« Putin Continues To Ramp Up Old Cold War Tensions Despite Booming Russian Economy | Main | Obama's Free Ride - Extended Play »

Obama Dips in South Carolina Poll, Edwards Rises

graph.JPGPolls? Who looks at polls anymore? Well, of the polls out there Zogby's are the ones to watch so far in this election cycle. Zogby nailed Nevada on their last poll (see graph at right), matching the final vote.

So, in my opinion Zogby's South Carolina poll is one that is worth watching over the next two days for the most accurate assessment of where the South Carolina Democratic vote may end up.

What Zogby is saying today (see graph below) is that their three-day tracking telephone poll, where they talk to the same 800+ voters each day by telephone tracking their changing opinions in the race, still shows Obama with a huge lead (39-24), but he's slipping slightly, dropping three points overnight -- and is losing ground most among black voters.

scdem_day2.gif
Support for Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, fell from 65 percent to 56 percent among African-Americans, with Clinton climbing two points among blacks to 18 percent. Edwards held a slight lead over Clinton among likely white voters at 35 percent to 32 percent. Obama had 19 percent.

Obama is still leading Clinton by 15 points, and Edwards' tally has increased from 15 to 19 points, narrowing the gap on Clinton. Note that Edwards ended up with just about 5 percent of the Nevada votes in a predominantly white state. Note also that South Carolina is Edwards home state, and this is likely to be his best showing anywhere. If he continues to pick up the voters who are leaving Obama, it's conceivable that Clinton could place third.

Obama is virtually assured of winning South Carolina, and what is worth watching is whether he continues to drop leading up to the vote. While the Obamatrons keep harping that Bill Clinton's continued hammering away on Obama is hurting Hillary's chances, the results in Nevada and New Hampshire -- and so far in South Carolina -- suggest otherwise.

What may be working against Barack in South Carolina more than anything is the Rezko scandal. This is the first poll that fully factors in the debate last Monday, and the Rezko scandal news coverage has increased dramatically over the last few days.I expect we may see more slippage in Obama's numbers.

It'll be interesting to see if Obama can prevent further slippage in his numbers, and as Hillary campaigns in other states she's strengthening her position in places like California, while Barack is struggling to hold onto what he's got in South Carolina, and not succeeding in that regard.

Nationally, Obama's momentum is slipping, in my estimation, even if this isn't fully reflected in the polls, and I suspect this trend will continue despite a South Carolina victory for Obama. If I had to guess at the South Carolina outcome today -- two days away -- I'd put Obama a winner by 10 points with Clinton squeaking out a second place finish over Edwards by a mere 2 points.

South Carolina and the rest of the southern states are crucial for Edwards because it will provide a further indication as to how much support he'd lend to a Clinton ticket if he was chosen by Hillary as her Vice-Presidential running mate.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)


Comments (14)

Steve Crickmore:

This Rasmussen Reports poll has an increase for Obama in South Carolina, for what it's worth. Of course, it was one of those polls that botched New Hampshire badly...Presuming Obama wins South Carolina we get to hear at least, Obama give another rousing victory speech. The other factor is that Hillary is not at her best when she is too sure of leading by too much in the national polls ...There is something a little complacent in her tone, too much self -assurance..She is more human when she is losing, which doesn't happen too much.

Lee Ward:

The Rasmussen poll was the one that had Obama up by 10 points in new Hampshire -- you know, the poll that was grossly wrong the public opinion companies had to explain for a week why it was so wrong.

At the time Rasmussen was wrong Zogby was right, and that's why I mentioned Zogby's "correctness" in my post.

Yes, another rousing speech from Obama. Too bad he doesn't discuss what he'd do in debates or when challenged, - and instead just energizes his supporters with how he'd do it...

Baa! *wink

mantis:

At the time Rasmussen was wrong Zogby was right, and that's why I mentioned Zogby's "correctness" in my post.

Are you talking about New Hampshire or Nevada here? You mention Nevada in the post, but Rasmussen didn't even poll Nevada, so I don't see how they could be wrong.

Here are the New Hampshire polls for both just before the primary. Who was off by more?

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll 1/05 - 1/07: Obama 42, Clinton 29

Rasmussen 01/05 - 01/07: Obama 37, Clinton 30

Lee Ward:

My reference is to New Hampshire. Here's what I said.

The Rasmussen poll was the one that had Obama up by 10 points in new Hampshire -- you know, the poll that was grossly wrong the public opinion companies had to explain for a week why it was so wrong.

At the time Rasmussen was wrong Zogby was right, and that's why I mentioned Zogby's "correctness" in my post.

Why are you ignoring what I say and rewriting the question to your liking? I didn't say "just before the primary" - I said when Rasmussen released their poll that had Obama ahead by 10 Zogby had it correct.

mantis:

Why are you ignoring what I say and rewriting the question to your liking?

I'm not ignoring what you write; it was confusing as to which state you were referring. You mention Zogby "nailing" Nevada in their poll, but then in the comments claim that Zogby got it right in New Hampshire (though you could have been talking about Nevada; that's why I asked).

In any case Zogby did not get it right in New Hampshire. They got it wrong worse than Rasmussen.

I didn't say "just before the primary"

Then what polls where you referring to?

I said when Rasmussen released their poll that had Obama ahead by 10 Zogby had it correct.

The last Rasmussen poll had Obama up by 7. The last Zogby poll had Obama up by 13. What are you talking about?

Lee Ward:

Why don't you put the words Zogby New Hampshire in the search box on this blog and see what you find.

Be sure to scroll down to the comment section where Steve Crickmore links to the grossly inaccurate Rasmussen poll.... and read my reaction.

