official SC Democratic results thread

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any idea how these counties break down?

I heard Charleston might help Edwards.

Moore beat Sanford by 26 points in Marlboro. Would it be accurate to infer that this county is majority black?

a tad over half IIRC

[Person Man]

What would happen if Eddy got second?

[Meeker]

What is to prevent voters who voted last week in SC in the GOP primary in SC, to vote today in the Dem SC primary? 

State law.

No. There is nothing preventing independents from voting in both primaries.

My bad. I had been mislead...

[War on Want]

What would happen if Eddy got second?

Lots of Southern White voters would vote for Edwards, and I bet you some labor Democrats thinking of voting for Clinton would vote for Edwards because they see viability in him.

[Person Man]

could that muddle up the race?

[True Democrat]

What would happen if Eddy got second?

What if he somehow got first?

[Eraserhead]

Anything yet?

[Alcon]

The problem from these reports is that they're relative to the GOP primary, which is unhelpful because some areas just have more Democrats...but if Dorchester County is reporting a higher turnout than last weekend overall, suffice it to say that Dem turnout is strong.  (Actually, it's unclear, since some report as "average" - average of what?)

Reports from various counties:
Marlboro County (Bennettsville) -- heavy
Majority black, but not by much.  A good share of Democratic whites.

Dorchester County (St. George) -- slightly heavier than last weekend
Heavily white and fairly well-off.  Strongly Republican

Charleston County (Charleston) -- much heavier in some precincts
Wow!!!  Heavily Democratic precincts, by chance?

Williamsburg County (Kingstree) -- average
Heavily black

Edgefield County (Edgefield) -- very busy
Mostly white, although most primary voters are doubtlessly black

Cherokee County (Gaffney) -- greater turnout than last week
Pretty impressively in a nearly 2-to-1 GOP county

Hampton County (Hampton) -- turnout is much higher than last week
Again, in a place where Kerry broke 60%, this is pretty useless information

Darlington County (Darlington) -- fairly good
Fairly good for what?  Whatever.

This information is pretty useless, overall.  No strong trends.  Not great news for either Obama or Clinton.

[exopolitician]

I so no reason as to why Edwards shouldnt get 2nd place tonight. Hes been gaining in the polls and only like 3% divided him and Clinton for 2nd in polls leading up to today. I think its mostly because Clinton left the state, and Edwards pulled the "she doesnt care about South Carolina" card..and people listened.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't see why preventing people from double voting in each primary is any more difficult than preventing them from double voting the same day. Each precinct has a list of registered voters and you get checked off that list once you've voted. In this case just keep the list a week later.

Isn't it a closed primary anyway? That would completely nullify the issue.

[Hash]

C'mon Edwards!

[Eraserhead]

I don't see why preventing people from double voting in each primary is any more difficult than preventing them from double voting the same day. Each precinct has a list of registered voters and you get checked off that list once you've voted. In this case just keep the list a week later.

Isn't it a closed primary anyway? That would completely nullify the issue.

SC is not a closed primary.

[exopolitician]

It would be a nice birthday present if it were Obama, Edwards, then Clinton in that order when results come in tonight.

[Meeker]

Looking back at Iowa and NH, the exit polls should give us a pretty clear indication of who won. If you abstract the results from gender, here's the numbers you get:

Iowa
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 23%

NH
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%

In fact, those NH are dead on. We really shouldn't've been that surprised back then as the night wore on after seeing those.

[Erc]

Looking back at Iowa and NH, the exit polls should give us a pretty clear indication of who won. If you abstract the results from gender, here's the numbers you get:

Iowa
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 23%

NH
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%

In fact, those NH are dead on. We really shouldn't've been that surprised back then as the night wore on after seeing those.

I thought even the exit polls showed an Obama win (even if it was only by 1-2 pts)?  Am I misremembering, or is this a "let's fudge our numbers after the results come in to save our hide" scenario?

[Meeker]

I just did that about a half hour ago going off the numbers posted on CNN's website... if they changed it I have no idea.

