and entertainment.  South Dakota is not fond of Tom Daschle, the majority of the state felt he totally lacked spine by the time they cut him loose.  I think Tom Daschle's endorsement of Barack Obama has hurt Obama in South Dakota.

    Parent
    What about Wyoming? Any insights there? (none / 0) (#75)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:40:53 PM EST


    Parent
    As to what? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    Wyoming is a caucus state for the Dems.  Democratic party in general is extremely weak in Wyoming.  Can only get a Dem elected for Governor so far, not any Reps or Senators for D.C.  Times change but not this election cycle.  Wyoming won't be going for anyone but McCain for President in the general.

    Parent
    No. I meant the primary. (none / 0) (#114)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:55 PM EST


    Parent
    It's a caucus state (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    Obama does better when caucuses decide the vote.

    Parent
    Oh. Somebody above told me it was an open primary, (none / 0) (#123)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:48:13 PM EST
    Now, I'm confused.

    Parent
    Nope, caucus (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    Montana is open primary and Obama does better when the primary is open.  Thusfar Hillary smokes closed primaries where only Democrats are voting and that is what South Dakota is.

    Parent
    Oh. Sorry. Now I understand. I asked about (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:56:18 PM EST
    Wyoming and I was thinking Montana.  It's one of those pairs of states that are on the same neuron in my brain.

    Parent
    You obviously aren't from the West ;) (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    I come from a family of ranchers so you have sinned, I get the eastern seaboard mixed up which is something a lot of Democrats simply cannot fathom.  I was once asked by another kid from the East if we still had problems with the Indians and I died laughing.  The eastern side of this country still has the Civil War going on though....who would have thought?

    Parent
    Well, no --I was born in L.A., (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
     but went to high school in NY.  However, I undersand the problem. I used to live in New Mexico and everyone asked me what it was like down in Arizona. Now I live in North Carolina and everyone thinks I'm from South Carolina.

    So, anyway, now I"m doing the same thing to poor Wyoming and Montana.

    BTW, New Mexicans get used to telling operators and many others that New Mexico is not a foreign country but is, in actual fact, a state in the U.S.

    Parent

    It happens all over the country (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    I remember in college someone trying to argue with me that Vermont wasn't part of New England.  I don't know where they got that idea, or why they felt so strongly that they actually wanted to argue the point.  On a sad note, I do kinda blame the schools.  The only time I ever took Geography was when I was living abroad in Germany.

    My best friend didn't know England was an island until she flew over it in the 10th grade.  My other friend thought Africa was a country not a continent well into highschool.  It's pretty sad.

    Parent

    Montana is prettier (none / 0) (#135)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    full of liberals and libertarians, elected a Democratic governor.

    Wyoming is Cheney's home state, need I say more?

    Parent

    my very extreme republican doctor told me today (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    that he would vote for Hillary (in Montana) as he liked her more than the others....What a shame this is being taken away from her and being taken away from us....:-(

    Parent
    Is HRC (none / 0) (#40)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    returning to either SD at all today/tomorrow?

    Parent
    She's in SD right now. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:07 PM EST


    Parent
    I think she also has her rural team (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    there. She's had a crew from upstate (family farmers, wine makers etc) traveling to regions where they can directly talk to the issues and what she has done to help them as their Senator. They went to WV, KY and I think PA. They may have been out their earlier and I was just unaware.

    Parent
    That's great! (none / 0) (#90)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Montana is not "big" in population (none / 0) (#49)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    Although it is a physically large state, it is one of the least populated states in the nation, and most of it's population is highly concentrated in just a few cities.

    Parent
    Montana is the 4th largest state in the union with (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:44:23 PM EST
    less than a million people in the entire state...We still have rural one room school houses in some parts of the state....Where I live we only get mail delivery three days a week...

    Parent
    I read an article that said this reporter (none / 0) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    was watching obama speak to a group in SD and he could actually see the hope come into their eyes....would someone puhleeeeeeeeeeeze give me a big ole break!!

    Even the devil can make you feel hopeful sometimes...

    Parent

    Dear Zeus (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    Please, just to prove to Kerry, Kennedy and now Daschle, that they just don't get it.  That is all I want and I will give up on Sun microsystems stock forever.  

    When the people of South Dakota saw her (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:14:47 PM EST
    standing at Mt Rushmore, they could see her face on that mountain. They are bright people.

