FOTW-

Great analysis. One little improvement, though. A quick google search suggested to me that the "Copper State" is, in fact, Arizona. Being an alum of UW-Madison, I would be remiss if I were not to inform you that Wisconsin is widely known as the "Badger State."

Interestingly enough, though, the "Badger" nickname comes from mining history in the state (primarily coal and iron). Badgers, I believe, were an early form of union in the mid-1800's.

Cheerio!

Nobody complained about open primaries a year ago when Clinton was the presumptive nominee. I like demoralizing the Republican party and their donors by taking their voters away from them in the primary.

I don't think anyone is polling Hawaii.

The Wisconsin presidential primary used to be a lot more significant. In 1952, Douglas MacArthur (with home state claim due to his Milwaukee origins) was expected to win on his way to displace Harry Truman (who had dismissed him) from the White House. MacArthur lost and that was the air out of his zeppelin.

In 1960, Jack Kennedy beat Hubert Humphrey from next-door Minnesota. The un-tested Kennedy clobbered Hubert by turning out the Catholic vote (the state is well over 30% Catholic) and turning on the charm. A huge win for JFK--resented by Wisconsin liberals because of Old Joe's financial backing of Joe McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy's having worked for McCarthy's Senate inquisition.

In 1968, Gene McCarthy, the anti-Vietnam War candidate who was challenging an incumbent President, was so obviously going to beat LBJ in Wisconsin that Johnson dropped out of the race a week before the primary. McCarthy did win by a large margin. That's when Bobby jumped into the race--only to be murdered two months later.

In 1972, McGovern won Wisconsin over a competitive field---hurting both Muskie and HHH. It was a key element in McGovern's eventual nomination.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter squeezed out a very narrow win over the liberals' champion, Mo Udall. Carter got the farm vote, still an important fraction in Wisconsin then, by campaigning on the image of his own farming operation in Georgia.
This was Carter's go-ahead primary win, giving him momentum and recognition, and taking Udall out of the race just when it looked like Mo was about to "win one."

'76 was the first year that the Iowa precinct caucuses began to figure in the presidential races. In subsequent years, Iowa got more and more attention; other states began shoving their primaries forward on the calendar, and Wisconsin became an afterthought. In 2004, Edwards ALMOST caught up with Kerry in Wisconsin--but like Udall in '76, fell just short, and then fell apart.

The system of primaries instead of caucuses for nominating candidates goes back to the early 1900's, when Wisconsin was led by its iconic progressive governor (later Senator), Fighting Bob La Follette.

Fighting Bob wanted to break the power of the corrupt special-interest, corporate-dominated political machines. He succeeded, largely, with Wisconsin's open primary system. He also wanted to somehow counter-act the influence of money in elections, but this one eluded him. Now, money (spent on advertising) has so contaminated the election process that the original virtues of the open primary are negated by obscene spending invested in influencing the elections. That's why Wisconsin's Senator Russ Feingold has tried so hard to craft some kind of legislation to control and reduce campaign spending. Feingold, for all his smarts and skills, is no Bob La Follette. The solution will require public campaign funding, free and equal tv/radio access, and other reforms---including restrictions on "corporate personhood."

Very interesting. I am hopeful to that Obama will actually win OH.

May I also recommend for those that found this analysis interesting another performed by Poblano over at DailyKos. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

He did a multivariate analysis of all of the primary results as of Super Tuesday looking for demographic factors that had influenced the outcomes. He then applied them to remaining Feb. primaries. His analysis includes predictions for all following Feb. primaries WA through HI.

While his margins are not spot on, he has correctly picked Obama as the winner in every primary that has been held so far and he is predicting Obama for WI and HI as well. He calls WI as very close, but I would note that his predictions have been a bit on the conservative side for the most part especially where he is predicting a close margin.

Perhaps his most interesting prediction is that Obama will take Ohio by on the order of 10 points or so and Hilary to take TX also by 10 points.

I am thinking Wisconsin is Feingold state. Also Obama is campaigning there more than Hillary. Both these would count more towards last minute swings toward Obama. It is likely to break significantly towards Obama I think.

Sherrod Brown has an analysis that Ohio will break for Hillary if her trends in demographics hold. Obama has posed serious challenges to the notion in the recent battles in Maine and Virginia. We will have to wait and closer to that race.

I'm no demographer or statistician but I simply cannot figure out how the purveyors of poll data can still be saying with a straight face that Obama is winning because of males, the well-to-do and Black voters. I'm a life-long Midwesterner and used to manage a sales territory that covered the Midwest and Midsouth. I know the "heartland" well.

It was not Black voters that gave Obama double digit leads in ID, SD, Ut --all with Black populations of .5% -.9%--which I would think would translate into statistically insignificant leads even if every Black person in those states were of voting age AND showed up to caucus or vote for Obama.

In KS, where Obama took every county by double digits, Blacks are 6% of the population and are confined almost exclusively to Kansas City, Topeka and the small student population in Lawrence.

NE, MN, WA, CO, where Obama also took impressive double digit leads, Blacks are 3.6% --4.4% of the population.

