Poll: Hillary leads South Carolina by 8 over Obama...Edwards by 18

[SaveElmer]

Hillary 29
Obama 21
Edwards 11


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/05/31/clinton_giuliani_lead_in_south_carolina.html

[Colobo]

1. Good for Hillary; Obama is still in a good 2nd place

[freesqueeze]

2. 8 points down

to the heir apparent...hillary's people must be having trouble sleeping.



This black man is following this white woman down the street and every time she looks back, he's getting closer...

does she...

1> take off running
2> turn and whack him with her purse
3> yell for the police
4> ?

[SaveElmer]

3. Nice spin...

I would think it is Obama's people that must be having trouble sleeping...despite largely favorable media treatment Obama doesn't seem to be gaining traction anywhere...don't think he polls ahead in any state except Illinois...

[Ethelk2044]

5. Obama is doing fine

The polls are not the every day people voting. Hillary is going to have a problem. The focus group on C Span shows she is really going to have a hard time when it comes to the primary. I am beginning to wonder who are they polling to get these numbers.

[SaveElmer]

15. Well...

First, the focus group was not Democrats only...so has little bearing on a Democratic Primary...

Second, a focus group of 12 people, no matter how carefully assembled cannot be considered reliably representative....in fact not even close

Otherwise pollsters would just call 12 people rather than the hundreds or thousands they do now...

Third, I distinctly remember very hostile focus groups in 1992 toward Bill, and we know what happened there...

So I wouldn't put a ton of stock in the results of a single focus group...not that they are not useful, they are, but not as a gauge of overall support...they are not designed to be.

Lastly, I like Obama very much. I am a Hillary supporter, but will not have trouble supporting Obama if he is the nominee...in fact if you do a search of many of my Obama posts you will see I have defended him on numerous occasions in response to criticism of his experience, on the whole Madrassa charge, on criticism of his views on religion and politics, on some of the answers he gave in the last debate...and if you ask Katzenkavalier I think he can tell you that I have always thought, from the first time I heard him speak, that he would be President of the U.S. someday..without a doubt. I just don't think it's next year, and I don't think he is the best candidate this time around...

So don't take my posting of polls which show Obama behind as gloating at his expense, I post them because I am glad they show Hillary ahead...

[Colobo]

7. Elmer, this week has been very good for Obama

so expect those numbers to go up in the upcoming polls.

[SaveElmer]

10. They very well might...

But it really takes some contortion to view an 8 point deficit, and being behind in I think the 4th straight poll down there as good news...

Alot is gonna depend on what happens in Iowa, NH, and Nevada before it...it's never gonna be a slam dunk for any candidate...

Edwards sure doesn't seem to be making any headway though does he?

[Colobo]

11. Edwards is the only one who needs to be really worried right now.

It'll be very hard to move up from that distant third.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Edwards leads outside of his home state. No one else aside from HRC does

Right now Edwards seems to actually be in a better position than Obama. He leads in Iowa and Florida while Obama seems to be headed to going 0-for-5 in Iowa, NH, Nevada, SC, and Florida. An Edwards win in Iowa would give him a huge boost, like it gave to Kerry. Obama's problem is he apparently has nowhere to win in the early states, despite being from Iowa's neighboring state. If he loses the five early primaries can he realistically do well enough on Super Tuesday to become viable? I doubt it. He will need to breakthrough in one of the early states to have a chance. A string of 2nd and 3rd places would kill his momentum and the press' love affair with him heading into Super Tuesday.

[CTLawGuy]

38. yeah and in his backyard as well

disconcerting for him.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Why gloat about a single digit lead for the consumate front-running establishment

candidate eight months before the first primary date?

[SaveElmer]

16. Hmmmm...

When has a woman ever been a frontrunning candidate...?

[calteacherguy]

19. I don't 90%+ of people are paying much attentiion.

They'll start thinking about candidates more in September, and start thinking about making up thier mind around December or January.

[mckeown1128]

24. What media outlets are you thinking of?

While Obama was the media darling back in February, the media has been largely ignoring him. I really loved the post debate coverage. He performed about as strongly as everyone else but he was knocked by everyone in the media because he was not OUTSTANDING in the debate (which no doubt hurt him in the polls.) So stop talking about favorable media. As a side note: I am not claiming that Obama is getting negative media just not favorable media. Edwards takes the crown for being bashed hardest by the media.

[MGKrebs]

29. Campaign staff get paid to lose sleep.

The middle of the night is when they gain the advantage over their opponents who DO sleep!

[illinoisprogressive]

4. i'm told you sprint, then glide, then sprint at the end. looks like oLD hillary is just sprinting

by august the gas will be empty and she will be on the side of the road. keep on sprinting olD lady

[SaveElmer]

6. Yes...because behind in every state is where you wanna be right now...

Right?

:rofl:

[Ethelk2044]

9. He does not need to be in first place now

What matters is when it gets close to the primary. Statistics states the leader now will not be the leader when it gets closer to the primary. The focus group shows that as well.

