Talk Elections

No surprise with this.

Public Opinion Strategies' new poll in South Carolina shows Bush leading Kerry by 15 points, 55-40.  Yes, it is a Republican polling group, but Vorlon says that they are a good firm (and that is good enough for me ;)).

This is about what the results of 2000 were, so not much appears to have changed.  How much would Edwards impact this state, if at all, as Kerry's running mate?  I say very little.

Sorry, it's from a GOP site...couldn't find it anywhere else.

http://scgop.com/press/release.asp?prid=173

Edwards would give Kerry a 1-2% boost.  Not nearly enough however.

Why would anyone beleive a POS polling firm?

(God, I have wanted to make that joke for a long time.  I feel better now.)

I know, I saw the thread title and was like -- "who cares what a POS says about south carolina?"

I fixed the title now :)

I was going to put POS - Bush up by 15, but I figured that would open up for lots of comments about the President ;)

No need to change the title, the company really needs to change the name.  SOmeone needs to go into a baord meeting and say:  "Hang on a minute here.  Does anybody else see a problem with being called POS?  DO we want the media saying "The latest POS poll shows Bush up 15 in SOuth Carolina."  Really, I work here and I don;t take us seriously."

I don't trust Partisan firms, period. Too many times watching Yes Minister...

Although Bush's lead is about the same as 2000 (presuming the poll is trustworthy), his actual numbers appear to be down from 2000.
There doesn't appear to be a % undecided in the poll however.

My *guess* for SC (at the moment and presuming that Edwards isn't Kerry's VP pick. If he is the Dems gain in rural SC) is about 52% for Bush and 45% for Kerry.
Although Bush will still carry SC, his margin will go down. But not enough for him to lose it (indeed it may be a good thing for Bush if his margins drop in some states that he wins anyway).

Two polls have been done: Bush up 10 and Bush up 15.  I say it is about Bush up 12.
If Edwards is the VP choice, Bush wins it by 8 or 9 points.

You are waaay underestimating Bush in the south.  The cultural gap between Kerry and the average southern Dem is big...

Actually how much Bush is up by doesn't really matter as much as how much each candidate is polling. I'm assuming that most undecideds will break for Kerry (which is where 45% comes from). The 52% figure for Bush *is* arbitary... 50-55% seems about right, 52% is sort of in the middle.

What ratio do you assume undecideds will breaks towards Kerry?

Generally about 2/3rds I'm thinking (but then again MoE comes along and messes things up). But in a poll with a small amount of undecideds this'll be a higher %

Maths never was my strong point though...

You greatly overestimate Kerry in the south...you are a dreamer

Possible :)
I *am* assuming that racial voting won't be as bad this year.

Although 45% for Kerry in SC is hardly outlandish. 42-46% looks about right.

Does "racial voting" apply to DC or any other major metropolitan area? Or is it just the bad old white people doing it?

No, actually Al is assuming "racial voting" DOES continue. For Kerry is get near 45%, he will need near-universal support from black voters... over 90%.

Whites, on the other hand, are not nearly so driven by race...

It's bad whenever it happens. People voting based on the colour of their skin is just wrong.

Ok, that's reasonable. Also, Al you need AIM. I'd love to chat about populist stuff with you.

Actually he will win over 90% of the Black vote at whatever % he gets in SC.
45% would mean he would win more white voters than Gore did.
---
Even if there was no racial voting, Black people would still be strongly Democrat (due to their economic status). However it would be about 70% not the insane 90% totals you see so often...

"Racial voting" is actually something of an interesting subject, but it's wrong to see it as peculiar or unusual. Voting behavior is affected by sex, race, age, income, religion etc. but to varying degrees and for varying reasons.

I actually don't think the racial divide is influenced by 'racial' issues all that much. It's the same with religion... in 1960, it was speculated Kennedy's Catholicism would hurt him. He won 95% in South Carolina...

Party loyalty becomes a beast of it's own nature...

Kennedy won 51.24% in SC

lol I meant Alfred Smith in 1928, my B. And it was a much bigger deal then.

Seven states have gone for both Catholic candidates... MA, RI, and the Deep South...

The fact that Al Smith was a Catholic caused him to lose the Upper South in a time when memories of the Civil War were still very much alive.
The only good thing to come out of that election was the nickname "Yella Dawg"...

Yeah, but the 'Upper South' is less religious than the Deep South- and more prosperous. Smith lost the Upper South largely for economic reasons.

Underinformed class-based generealization.  Rasmussen Research conducted a national telephone survey of 822 likely voters on August 23, 2000 (margin of sampling error +/- 3 percentage points; 95% level of confidence).  Aside from finding that 16% of the population, when given the WSPQ, scored libertarian and 2% self-identified as libertarians, the poll also concluded:

African Americans comprise the least number of left liberals (9%) and the highest number of libertarians (21%).

Based on these figures, plenty of African Americans should be voting for moderate Republicans for tax cuts and so forth.  That whole poor people vote one way or another plank is overstated, and in the US it is way less predictable than in America.  Plenty of our so-called 'trailer trash' people are both poor and solid Republicans.

First off a lot of "trailer trash" people who vote GOP do it because of social/wedge issues.
Secondly using a poll as a fact is just silly (and besides there is such a thing as a black middle class. Poor blacks would probably remain monolithically Democrat, but not all black people are poor. Underinformed race-based generalisation on your part methinks)

Income is (IMO) a larger factor in voting patterns than is generally realised BUT what people forget is that it's all relative.
Remember being poor in Mississippi is a world away from being poor in Connecticut.

If you believe that you'll believe anything

Keep in mind, I live in the Upper South... you're just a dork that looks at numbers all day for politics in a country you don't even reside in...

:o :o :o :o :o :o

Responding to this would put me on your level

On the level of someone with a life? No, I think it's too late for that in your case.

Are you even British, or did you immigrate there from Africa or something?

I'll have to interject that claiming to 'have a life' IN a post on this board is pretty hilarious.

Fair enough, but everything is relative...

*chalks this up in case I have to do any debating with you*

Don't worry, it would be a quick debate and you would be on the losing side. Few years back I was one of the better debaters in the state of VA...

Is this Enoch Powell's ghost I see before me?

I'll take that as a yes. At least give me props for perception... then again, most communists in Britain are of foreign descent. Not Livingstone, of course...

I'm white actually

I'll take it not of the Christian variety...

I am a Christian

By what definition?

Off just a bit, eh? :)

Just a bit indeed considering where the polls were in early July 2004.  If the election had been held then instead of November, Kerry would have won.  Unfortunately for Kerry he had the double debacle of a bad Democratic convention and a good GOP convention.  Had the Democrats been able to hold a decent convention,  Kerry might have won and had the Dems could have had a Senate that was unchanged or even ganed a seat had Vitter lost the runoff in Louisiana.  (Yes I know there was no runoff in the 2004 LA Senate race, but that was just barely and a better Democratic campaign across the board would have.  Also the Dems instead of losing 3 House seats would have picked up 2 or 3 seats depending on whether Colorado requires a plurality or a majority in US House elections.  (With a stronger Dem showing Musgrave would have only gotten a plurality in Colorado 4 instead of the majority she did in real life and Matsunaka would certainly have picked up most of the 4% of the vote for Green Party in the runoff.

That's a lot of ifs.  :)

Um, this topic is about South Carolina.

He's talking about the south in general, obviously.

And Al's prediction was about South Carolina.