    Wouldn't this be just the best finale of the primary season if it turns out accurate?! It's a caucus, right? I hope she has tough people minding the sites.

    She's not that far off from a tight win in MT by their count, either.

    Parent

    It's a primary (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Shawn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    I thought SD (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    was a closed primary (while MT is an open one)... It isn't?

    Parent
    Yeah. I'd like to know that too. (none / 0) (#77)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:42:20 PM EST


    Parent
    From CNN... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    Montana is an open primary.

    South Dakota is a closed primary (Reuters).

    Parent

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#113)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:19:14 PM EST


    Parent
    I guess they could have just (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    made it up or something.

    But I'm not sure what the implications would be if Hillary won one or both, if anything.

    Certainly it would not be good for Obama.

    That would make all those remaining (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    Super-Ds who are supposed to flock to Obama this week look rather silly.  I like it.

    Parent
    Has ARG (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    ever been close to right about any of the polling?

    They seem to be the only recent ones listed on Pollster.com.

    Parent

    The South Dakota poll baffles me (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:08:33 PM EST
    I mean, ARG has been off before, but they've more often been pretty close to right.

    Parent
    Oh, we could just reallocate her delegates (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    then it would be plenty fair to Obama.  


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    I think we have to because clearly lots of Obama voters won't have turned up because they were told the nomination race is over so their votes won't count. We mustn't disenfranchise them

    Parent
    He can have my imaginary vote (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST
    because I've been totally disenfranchised by South Dakota, since I live in Massachusetts.  I have been told repeatedly that my vote in South Dakota's primary won't count.

    Parent
    It works (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    especially well for Obama if he's not on the ballot. He'd even get some of the delegates that the other candidate earned.

    Parent
    Wouldn't that be lovely (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    if Hillary beat Obama in at least one of those two states that he should be able to win. If he can't close the deal even in both of those states, he's toast. Of course this poll is silly. But I can always hope can't I.

    If demographics are destiny (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    isn't this believable?

    I'm holding on to that anyway - at least until I see an SUSA poll.

    I just checked SUSA... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:08:41 PM EST
    couldn't find anything.

    Didn't they predict a 13-point win for Clinton in PR, though?

    They weren't too accurate there IIRC. :-)

    Parent

    True - I believed them (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:12:03 PM EST
    and almost fell out of my chair last night when I saw the PR results.

    Hillary winning these low population states will skew the charts from Jeralyn's last post though.  I'm sure she wouldn't mind.

    Parent

    That was an old poll, from April, I think. (none / 0) (#112)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    I mean the PR one.  Will SUSA have any polls out today on the primaries tomorrow? They were wrong on Indiana and NC, though, as I recall.

    Parent
    And I just checked (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:07:44 PM EST
    Amazingly, South Datkota is essentially the only state I can find that apportions its delegates in a somewhat rationally way. All of the delegates are apparently up for grabs at large.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:08:52 PM EST
    Well, they could apportion them by congressional district, but there is only one congressional district.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM EST
    The whole "delegates by district" thing seems generally unnecessary to me. The result is just distorted in an unnecessary way.

    Parent
    That's because (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:11:10 PM EST
    there's only one congressional district.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    Well at least we know ARG does not have their thumb on the scale.

    Any pollster that massages the numbers would never publish such a ridiculous poll.

    That's what I was thinking (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    If you held a gun to my head, I would Give Obama both states by 10-20 points.

    Parent
    That's silly. (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    No need for violence.

    Just ask the DNC to give him those states! ;-)

    Seriously though, I keep hearing that SD is supposed to have favorable demographics for HRC. I wonder why Obama is assumed to win both states?

    Parent

    Heh, the DNC gives away states for (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:48 PM EST
    donuts and coffee.  No need to bring out the handguns.

    Parent
    let's all buy a state (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    if that's the price, we could all get together and just buy our own state. Now the question is, which one.

    Parent
    Can I have (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    Wisconsin? I'm all ready here anyway.

    Parent
    I think for poetic justice (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:52:25 PM EST
    we should do a hostile takeover of Michigan.

    Parent
    Actually it just (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by Andy08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    gives them for free; forget the coffee and the donuts.

    Just tell them you were on the ballot but pull your name out in solidarity to...(whatever)... and they'll just give you some of those uncommitted and some of Hillary's too...

    Parent

    agree, he should win by that margin in both (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    anything less will not be a good sign for him. Not that SD's will do anything differently based on mere voters of course.

