Insider: Obama now leads in SC, everyone else significantly behind

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Obama:     34%
Clinton:     20%

http://www.insidersc.com/restricted/2007/April%2007/4-10-07/bandy.php

[Tender Branson]

Wow ! Very nice, but I wanna have that backed up by the upcoming Zogby and Research 2000 SC polls. But yay, very groovy

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He is taking the anti-Clinton vote, that Edwards thought otherwise that would go to him.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama:     33%
Clinton:     20%

http://www.insidersc.com/restricted/2007/April%2007/4-10-07/bandy.php

According to that article, that should actually read:

Obama 34%
Clinton 20%

33% is Obama's share of the black vote.  34% is Obama's share of the total vote.  (Yes, according to this poll, Obama has a bigger lead over Clinton among non-blacks than blacks.)

[Gabu]

Eh... being an Obama supporter, I'd like to believe this, but this poll doesn't exactly jive with the previous polls, so I'm gonna wait for now until other polls from SC to confirm this.

[Gabu]

Eh... being an Obama supporter, I'd like to believe this, but this poll doesn't exactly jive with the previous polls, so I'm gonna wait for now until other polls from SC to confirm this.

Until this poll, there haven't been any other polls out of SC except for American Research Group.  And ARG polls are complete crap.  In 2004, they consistently had Kerry beating Bush in AZ and WV (2 states in which Bush won by double digits).  And this election cycle, they are the only polling company to have Hillary leading in Iowa, when every other poll has consistently showed Edwards leading there.

You're right not to get too excited about one poll.  But pretty much anything that comes from ARG, you can print out on a piece of paper and it'll give you something to wipe your ass with. 

Eh?  I could have sworn we've seen multiple polls from SC, none of which showed Obama leading.

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure where they're getting this from (as it's not listed in the article you link to) but Wikipedia's page for 2008 state polls lists the full results of this poll as:

Obama 34
Clinton 20
Edwards 17
Biden 3
Richardson 2
Dodd 1
Undecided 23

Also, this would make SC one of only two states in which the latest poll has Obama leading.  The other one being IL.

States where (according to the latest poll) Obama leads:
IL
SC

States where (according to the latest poll) Edwards leads:
IA
NC

States where (according to the latest poll) Richardson leads:
NM

States where (according to the latest poll) Clinton leads:
About 30 or so states, too numerous to list here

And then there are ~15 or so states in which there haven't yet been any Dem. primary polls for 2008.

[Tender Branson]

Eh... being an Obama supporter, I'd like to believe this, but this poll doesn't exactly jive with the previous polls, so I'm gonna wait for now until other polls from SC to confirm this.

Until this poll, there haven't been any other polls out of SC except for American Research Group.  And ARG polls are complete crap.  In 2004, they consistently had Kerry beating Bush in AZ and WV (2 states in which Bush won by double digits).  And this election cycle, they are the only polling company to have Hillary leading in Iowa, when every other poll has consistently showed Edwards leading there.

You're right not to get too excited about one poll.  But pretty much anything that comes from ARG, you can print out on a piece of paper and it'll give you something to wipe your ass with. 

Hmm ?

AZ:

ARG: 9-2004: Bush 49% Kerry 43%, 2 months before the election took place.

WV:

ARG: 9-2004: Tie , Mason-Dixon at that time = Bush +1

Where´s Kerry ahead ?

[Mr. Morden]

You're right not to get too excited about one poll.  But pretty much anything that comes from ARG, you can print out on a piece of paper and it'll give you something to wipe your ass with. 

Eh?  I could have sworn we've seen multiple polls from SC, none of which showed Obama leading.

We've had two different SC polls from ARG, both of which had Clinton leading, but that's it, as far as I can recall.  The only other SC Dem. poll I can remember is the one from Elon University, which was a poll of five Southern states.  If you look at their internals, the subsample from SC had Clinton and Obama tied for the lead, with a huge number of undecideds.  But the number of respondents from each state was so small that you should probably just ignore the state subsamples.

[Tender Branson]

Not sure where they're getting this from (as it's not listed in the article you link to) but Wikipedia's page for 2008 state polls lists the full results of this poll as ...

... because I put the poll there into Wiki in the last 30 minutes

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure where they're getting this from (as it's not listed in the article you link to) but Wikipedia's page for 2008 state polls lists the full results of this poll as ...

... because I put the poll there into Wiki in the last 30 minutes

You're the one who put it into Wiki?  Where did you get the numbers for Biden, Dodd, and Richardson?  They're not provided in the story Quincy linked to.  Are the full poll results available somewhere?

[Tender Branson]

Not sure where they're getting this from (as it's not listed in the article you link to) but Wikipedia's page for 2008 state polls lists the full results of this poll as ...

... because I put the poll there into Wiki in the last 30 minutes

You're the one who put it into Wiki?  Where did you get the numbers for Biden, Dodd, and Richardson?  They're not provided in the story Quincy linked to.  Are the full poll results available somewhere?

Yes, if you go to the Frontpage and then scroll down in the menu in the middle where it says in light blue "Latest InsiderAdvantage Polling":

http://www.insidersc.com/index.php

[Tender Branson]

The bad thing I just recognized:

InsiderAdvantage CEO and nationally syndicated columnist (Creators Syndicate), Matt Towery commented: “We have conducted surveys at the same sample size in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. In all three states Sen. Clinton led the field. It is obvious to me that South Carolina has a different take on the national contest. It is my opinion that, because South Carolina is a state known in recent years for having an impact on presidential races, the public is more aware of the candidates and is more intense about early opinion. Interestingly, we see the same African-American vote split (Obama in the mid-40 percentile range, Clinton in the mid-20 percentile range) as in the other states. But Obama’s white support in South Carolina is higher and Obama statistically ties Clinton among females. This is not a complete shock given that almost half of the Democratic primary will likely be made up of African-American voters. Still, the margin of Obama’s lead in South Carolina was stronger than I expected this early in the race.”