The Male populations of those very White states are not notably in excess of the female populations.

Eastern pollsters and journalists who love to cite Obama's appeal among "high income, highly educated" voters seem insensible to the geography West of the Appalachians and especially, West of the Mississippi.

These are states with very small populations spread out over quite large areas. Collections of little towns every 6 miles, based on the old, NW territory "section" maps. There populations of "high income/highly educated" voters are negligible outside of a few NEIGHBORHOODS. Yes, I said "NEIGHBORHOODS." Each of these states has one, maybe two "Big" cities--a "big city" in this context, is between 100,000 and 500,000 people. And, most of those "big city" residents would, by most standards, be considered "blue collar."

I defy these pollster to SHOW me those upper income/Black/mostly male electorates that are producing double digit Obama leads in the Upper Midwest and Intermountain west. They simply do not exist. Neither do Lattes, for the most part. Believe me, finding a decent cup of coffee outside the college towns is darned near impossible.

Or, perhaps, the pollsters are not folding in data from the mostly White, mostly blue collar states--where there are caucuses rather than primaries. (which reflects the new thinking that would have it that "caucuses are undemocratic" or "caucuses don't count." Otherwise, I can't figure where this "data" is coming from.

Knowing the region as I do, I think voting patterns have a lot more to do with regional ethos/differences/prejudices than they do with the demographic indicators that keep getting cited.

My own, personal, non-scientific take is that we are seeing a return to the good, old fashioned Midwestern/Prairie progressivism of my youth--the 1960s and 70s. God knows, voters of that strain have been left high and dry by the Democratic Leadership Council since 1985, when the DLC ceded the entire region to the religious right with barely a backward glance.

I have high hopes for Ohio, despite the official polling data. I'm thinking about Cleveland and Columbus but also about all those fabulous, very liberal, liberal-arts colleges and college towns that are going to turn out the youth --and professor--vote. Oberlin, Kenyon, Kent, Ashland, Bowling Green, Urbana, Yellow Springs/Antioch, Oxford/Miami, Gambier/Wesleyan, Granville/Denison, Wilberforce, Wooster, etc. For a state that has been "purple" at best the past few election cycles, Ohio has an astounding number of very liberal, small 4 year schools spread all across the state.

*** bharath

As it may be we ought not forget that anywhere from 30 - 40 % had cast their votes early and 100,000 votes in LA will not be counted. So Zogby may not have been as far-off from their numbers as we thought, but unfortunately we'll never know for sure.

Notwithstanding Zogby is usually off on its numbers anyhow so therein lays the rub. ;)

Insofar as Ohio, I know only 1 person in Ohio and she is voting for Obama.

Iam an independent, but agree more with the democratic platform. While I live in Texas everyone I've spoken to (at least 20 people) are voting for Obama. One, however, was leaning toward Hillary until I told him more about Obama's platform.

Those numbers by no means suggest that is the case across Texas or Ohio, but I found it especially interesting because this was a blue state that went red with no thanks to Karl Rove and his underhanded shenanigans...

One last thing in addition to flyontnewall: thank you. Your analysis is intelligent and appreciated.

BTW:

What about Puerto Rico? I believe there are something like 63 delegates? Puerto Rico's governor recently, within the past day or three, endorsed Obama. That is a pretty hefty number. Will it come down to Puerto Rico?

I had a short analysis on the latest Survey USA poll out of Ohio over at Dailykos here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/115931/407/670/455981 in which I raised a few points. Here's a short excerpt:

The first number that jumps out of me when I look at their crosstab is their projection for the number of independents that will participate in the primary. Survey USA had it at 11%, well below historical standard. This is puzzling because the number of independents across the nation has been rising steadily and considering the level of interest the Obama candidacy has raised among independents it's almost inconceivable it could be so low in 2008. In 2000, Independents make up 21% of primary voters in Ohio and that number rises to 24%. So why would that number go down in 2008 to 11% in a primary that is arguably more interesting than the two previous one ?

Survey USA also has Obama getting only 73% of the African American votes. This is currently very low if I extrapolate from what he got in all the previous states with a sizable African American population.

Survey USA has female voters making 59% of the electorate compared to 2004 where women make up only 52%. I find this number plausible since female as a share of the primary electorate has increased steadily this cycle. Yet, should they overestimated female turnout this could dramatically boost Hillary's numbers in this poll. In their poll, Hillary beats Obama by a whopping 29% among women but essentially tied Obama among men 46-47% Obama.

This was Survey USA most recent poll out of the state, I will be looking closely as they released their new numbers that will either show Obama closing the gap or further behind in the coming days. This should be a useful benchmark.

Flyonthewall,
I saw you are a regular reader of pollster.com as I usually find your comments very insightful over there. This analysis is very thorough and I agree with you contention that barring a major gaffe, I don't see Hillary catching Obama in pledged delegates and before the contest reached Puerto Rico the super-delegates will coalesce around Obama as the nominee.

Thank you Fly I can now sleep knowing that the IRON B_______ can`t win this unless she steals it.