    Parent
    Maybe you're on to something (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    They may be clinging to their guns.

    Seriously, I just don't get the assumption that Obama has some Marlboro Man appeal that sends tingles up the legs of those brokeback cowboys out there. What is with that?

    Parent

    it all comes down to SD (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    OK, that's another snark. But I've loved how at some primary for every month since the end of Feb., we've heard that it comes down to such and such primary (as the determining primary). So I've decided to now state officially (for me only), that the election comes down to SD. It's the tie breaker.

    I'll of course eat my own hat if Obama wins it, which of course he should be good numbers, no matter what the polls say given his backing and money. But we'll see.

    Wouldn't it be a kick in the head (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by americanincanada on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    if she won both on the night when he is supposed to crown himself in the same arena where the repubs will hold their convention?

    I wonder what the supers all set to back him on Wednesday would do?

    ARG polls: great distraction from this: (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    NY TIMES ON SAT. MTG.

    incredible (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:52:22 PM EST
    from NYT

    " ... and Senator Obama has said that he can guarantee that the Michigan delegation will be seated and they'll have a full voice at the convention, when he has enough delegates to know that he's the nominee."

    Just how stupid does Obama think we are?  He actually said that. No Respect. Weasely. Despicable.

    First he asks for what he didn't earn (50/50), then is given what he didn't earn and part of what Hillary Clinton earned and now he thinks it makes it all right if the delegation gets full votes AFTER he gets the nomination. That's supposed to make it all right after stealing our votes? Treating us like children. This man has no business anywhere near the White House.  I wouldn't want him to take the tour. I'd vote for Incitatus first.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    Are you sure you didn't confuse ARG and KUSA for that SoDak poll?

    KUSA predicted (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    Obama by 39% in PR.

    They are Dead To Me! LOL

    Parent

    I was just thinking... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    ... that we need KUSA's input on this.

    Parent
    SD is in Appalachia ? (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    Someone had to say it. Snark.

    The Montana numbers look just like what (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    we saw in Oregon.  Men to the rescue for Obama, voting for him 2-1.  What's up with liberal mountain men?

    Sexism? (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    Snarking here, but...since everyone that doesn't vote for Obama is a racist, I guess everyone that doesn't vote HRC is a sexist.

    OTOH, MT goes red in the GE per Hominid Views, no matter which candidate is selected as the nominee.

    Maybe they're sexist AND racist!!!111!!!

    Parent

    Of course Montana stays red... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:11 PM EST
    I said LIBERAL mountain men.

    Parent
    Liberal is as liberal does. . . (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh, here's my new favorite: (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    I'd love to vote for a black man, just not THAT black man.

    :)

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#148)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    John Lewis or (say what you want) Charles Rangel.

    Parent
    And yet... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Bill carried MT once.

    It's amazing that for all the talk of how Obama expands the map, we have to write off quite a few states that Bill won--KY, TN, AR, GA, AZ. I think he might have won CO too.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    carried Montana and Colorado in 1992 probably because of Perot. Finished 3rd in Utah because of Perot.  Didn't need either MT or CO to win.

    Hillary is a map expander as well.

    Parent

    Libertarians (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by daria g on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
    you mean..

    Parent
    Wealth (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Eleanor A on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    I read recently that a lot of Hollywood types have moved to Montana to buy ranches...

    You figure it has to be that, since about .0002% of the population in MT is AA.

    Parent

    ok, i'll say it. it is an open vote. (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:06:33 PM EST
    repubs crossing over to cause havoc? this is a red state. he probably won't carry it in november. whereas i think hillary could swing sd in november.

    Parent
    I like this thought... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:11:33 PM EST
    but I doubt she could turn it blue.

    Of course, neither could Obama.

    And you're right - the open primary could make a bit of a difference in Obama's favor.

    Parent

    well tell you the truth i don't know that much (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    about sd. i knew that daschle was elected so took it to mean that the possibility was there if hillary got the nod!

    Parent
    Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. (n/t) (none / 0) (#55)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST


    Parent
    If Hillary wins both states (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    I think she ends up controlling the credentials committee...

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#61)
    by ineedalife on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    Dean names a large number so it will be an Obama mob.

    "Charter? We don't need no stinkin' charter!!"

