SC: PPP: Weekend poll shows Haley with wide lead, Sheheen a narrow lead over Rex

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Taken over the weekend, before the Haley infidelity allegations went public.

(link - Public Policy Polling)

638 likely Republican primary voters (±3.9% MoE)
39% Haley
18% McMaster
16% Barrett
13% Bauer
14% undecided

410 likely Democratic primary voters (±4.8% MoE)
36% Sheheen
30% Rex
11% Ford
23% undecided

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

By the way they also polled the Republican primary voters on whether they supported the CRA of 1964.

58% support
15% oppose
27% unsure

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Looking at the crosstabs based for support based on area code, it looks like if only one of McMaster and Barrett make the runoff, their support will largely go to the other guy.  Barrett is best known in area code 864 which covers most of the 3rd District, and not surprisingly he has both the least number of people unsure whether they like him there, and does considerably better there (24% in the 864 compared to 12% elsewhere).  However, McMaster is the candidate who suffers the most as he gets 20% elsewhere, but only 14% in the 864.  That gap is larger than the 40% to 37% gap for Haley.

[Badger]

By the way they also polled the Republican primary voters on whether they supported the CRA of 1964.

58% support
15% oppose
27% unsure

Operating under the fair assumption that a strong majority of "undecided" in this poll would support repeal (or a candidate that supports repeal) in the voting booth--likely along with a small number of yes voters--these numbers show somewhere only between two-thirds and 60% of SC GOP voters support the CRA.

In 2010.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

By the way they also polled the Republican primary voters on whether they supported the CRA of 1964.

58% support
15% oppose
27% unsure

Operating under the fair assumption that a strong majority of "undecided" in this poll would support repeal (or a candidate that supports repeal) in the voting booth--likely along with a small number of yes voters--these numbers show somewhere only between two-thirds and 60% of SC GOP voters support the CRA.

In 2010.

IMHO, a person should be far more inclined to support the CRA in 1964 than in 2010.

Nevermind that I doubt that 50% of voters could even explain what the CRA was/did.

[President Mitt]

Pulling for Sheheen. I would be pretty upset if Nikki Haley, Jim Rex or Andre managed to get into the State House.

[tmthforu94]

Nikki Haley has the support of 39% of men and 39% of woman. I expect her to perform much better among women on election day. She seems to be the best choice, considering electability. She even has favorable numbers in the liberal base.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I don't know what to think right now. It's clear that Haley will likely get the plurality on election day, but as to who she'll face in the run-off, well, I'm not too sure. Part of me hopes it's Bauer, because so many people dislike him around here that she may win by default, but part of me is afraid that her scandal may turn out to be the real deal and Bauer will win by default.

If the latter does occur, I'll likely vote for Sheehen, though he doesn't excite me either, and I'd likely not have much enthusiasm for the geneal.

On the other hand, did anyone notice my district is likely to elect a black Republican in 2010? Tim Scott is far ahead Paul Thurmond in the GOP primary, and he doesn't seem to have much of a challenger on the Democratic side since Ketner decided against another run.

[Badger]

By the way they also polled the Republican primary voters on whether they supported the CRA of 1964.

58% support
15% oppose
27% unsure

Operating under the fair assumption that a strong majority of "undecided" in this poll would support repeal (or a candidate that supports repeal) in the voting booth--likely along with a small number of yes voters--these numbers show somewhere only between two-thirds and 60% of SC GOP voters support the CRA.

In 2010.

IMHO, a person should be far more inclined to support the CRA in 1964 than in 2010.

Nevermind that I doubt that 50% of voters could even explain what the CRA was/did.

to both statements. Especially the first.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IMHO, a person should be far more inclined to support the CRA in 1964 than in 2010.

Nevermind that I doubt that 50% of voters could even explain what the CRA was/did.

to both statements. Especially the first.

What's so overstandable about either statement.

The CRA was much, much, much, more needed in 1964 than it is now.

And there certainly are a fair number who would confuse the CRA with the VRA or some other piece of civil rights legislation.

[Badger]

IMHO, a person should be far more inclined to support the CRA in 1964 than in 2010.

Nevermind that I doubt that 50% of voters could even explain what the CRA was/did.

to both statements. Especially the first.

What's so overstandable about either statement.

The CRA was much, much, much, more needed in 1964 than it is now.

And there certainly are a fair number who would confuse the CRA with the VRA or some other piece of civil rights legislation.

Ah, I thought the cliam was the CRA was politically more popular in 64 thean today, even in the south; not that it was less necessary.