[Colobo]

8. That's what Reagan did.

[DemDem07]

12. The news just keeps getting worse for Hillary

More media face time than Anna Nicole Smith for 15 years straight and her numbers are still this low?

[patrice]

14. This is an honest question, so please don't attack me. I really don't understand . . .

How does anyone know that polls, especially in places such as SC, aren't "freeped"? i.e. trying to get the opposition to run the candidate that you want to run against?

I just honestly don't understand what people think polls mean. Anyone with an agenda can get into them and pretend to be something they aren't. All kinds of people register in the oppositions party. I see it all of the time. Correct me if I'm wrong - please.

Polling organizations are businesses they sell the product that customers WILL buy. It's only a matter of constructing the kind of sample that will give you the re$ult$ you're looking for.

[doggyboy]

25. They aren't internet polls

The people who are polled don't know they are going to be polled, so there is no way they could organize themselves to "freep" a poll.

[patrice]

27. Okay, "freeped" wasn't the best term for what I was referring to.

Similar to freeping, in which you register to the "opposition's" web-resources, people can register to whatever party they want to. Then, when the polling BUSINESS constructs its sample, it can select those they poll for their answers to a variety of previous questions and other characteristics, including thing such as when they registered to whatever party they registered to and thus get a good probability of seeing pre-defined frequency distributions.

The point is, there is SOOOOOO much information out there now FOR SALE, if you know what you're looking for it IS completely possible to "back into" pre-defined outcomes, instead of taking a gamble on getting something no one wants to BUY.

[doggyboy]

28. Here's why

If I'm not misunderstanding you, you are asking about the possiblity that the polling comapany is manipulating the poll. I don't see why someone would pay the polling company good money for inaccurate results. Besides, polls aren't run like that. Instead, they call random phone numbers and ask the people demographic questions.

The idea of selling the candidates what they want to hear doesn't make sense. For one thing, this means all the polls will be in dramatic contradiction to each other, and that would quickly result in their being dismissed as not credible. That would quickly make them of no value to a campaign.

[patrice]

30. It all depends upon what you want to do with the information.

Different kinds of information are used for different classes of strategic usees.

Expenditures having to do with certain fundamental classes of operations require the most valid information available. For this you want the most rigorous "scientific" polls in order to get the closest approximation of validity.

Other classes of operations, say, things like advertising, build on the relatively valid substrates defined at the fundamental level, by employing types of information that are more fuzzy, close enough to validity not to set off any alarms, but skewed enough to influence those who are vulnerable to influence.

If you don't think this IS happening, then I would suggest you think about what relational databases are and how they are used to produce something useful from things like "click trails".

The principles are generalizable and marketable and they have been driving us since the advent of "focus grouping."

P.S. This IS the machine that is around people like HC and it is WHY we are afraid of her. Do you think just being able to buy all of the media you can afford really amounts to the difference that produces "success". More is not necessarily better, unless you know precisely what you're going to do with it. Those corporations who are investing in HC know "more =/= win" and, though they know risk factors are un-avoidable, they reduce them as much as they can. They're looking for a win, not a gamble. That's why they do the sort of thing I just described, and besides - it isn't rocket science. It IS just statistics.

[patrice]

32. FWIW: One of the really problematic things about this is . . .

It can be played "for" Hillary or "against" Hillary - Or any other candidate for that matter.

Polls belong to the Oppressors.

[emilyg]

17. I'm very happy

but too early to get excited.

[calteacherguy]

18. Yikes. Isn't S.C. Edwards home state? nt

[BlueStater]

21. Wrong Carolina n/t

[calteacherguy]

22. Well, still, it's close...nt

[w4rma]

23. The South Carolina Democratic primary is about 50% African-American. (nt)

[Colobo]

26. So what?

[geek tragedy]

31. Black voters will vote overwhelmingly for Clinton or Obama

Edwards is a VERY distant third in that demographic.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Edwards is at 3% in 4th (behind Gore) according to one poll

He needs to improve on that. I am sure he will as the campaign progresses. His policies are the most progressive of the top-tier candidates and most beneficial to minority groups.

[calteacherguy]

39. Perhaps, but it's not all about policy. We aren't electing a set of policy pronouncements. nt

[calteacherguy]

20. The most interesting thing about those numbers is they only add up to 61%.

I find it really funny how Obama and Clinton partisans are paying so much attention to these polls.

[patrice]

33. ANYONE can play the poll game ANY way they want to play it.

FWIW: See my posts above. This IS how it works.

Polls belong to the Oppressors.

Candidates should listen to Us.

[BeyondGeography]

34. ARG has Edwards at 30%, these guys have him at 11%

Another argument for ignoring the polls at this stage.

[Bullet1987]

37. LOL...Lets play the poll game!!!!

And see if we can find the HUUGEE differences between polls!!!