Poll: McCain And Huckabee Neck And Neck In South Carolina, Obama Leads Dems

Comments (30)

Anonymous wrote on January 17, 2008 4:28 PM:

Who are the undecided Democrats?

Angry Vet wrote on January 17, 2008 4:33 PM:

16% apparently. According to MSNBC, most of these are women and African-Americans. In addition, according to McClatchy (through MSNBC), BHO apparently has a statistically significant lead among women, and an overwhelming one among African-Americans.

Interesting note; Barack made an appeal in the debate the other night that African-American men need to be more of father figures, and did it in a rather forceful tone. My GF picked up on this one big time as an appeal to, specifically, black women, one that will turn them out in droves for him.

I'm interested that no one else out there picked up on it. Well, maybe it isn't that surprising since people who hit this blogs and others like it are overwhelmingly white (at least according to a diary I read on dKos a while ago).

My GF specifically noted this is a complaint she has heard over and over again from our friends, and she believes HRC is going to drown in SC in a landslide.... Interesting to watch...

CT Voter wrote on January 17, 2008 4:39 PM:

How trustworthy are Mason-Dixon polls?

phil james wrote on January 17, 2008 4:40 PM:

The BO appeal to black fathers could only have been pulled off by BO. Can you imagine the backlash if Edwards had recommended such a thing?

bob wrote on January 17, 2008 4:41 PM:

Important buried detail about undecideds:

15% of Dem undecideds said the most important quality in a candidate was change, while only 4% said experience.

I think agrees on issues and honesty were slightly higher than change.

Seems like good news for Obama.

demwinger wrote on January 17, 2008 4:44 PM:

Obama is strongly favored to win SC and slightly favored to win NV.

if he doesn't do very very well in SC then he will be in trouble IMO.

hello_world wrote on January 17, 2008 4:45 PM:

In the GOP race, a potentially good sign for Mike Huckabee: Evangelical voters are somewhat more likely to be undecided — and he's running ahead of McCain among them as it is.

Wouldn't that mean that Huckabee's support is inherently softer than McCain's? mike wrote on January 17, 2008 4:50 PM:

No hello_world, it would mean that among the voters who have told pollsters that they are 'undecided,' many are evangelicals and thus likely to vote for Huckabee.

The assumption is that voters who tell pollsters they already like a specific candidate are all equally likely to actually vote for that candidate.

CT Voter wrote on January 17, 2008 4:50 PM:

demwinger

Only problem with that analysis is that Nevada is this weekend, and South Carolina is next weekend.

And he's only strongly favored, really, in this poll.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 17, 2008 4:53 PM:

Maybe McCain needs to say that he ate a goopher at college that was prepared in a blender and consumed in shot glasses to regain the lead.

mcc wrote on January 17, 2008 5:00 PM:

Obama's lead in SC only seems to be getting wider...

So when I look at numbers like this I find it really hard to understand how some Edwards supporters are asserting that Edwards if nominated is going to bring in rural states and areas. It does seem that in states where he's done well so far his support is stronger in rural areas, and there do appear to be a couple of rural states where he's doing really well (Oklahoma for some reason?). But he didn't really seem to do much to attract rural voters in the 2004 elections, and in polls like this it doesn't appear that his support in rural states is in general noticeably better than his support anywhere else. Maybe I'm missing something?

john mccutchen wrote on January 17, 2008 5:02 PM:

According to Chris Celizza, the MasonDixon poll shows SC blacks "breaking O!verwhelmingly for Obama"

That's why Missus Bill after stoking the issue on MTP suddenly played kissy face with the colored boy...not that it wouldn't have happened anyway, not that too many voters bother to watch Tim Russert, but headlines like

"CLINTONS ATTACK OBAMA ON RACE"

Certainly do not help

Clinton's own black co-chair and State Sen warned her to shut down the race baiting

And she didn't

Larry Geater wrote on January 17, 2008 5:03 PM:

CT Voter

You say he is only strongly favored in this poll. Click the trend on the left of this page you will see that it is not just one poll. Each of them is just a snapshot but they all agree.

Christie wrote on January 17, 2008 5:51 PM:

Is it true that the Huckster today equated homosexuality with beastiality? Amazing...

sly wrote on January 17, 2008 5:57 PM:

for perspective

Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary/caucus in 1984 and 1988

John Edwards won the South Carolina primary in 2004 (remember he was born in SC)

It should be no surprise that Obama and/or Edwards will do well in SC.

osage wrote on January 17, 2008 6:03 PM:

Isn't it ironic that the Republican establishement are so loathsome of John McCain? It doesn't make sense to me since John McCain is the most electable presidential candidate the Republicans have. If Huckabee somehow ends up winning the Republican presidential nomination, it will be an historically lopsided win for Democrats in November. Romney, while having broader Republican support than Huckabee, is despised by Republican evangelicals and southern Republicans have no love for him at all. Guiliani is almost broke and today's Strategic Vision poll has him third behind McCain and Huckabee in Florida. And Thompson will be gone after South Carolina. Boy, about the only thing Bush Republicans are really good at self-destructing. McCain is their best shot for keeping the White House and their leadership hate the guy. Not that I'm complaining!

Salmon wrote on January 17, 2008 6:03 PM:

Look Friends -

I'm a yellow dog Democrat and a PCO in my local LD - and I'll support the nominee of my party, whomever it might be. But I'm getting damn sick and tired of the Clinton's lust for power at what seems to be at any cost. The "race" thing is only one minor example of this perfidy. They are poisoning the well and if anyone could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, surely it is the Clintons.

I support Edwards because in my opinion he is the most progressive of our candidates. Obama is my second choice and he's a damn good man with great vision and hope. I'll gladly support either of them.