    Parent

    Dean names 25 of 186 (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    as far as I can tell.  The rest are distributed roughly according to primary/caucus votes.

    from TPM:

    There are a total of 186 members on the credentials committee. Twenty five of them are appointed by DNC chair Howard Dean, and the remainder are alloted by state, in numbers based on each state's population and Democratic performance.


    Parent
    Clinton plans New York speech (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:24:36 PM EST
         RAPID CITY, S.D. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton will give her post-primary speech in New York Tuesday night, a rare departure from the campaign trail.

    Staffers who have worked for her on he ground in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana have been invited to attend the event or go home for further instructions, campaign aides said.

    She just got another SD from NY (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM EST

    6/2/2008
    New York Automatic Delegate Endorses Hillary

    Tompkins County Democratic Committee Chair and New York automatic delegate Irene Stein announced her support for Hillary Clinton today.

    what da heck is going on?

    Parent

    Perhaps the political junkies who are (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    aware of the Sat. mtg. are burying the Super-Ds under a deluge of e mail protesting the result and dishonest process.  

    Parent
    Race to go on record? (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    Maybe some SD's are hustling to reserve "I told you so" status for November by going on record for HRC before she suspends.

    Now I think the only way for Obama not to be the nominee is if a major scandal breaks between now and August and an orchestrated and behind the scenes SD switch en masse takes place.  And actually it would probably never even be a switch that went public as Obama would probably be forced to bow out from behind the scenes.  I think HRC should not concede and I think she should reserve the right to go before the credentials committee to fix this MI/FL fiasco on behalf of the voters and the long term health of the party.  Otherwise she should just go about her business in the Senate and occasionally campaigning against McCain, showing Obama to be the amateur he is, but to do all subtly.  Either we'll all be saved by the inevitable scandal breaking before the convention or we won't.

    Parent

    I very much agree (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    with this.

    Should such a scandal happen, the cowardly SD's will demand that Obama step down rather than their being on record switching their votes.

    If we have to depend on their backbones and on them admitting that they were wrong to back Obama, then I'm pretty sure that will never happen.

    Parent

    I just found out it was an Obama county (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    But Tompkins County -- where Stein has been the county Democratic committee chair for 21 years -- was the only county that Obama won in the New York primary in February.

    That has made Stein's decision tougher.

    "The question is, which of the two will be stronger against McCain? That's what will guide my decision," Stein said.

    She said she will consider the wishes of Tompkins County voters, voters across the state, the remaining primary votes, and results of exit polls, but in the end will rely on her own best judgment.

    Link

    Parent

    Working link here (none / 0) (#140)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:44:32 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/5df8no

    Parent
    tompkins county (none / 0) (#142)
    by pukemoana on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    the county includes cornell university and ithaca college, so two big university communities in the middle of upstate new york.  i was talking to friends at cornell and their anecdotal opinion was that obama was strongest on campus (to their dismay . . .)

    Parent
    If there's a big one (none / 0) (#150)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    in the wings and the Republicans have it, they'll wait till after the convention.

    Parent
    Not worried (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:50:25 PM EST
    This came up on last night's thread, too and I flipped out.  FoxHoleAtheist calmed me down.

    I won't believe she's conceding until I hear it from her own lips.  And if/when I do, I'll probably cry but I trust her to understand her own interests and the interests of the real Democratic Party and act accordingly.

    This whole campaign has left me with a bad taste in my mouth.  But it did give me something I'd thought really didn't exist anymore -- someone to believe in.

    Rise Hillary Rise!

    Parent

    That does not sound good (none / 0) (#63)
    by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST
    Will she suspend her campaign?


    Parent
    If I were she, I would certainly do so (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:30:54 PM EST
    if Obama gets to the magic number.

    She definitely should not concede. Let her keep her options open.

    Parent

    I definitely agree.. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    I think there is still too many issues that Obama needs to address before he can be the nominee.
     

    Parent
    yes indeed (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    suspend not concession


    Parent
    no (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    she won't do anything that anyone in the Media or at the DNC could spin as a concession.  She's already said she's going to the Credentials Committee over the delegate stealing in MI and then on to the Convention.  

    So I imagine she may -- and this is just my imagination stirring up trouble, I think -- declare herself the Nominee based on the Votes Earned (eg. Popular Vote) and announce that she'll be focusing from now on on John McCain and the Republican Party.

    :-)

    Parent

    This idea makes me smile. (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    The Audacity of Hillary! :-)


    Parent
    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by mogal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST


    Parent
    that wouyld be great (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    I hope she does it.
    if just to listen to the heads explode.

