Have you been looking at the numbers at all or is this just a gut feeling?
Both - I have looked at the numbers - ARG has Clinton up by 5. Other polls have this neck and neck but with 10% undecided - if recent trends hold, late breakers vote for Clinton.
Also, I'm from the midwest, and I think Indiana is going to be very similar to Ohio / Missouri. The problem for Obama is that Indianapolis gives him nowhere near the demographic advantages he enjoyed in St. Louis / KC. That being said, it is a neighboring state of Illinois where Obama should get at least 1-2% for being a "local" candidate.
It will be close but I think Clinton takes Indiana. Obama has to do something to seize the lead - a strong performance in a debate would do that for him IMHO.
I meant for the whole race. It's Clinton who has to do a lot not Obama.
Indiana is also one of the youngest states in the union. And, rather shockingly, 70% of the population live in "urban" areas. It really is an even playing field.
Please cite your source for this statement.
US Census Bureau shows Indiana to be fairly close to US averages 2000 and 2006 in many/most categories, with the exception of white/AA ratio.
Male/female ratio is about the same as US: 49%male, 51% female.
Indiana has a larger white population than US average: 87.5% white, 8.4% AA US average:80.1% white; 12.8% AA
Indiana 2000: 18 yrs and over: 74.1% US 2006: Under 18%: 24.6% Indiana 2000: 65 years and over: 12.4%; 7.4% female, 5% male US 2006: 65 years and over: 12.4%
sorry I was placing it in comparison with Ohio and PA... I was not clear.
Agree.