You're cross-examination has grown tedious, counselor mantis. I've got other things to do...

mantis:

Why don't you put the words Zogby New Hampshire in the search box on this blog and see what you find.

Gee, was it really so hard to tell me what poll you were talking about? Now I see the confusion: you were referring to the Zogby tracking data as of 1/05, which was markedly different than that on 1/07, which you can view here, and is where I got the numbers above. Your claim that Rasmussen had Obama up by 10 in Steve's link is off; they had him up by 7, just like I said.

In any case, it's interesting that you find Zogby reliable because three days before the primary they had a poll that was close to the actual results, while the day before the primary their poll reflected dramatic changes and was way off. How does that make them reliable? Are you only going to consider the Zogby polling up to three days ahead of the South Carolina primary, and disregard it in the last days because that's when Zogby had it close to right in New Hampshire?

Pick whatever poll you want, but your reasoning is flawed. They all got it wrong in NH.

Lee Ward:

Yes, 1/5 is the date in question, that's the date of the post I referred you to, and that's the date of the polls in question, not 1/7.

And obviously Steve's link is no longer valid in that no longer points to the 1/5 Rasmussen poll that was grossly inaccurate. At the time Steve posted the link, it was linking to the grossly inaccurate poll in question.


"In any case, it's interesting that you find Zogby reliable because three days before the primary they had a poll that was close to the actual results, while the day before the primary their poll reflected dramatic changes and was way off. How does that make them reliable?"

Now you're conveniently ignoring the Nevada results, which I also used to justify my opinion of Zogby. Right up there in the first two paragraphs of the post.

You must be an Obama supporter, mantis, because the intellectual dishonesty you're displaying is emblematic of Obama's style. Obama does the same thing - the same "bob and weave" boxing style of avoiding the truth.

"Pick whatever poll you want, but your reasoning is flawed. They all got it wrong in NH."

Zogby had it right on 1/5 when Rasmussen had it wrong. That, plus the fact that they got Nevada correct as well, is the basis for my statement.

mantis:

Yes, 1/5 is the date in question, that's the date of the post I referred you to, and that's the date of the polls in question, not 1/7.

And obviously Steve's link is no longer valid in that no longer points to the 1/5 Rasmussen poll that was grossly inaccurate. At the time Steve posted the link, it was linking to the grossly inaccurate poll in question.

Ok, but none of that explains why you think the 01/05 polls before the 01/08 primary are important, but the 01/06-01/07 polls are to be ignored. If you look at the data from both Zogby and Rasmussen in the days running up to the NH primary, you see the lead by Obama narrowing as the primary gets closer in the Rasmussen poll, while with Zogby you see a slight Clinton lead disappear replaced by an Obama lead even larger than Rasmussen.

Once again, why in light of this, does this make Zogby more reliable in your mind? Which day's South Carolina poll are you going to put stock in? Wednesday's, or today's?

Now you're conveniently ignoring the Nevada results, which I also used to justify my opinion of Zogby. Right up there in the first two paragraphs of the post.

I was discussing your assertion that Zogby "got it right" in New Hampshire; I'm not ignoring Nevada. Rasmussen didn't poll Nevada, so we can't compare the two. Zogby was quite close in Nevada, as were other polls.

You must be an Obama supporter, mantis, because the intellectual dishonesty you're displaying is emblematic of Obama's style. Obama does the same thing - the same "bob and weave" boxing style of avoiding the truth.

You're ignoring data, and I'm the one being dishonest? Sure...

Zogby had it right on 1/5 when Rasmussen had it wrong. That, plus the fact that they got Nevada correct as well, is the basis for my statement.

And why does the fact that Zogby had it wrong on 1/6 and 1/7 not enter into your calculations?

Lee Ward:

After the release of the bogus Rasmussen poll, public opinion shifted, in part, based on that bad info.

In my view, the Rasmussen poll didn't measure Obama's support, it helped create the perception of it in the polls, support that wasn't firm at all as we learned in the final results.

Basic scientific principle -- when you measure anything, the temperature of a glass of water for example, you change what you're measuring. Stick a thermometer in a glass of water and the temperature will change, to some degree.

What happened in NH was similar but different to that Scientific principle, and the difference relates to the time frame. If the NH primary had been a week later, the results in my view might well have been more in Obama's favor -- but "if wishes were horses then beggar's would ride"...

This may help you understand the phenomenon, which no one understands at this point but there's lot of guessing and conjecture. It doesn't specifically address the polling errors in New Hampshire since the video was created the night of Obama's Iowa win.

mantis:

Are you scrubbing all of Larkin's comments from this site?

Lee Ward:

No. Larkin deleted his comments.

mantis:

Ah. That's weird. The comment threads on a number of them are you having a conversation with a ghost.

Anyway, I see your point regarding momentum running up to New Hampshire, but since Zogby fell for that, and in fact his results moved in the opposite direction to Rasmussen's just before the NH primary, I still don't see how his is a more reliable poll.

Btw, I'm a tepid Obama supporter. They candidate I wanted never ran, and Obama is third on my list of candidates who did run (the other two have since dropped out). Clinton is fourth. That is entirely based on their policy positions and records. I was certainly a supporter here in Illinois; I voted for him in '98 for State Senate, and again in 2004 for US Senate.

Lee Ward:

My guess for reason behind the difference between Rasmussen and Zogby on 1/5 is a question of their respective methodologies. Since Rasmussen "went wrong" earlier, I trust them less than Zogby.

I agree the qualitative difference is "nit-sized", but significant enough to push me towards Zogby, and to weigh anything Rasmussen says with disdain and mocking laughter (heh).


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

bluetips@wizbangblog.com

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.