[Gabu]

We've had two different SC polls from ARG, both of which had Clinton leading, but that's it, as far as I can recall.  The only other SC Dem. poll I can remember is the one from Elon University, which was a poll of five Southern states.  If you look at their internals, the subsample from SC had Clinton and Obama tied for the lead, with a huge number of undecideds.  But the number of respondents from each state was so small that you should probably just ignore the state subsamples.

Oh wait, sorry, I was thinking of North Carolina polls.  You're right, we haven't seen many South Carolina polls.

[Mr. Morden]

The bad thing I just recognized:

InsiderAdvantage CEO and nationally syndicated columnist (Creators Syndicate), Matt Towery commented: “We have conducted surveys at the same sample size in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. In all three states Sen. Clinton led the field. It is obvious to me that South Carolina has a different take on the national contest. It is my opinion that, because South Carolina is a state known in recent years for having an impact on presidential races, the public is more aware of the candidates and is more intense about early opinion. Interestingly, we see the same African-American vote split (Obama in the mid-40 percentile range, Clinton in the mid-20 percentile range) as in the other states. But Obama’s white support in South Carolina is higher and Obama statistically ties Clinton among females. This is not a complete shock given that almost half of the Democratic primary will likely be made up of African-American voters. Still, the margin of Obama’s lead in South Carolina was stronger than I expected this early in the race.”

I take it from your sig that you're an Obama supporter?  If so, then why would you consider that to be bad?  We already know from numerous other pollsters that Clinton is leading in most of the South, just as she is nationally.  The fact that this pollster finds Clinton leading in those other states argues against there being some huge pro-Obama bias in their methodology, which actually makes it more likely that their SC result is accurate.  If SC turns out to be the last state to vote pre-Feb. 5th, then it will actually be a lot more important than those other states.  (Though FL could end up going pre-Feb. 5th as well.)

They also say that in SC " the public is more aware of the candidates and is more intense about early opinion".  If this interpretation is correct (and it's a point I've made before about why the polling in the early primary states is more important than the national polling), then it suggests that the polling in early states like SC is a leading indicator of where the race could be going in the rest of the country once the rest of the country starts paying more attention to the campaign.

[Tender Branson]

The bad thing I just recognized:

InsiderAdvantage CEO and nationally syndicated columnist (Creators Syndicate), Matt Towery commented: “We have conducted surveys at the same sample size in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. In all three states Sen. Clinton led the field. It is obvious to me that South Carolina has a different take on the national contest. It is my opinion that, because South Carolina is a state known in recent years for having an impact on presidential races, the public is more aware of the candidates and is more intense about early opinion. Interestingly, we see the same African-American vote split (Obama in the mid-40 percentile range, Clinton in the mid-20 percentile range) as in the other states. But Obama’s white support in South Carolina is higher and Obama statistically ties Clinton among females. This is not a complete shock given that almost half of the Democratic primary will likely be made up of African-American voters. Still, the margin of Obama’s lead in South Carolina was stronger than I expected this early in the race.”

I take it from your sig that you're an Obama supporter?  If so, then why would you consider that to be bad?  We already know from numerous other pollsters that Clinton is leading in most of the South, just as she is nationally.  The fact that this pollster finds Clinton leading in those other states argues against there being some huge pro-Obama bias in their methodology, which actually makes it more likely that their SC result is accurate.  If SC turns out to be the last state to vote pre-Feb. 5th, then it will actually be a lot more important than those other states.  (Though FL could end up going pre-Feb. 5th as well.)

They also say that in SC " the public is more aware of the candidates and is more intense about early opinion".  If this interpretation is correct (and it's a point I've made before about why the polling in the early primary states is more important than the national polling), then it suggests that the polling in early states like SC is a leading indicator of where the race could be going in the rest of the country once the rest of the country starts paying more attention to the campaign.

That were my second thoughts, but the fact that Florida votes with SC on Jan. 29 (where Obama is really behind Clinton now) worries me a bit. But that can also change in time. What if Edwards wins Iowa, Clinton NH, Richardson Nevada and Obama wins SC and Clinton FL on Jan. 29 ? Who gets the most spin for Feb. 5 ?

[Mr. Morden]

That were my second thoughts, but the fact that Florida votes with SC on Jan. 29 (where Obama is really behind Clinton now) worries me a bit. But that can also change in time. What if Edwards wins Iowa, Clinton NH, Richardson Nevada and Obama wins SC and Clinton FL on Jan. 29 ? Who gets the most spin for Feb. 5 ?

Florida is *not* yet scheduled to vote in January, or even February.  The state House of Reps passed a bill that would move it up to 7 days after NH, but the state Senate has not yet acted, and they're leaning towards putting the primary some time in February (either the 5th or some time later).  It's unclear how the two chambers will reconcile their differences on this.

And even if they hold it on Jan. 29th, that would violate DNC rules, and the DNC may even go as far as stripping delegates from candidates who campaign in states that violate these rules and giving them to other candidates.  If that happens, the candidates may end up ignoring FL so as not to suffer those penalties.

And in any case, we've already had about 6 Florida polls from the last three months that all show Clinton ahead, so I wouldn't get worried about this one article mentioning a new FL poll with Clinton leading.  It doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

[Eraserhead]

Eh... being an Obama supporter, I'd like to believe this, but this poll doesn't exactly jive with the previous polls, so I'm gonna wait for now until other polls from SC to confirm this.

Same here. It could be correct but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[Eraserhead]

Also if this right...I would have to say this could be a major problem for John Edwards. He better win Iowa or that could be it for him.