    Parent
    I certainly (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    don't think that spread in SD is correct but even Daschle admitted that SD is far from a sure thing for Obama.

    Maybe Daschle and McGovern.. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by zebedee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    ..are helping him as much as Kerry and Kennedy helped him in MA.

    Parent
    One cool thing about this primary (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    People actually care about polls in South Dakota and Montana.  I mean, that's awesome and would never happen in a general election or national primary.

    She is getting a lot of SD endorsements (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    17 county Commissioners and 22 NA leaders (past couple days). Don't know what it means to the voters there, but it looks like folks aren't counting her out.

    Where do you find out who is getting whose (none / 0) (#152)
    by derridog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    endorsements? Do you have a link?

    Parent
    Travelogue (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:37:56 PM EST
    South Dakota is one of the most gorgeous states.  For some odd reason I have travelled through it five times.  It is just stunning and I love to go back.  

    Traveling with the kids in the VW camper(yes, I know Berkeley and all)  , we happened to arrive when the Sturgess Harley Festival was taking place.  Visiting Mt. Rushmore, the place was crawling with bikers of all types.  I think it's like over 100,000 bikers that show up, I could be wrong.  It was priceless watching the bikers taking pictures and talking about their souvenirs.  Then driving through the Bad Lands with our so silly VW camper, in the middle of a biker horde.  Ahh, America, you gotta love it.  

    IMHO (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    S. Dakota doesn't hold a candle to Montana -- Glacier, Yellowstone, the Rockies, etc.

    ...although Washington is the prettiest state.

    Parent

    Is it a competition? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:54:13 PM EST
     "girls girls you are all pretty"  that goes for states as well.  They each have their specialness, but there is only one Corn Palace, I am sorry.  

    Parent
    Hee hee hee... (none / 0) (#99)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    of course I think New York is by far the prettiest. :-)

    And you know, I'm not at all sorry that there's only one Corn Palace.

    Surely only one is needed. ;-)

    Parent

    Corn Palace is brilliant (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I understand now that festival has more than a (none / 0) (#156)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    million participants...My daughter lives 20 miles north of Sturgis and works in Sturgis...:-)

    Parent
    If this really happens tomorrow, or anything close (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jfung79 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    If Clinton wins South Dakota by double digits tomorrow and Montana is close, this race is NOT over!  I can't imagine there are so many superedelegates who would be dumb enough to just hand Obama the nomination at that point, when the evidene would be so clear that he is not the popular choice of the party, and that he is less electable than Hillary.  

    We cannot afford for the Democrats to lose in November and set back the country for another 4-8 years.  

    Caucuses (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by DaveOinSF on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Tomorrow's South Dakota results (and to a lesser extent Montana too) will be the final check on the validity of all those mountain west/plains caucus results.  We've already seen Nebraska, Washington, and Idaho have primary elections with results much closer than the corresponding caucuses.  Obama blew away Hillary in the North Dakota, Wyoming, Minnesota and Colorado caucuses too.  If those caucus results were indeed representative of the will of the people, we should see similar results in South Dakota and Montana (though Montana is a little different demographically).

    We shall see.

    Too Good To Be True In SD (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by BDB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    But I would love for Hillary to embarrass Daschle.  And, of course, it would be one more repudiation of Obama by primary voters.  You can't say they aren't trying to send a message to the Democratic Party.  It's just too bad so many have their hands over their ears yelling "LA LA LA LA LA."  Because if they listened, they'd hear an awful lot of voters who don't want Obama. And that's what this is - otherwise the party would rally around the inevitable nominee in these late contests.  That so many states are having large turnout and that Obama has lost most of them, that's not a good sign.

    Unfortunately, the DNC still thinks it's February.  

    the Clintons ran the best campaign ever in SD (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    Frankly, from early 'on the ground' listening I was going to go with 60-40 Obama but Hillary and her family have literally been EVERYWHERE over there and worked their tails off.  Its been just fantastic, especially since I've a few coals in the fire, too, with some great progressive prochoice candidates, the new nasty abortion ban ballot measure this fall, a ballot measure to get rid of the new nasty eminent domain giveaway for railroads - and oil pipelines? - and much more!

    Things are a hoppin' in the prairie state!  And I'd have to give the win to Hillary over the Hildebrand home-boy run Obama campaign which again thought it could throw a messiah-like event and take all the cookies.   Maybe not!