[© tweed]

Looking back at Iowa and NH, the exit polls should give us a pretty clear indication of who won. If you abstract the results from gender, here's the numbers you get:

Iowa
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 23%

NH
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%

In fact, those NH are dead on. We really shouldn't've been that surprised back then as the night wore on after seeing those.

I thought even the exit polls showed an Obama win (even if it was only by 1-2 pts)?  Am I misremembering, or is this a "let's fudge our numbers after the results come in to save our hide" scenario?

The original exit polls had Obama winning by about 1.5% in NH.  they readjust the numbers once the actual results are known.  whether that constitutes 'fudging' is open to debate.

[MarkWarner08]

Looking back at Iowa and NH, the exit polls should give us a pretty clear indication of who won. If you abstract the results from gender, here's the numbers you get:

Iowa
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 23%

NH
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%

In fact, those NH are dead on. We really shouldn't've been that surprised back then as the night wore on after seeing those.

I thought even the exit polls showed an Obama win (even if it was only by 1-2 pts)?  Am I misremembering, or is this a "let's fudge our numbers after the results come in to save our hide" scenario?

The original exit polls had Obama winning by about 1.5% in NH.  they readjust the numbers once the actual results are known.  whether that constitutes 'fudging' is open to debate.

Doesn't that help refute the Bradley Effect argument? If Obama was up by 1.5% and lost by 2%, that's not a huge shift. Although voters were dishonest about their preference when they spoke to pollsters, they were honest when talking to exit pollsters.

[War on Want]

could that muddle up the race?

Yes, but Edwards still probably wouldn't win one state, and if he did it would be Oklahoma.

[Erc]

Looking back at Iowa and NH, the exit polls should give us a pretty clear indication of who won. If you abstract the results from gender, here's the numbers you get:

Iowa
Obama: 35%
Clinton: 27%
Edwards: 23%

NH
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 37%
Edwards: 17%

In fact, those NH are dead on. We really shouldn't've been that surprised back then as the night wore on after seeing those.

I thought even the exit polls showed an Obama win (even if it was only by 1-2 pts)?  Am I misremembering, or is this a "let's fudge our numbers after the results come in to save our hide" scenario?

The original exit polls had Obama winning by about 1.5% in NH.  they readjust the numbers once the actual results are known.  whether that constitutes 'fudging' is open to debate.

Doesn't that help refute the Bradley Effect argument? If Obama was up by 1.5% and lost by 2%, that's not a huge shift. Although voters were dishonest about their preference when they spoke to pollsters, they were honest when talking to exit pollsters.

No-one was suggesting that the Bradley Effect explained the entirety of his loss--at least I should hope so, especially not in a Democratic primary and especially not in New Hampshire.

But 3.5% isn't insignificant (depending, of course, on the sample size...which I assume was on the largish side).  And it could make the difference in some places.

Of course, if the difference in results (between the exit polls and the 'revised' exit polls) is solely based on different turnout calculations, for example, then this may be nothing at all.

[Meeker]

"The AP reports on South Carolina exit polls which showed the economy as the major factor in today's Democratic presidential primary.

Another great nugget: "Roughly half the voters said former President Clinton's campaigning for his wife was very important to their choice.""

[War on Want]

"The AP reports on South Carolina exit polls which showed the economy as the major factor in today's Democratic presidential primary.

Another great nugget: "Roughly half the voters said former President Clinton's campaigning for his wife was very important to their choice.""

That could be a problem....

[Joe Biden 2020]

could that muddle up the race?

Yes, but Edwards still probably wouldn't win one state, and if he did it would be Oklahoma.

Edwards is running third even in Oklahoma as of the SUSA poll conducted on January 13.  Clinton is at 45, Obama 25, and Edwards 19

[Flying Dog]

But was it positive or negative?

[War on Want]

could that muddle up the race?

Yes, but Edwards still probably wouldn't win one state, and if he did it would be Oklahoma.

Edwards is running third even in Oklahoma as of the SUSA poll conducted on January 13.  Clinton is at 45, Obama 25, and Edwards 19

Oh, on an other one he was beating Obama, and getting close to Clinton. I think it was a Sooner Poll.