Best to all -

Steve wrote on January 17, 2008 6:31 PM:

Interesting that Romney is absolutely nowhere in South Carolina. No bump from Michigan. That's got to be the best news from all these polls in SC. But we can't ignore the fact that EVERY SINGLE poll shows McCain ahead, except for Rasmussen which shows a dead heat.

Julie wrote on January 17, 2008 6:36 PM:

Nice to see Ron Paul is still leading Giuliani : )

Dan wrote on January 17, 2008 6:36 PM:

"Clinton's lust for power" is a cliche that people don't even think about before they write it. But tell me of another candidate for U.S. president who has spent so much of their life working on issues of importance to women and children (e.g., Arkansas public schools, the Children's Defense Fund). This is not the path to power in this country. People say whatever negative thing that comes to mind about the Clintons without stopping to consider whether there are any facts behind it. Have the Clintons done anything even remotely as blatant as the historic power grabs of Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay?

markg8 wrote on January 17, 2008 6:53 PM:

Dee Illuminati you're killin me! And scaring the cat. LOL

drubs wrote on January 17, 2008 7:04 PM:

McCain probably would have loved some fried squirrel when he was be beaten and starved. Shows you that the Republicans put lock step party loyalty above all else. If it looks like Huck may go all the way then the GOP will hold its nose and back McCain.

markg8 wrote on January 17, 2008 7:08 PM:

Hillary had pretty strong support among black women who considered Obama a "baby". Then she put America's billionaire misogynist pimp Bob Johnson on stage with her in SC to make those disgusting allusions about Obama's teenage drug dabbling.

Then he baldfaced lied about what he was really referring to and nobody bought that crap. She had Bill compound the damage by making the rounds to black radio stations saying "we should take him at his word, he meant community organizing." Then Hillary repeated the same excuse in Tuesday night's debate.

My guess is they've pretty much destroyed their cred with the black community at this point like they've destroyed their cred on the Vegas Strip. Tell your poppa and tell your momma, this country needs, Barack Obama!

Joe Lhota wrote on January 17, 2008 7:14 PM:

There's someone who goes on TPM using my name and saying that I'm no longer 100% in Rudoplh Giuliani's corner. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just as he rose from the ashes of 9/11 with Bernard Kerik at his side (some people actually blame him for exploiting his own confused state of mind that day for political purposes), this phoenix will rise again from his reversal in the polls and protect this country from its enemies, both external and internal.

One of the least reported commitments he has made is his pledge to require all married couples (straight or gay) to sign pre-nuptial agreements. He will also uphold the constitution to end all forms of political protest. We need a strong personality like his to lead us back to our beliefs in law and order, respectful dialogue, the dignity of the poor and the importance of the family.

Joe Lhota--not supporting Giuliani, Virginia? There may as well not be a Santa Claus.

Marchael wrote on January 17, 2008 7:20 PM:

As much as I have admired the Clintons in the past, especially work Bill has done with Bush Sr. after his presidency, I've been troubled by their seemingly calculated and tactical statements about Barack Obama. It does seem like she'd rather obtain power ruthlessly than lose power nobly.

NH Dem wrote on January 17, 2008 8:44 PM:

Dan wrote on January 17, 2008 6:36 PM: --
"People say whatever negative thing that comes to mind about the Clintons without stopping to consider whether there are any facts behind it."

You mean negative things like "I'm disgusted by the dishonest last-minute smear flyer and email the Clinton campaign dropped in New Hampshire to raise doubts, especially among women, about whether Barack Obama was really pro-choice, even though he's absolutely 100% pro-choice and always has been his entire career and has gotten 100% NARAL ratings," those kinds of negative things?

Because that's the first thing that came to my mind.

Click name for post including flyer.

Bogus email here:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/print/?id=24935

correctnotright wrote on January 17, 2008 9:17 PM:

I have seen this canard reprinted in my local papers too - Obama was working with NARAL when he encouraged other legislators to vote present on some bills really politically tough anti-abortion bills- he has a 100% record on abortion and is supported by NARAL. Any intimation that this is not true is just exageration and smear by the Clinton campaign.
This is a Hilary smear - out and out distortion of Obama's record.

Brian D Purcell wrote on January 17, 2008 10:08 PM:

If you look at the exit polling out of Michigan, Black women were more likely to vote for Obama than black men. Obviously Obama wasn't on the ballot, but the exit poll asked who they'd vote for if Edwards and Obama were on the poll. When they broke it down to gender and race, white men were more supportive than white women for Obama, but the opposite was true for black men and women. That is good news for Obama in SC, where a large majority of the black democratic voters are likely to be female (assuming the MI exit poll is an accurate assessment).

Pamela Lyn wrote on January 18, 2008 3:32 AM:

Based on having lived in South Carolina for a very brief while many years ago along with what I know about their voting history, the majority of South Carolina voters are going to vote for whomever their minister/barber/beautician tells them to vote.

As it has been frequently mentioned, the South Carolina race has seemed to bring out the bottom feeders in the campaigns. In no other race to date has race, religion, sex, sexual preference and all the other emotionally charged and divisive tactics been employed to such a great degree.

Only in advance of a South Carolina primary would you hear about "frying squirrel in a popcorn popper" and. "changing the constitution to conform to God's standards." Hillary goes on the Tyra Banks' show so the sisters can hear how she bravely held up when her man did her wrong. And Barack Obama credits Ronald Reagan with "changing the trajectory of America."

john milken wrote on January 18, 2008 9:13 AM:

Please let Huckbee win. It'll drive the GOP establishment mad, he'll show the base up for what it is and the Dems will win big. And it'll be fun as hell.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)