    Wishing all the Dem prochoice women candidates in SD a great day Tuesday!

    By the way, my daughter who lives in SD (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by athyrio on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    says that the battle cry in South Dakota to defeat Obama is "make Tom Dashle cry" :-)

    Parent
    Daschle tears (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 07:59:03 PM EST
    There are quite a number of First Nations people who aren't happy with Daschle either, selling out their water rights and advanced their treaty rights not one whit.  We have five native women running for state leg this cycle!  More for county commission seats and tribal councils... . Its a hot place, politically, I'm tellin' ya!

    And what's with an antiwar vote for Daschle, who also voted for THE Resolution (for him its a resolution, for Clinton a WAR vote, hmpf!) and couldn't manage his Senate as Majority Leader against Bush?  Why in the world should anyone be for a Daschle endorsed candidate?  

    South Dakotans may be rural, but they're community and ain't all as stupid as the DNC has wanted them the past ten years.

    Parent

    oop, darn (none / 0) (#160)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:15:50 PM EST
    Sorry, way too much Daschle for me, too.  

    Parent
    Daschle tears (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    There are quite a number of First Nations people who aren't happy with Daschle either, selling out their water rights and advanced their treaty rights not one whit.  We have five First Nation women running for state leg this cycle!  More for county commission seats and tribal councils... . Its a hot place, politically, I'm tellin' ya!  And a vast stretch of prairie and mountain needing environmental preservation... .

    And what's with an antiwar vote for Daschle, who also voted for THE Resolution (for him its a resolution, for Clinton a WAR vote, hmpf!) and couldn't manage his Senate as Majority Leader against Bush?  Why in the world should anyone be for a Daschle endorsed candidate?  

    South Dakotans may be rural, but they're community and ain't all as stupid as the DNC has wanted them the past ten years.

    Parent

    Daschle tears (none / 0) (#159)
    by Nettle on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 08:13:31 PM EST
    There are quite a number of First Nations people who aren't happy with Daschle either, selling out their water rights and advanced their treaty rights not one whit.  We have five First Nation women running for state leg this cycle!  More for county commission seats and tribal councils... . Its a hot place, politically, I'm tellin' ya!  And a vast stretch of prairie and mountain needing environmental preservation... .

    And what's with an antiwar vote for Daschle, who also voted for THE Resolution (for him its a resolution, for Clinton a WAR vote, hmpf!) and couldn't manage his Senate as Majority Leader against Bush?  Why in the world should anyone be for a Daschle endorsed candidate?  

    South Dakotans may be rural, but they're community and ain't all as stupid as the DNC has wanted them the past ten years.

    Parent

    Maybe because these are (none / 0) (#1)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    the last of the primaries, their poll will finally be correct!~!!!

    That SD poll is wayyyyyy out there. It's (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    like they only polled her headquarters.

    I think it was (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    an online poll here at TL

    Parent
    Which of course means (none / 0) (#20)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    Obama wins South Dakota and Clinton wins Montana big

    briefly OT (none / 0) (#80)
    by ccpup on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    but does anyone know what date the Credentials Committee is currently scheduled to meet on?

    Thanks!

    August is all I can tell (none / 0) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    from googling about a bit.

    Parent
    Jeralyn or BTD, how about a prediction thread? (none / 0) (#117)
    by gandy007 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:29:26 PM EST
    I'm sticking my neck out early.

    Montana Obama by 9-12

    South Dakota Clinton by 2-5

    I think the difference maker is the closed primary aspect.  In most primaries so far, hasn't Hillary actually won the core Democratic voters?  Anyway, in my estimation, this will be a true test of most long time Democrats vs. most of the Newbies and Hillary will pass with flying colors.

    My prediction (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    South Dakota.....Clinton by 26.  Montana......Obama by 5.

    Parent
    Hillary will go out blazing as she should! (none / 0) (#151)
    by sotonightthatimightsee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:47:27 PM EST
    This is a clear case of buyer remorse. Another landslide win for Hillary in South Dakota would prove the point. However, it is in the DNA of Democrats to nominate losers. For the last 40 years, they were able to elect only two presidents. This year, even with all of the stars aligning for them, they still find a way to screw it up to nominate a sure loser like Obama.

    I think the South Dakota poll is by KUSA - N/T (none / 0) (#161)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:32:35 PM EST


    SD and MT Polls | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment