SC polls show Clinton support plummeted over past 2 months, and Obama soared over the past few days

Fascinating poll date. Look at what happened to support for Clinton, Obama and Edwards over the past year, and then specifically the past few months.



The polls start in Jan 2007 or so and continue up until the past few days. Note how from January until the end of November, Hillary went steadily up from 32% in the polls to 40%. At the same time, Obama went steadily up from around 20% to 28%. And Edwards just plummeted from 25% to almost nothing. So basically, Clinton and Obama saw steady growth in their support throughout 2007. Then at the end of November, early December, something happened. It's not clear what, but Hillary's support dropped from 40% to 29% over 6 weeks. At the same time, Obama's support skyrocketed from 28% to 43%. And Edwards saw an increase as well, going from 1% or 2% to the mid-teens. This suggests that not only were Hillary supporters going to Obama and Edwards (but more to Obama), but it also suggests that the sudden change in the polls wasn't simply due to something Obama did right. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen such a large rise in Edwards' support as well. It looks as though people left Hillary and chose whoever they could who wasn't Hillary. That suggests that they may have left Hillary because of something Hillary did. (Or her husband did.)

I'd be curious to check the news stories and see just what happened at the end of November, early December. One possibility is that Obama suddenly was seen as "viable." Maybe that played a role (though I suspect it played more of a role post his Iowa victory), but that doesn't explain why Edwards' support starting rising at the same time. It's not like Edwards suddenly became viable as well at the end of November, or any time since. It looks like something happened that ticked people off against Hillary, then after a week or so they decided to move to Obama instead.

Actually, Greg Sargent just posted an AP story that shows some very interesting exit poll data from today. While half of Obama voters thought that Obama (their own candidate) attacked Hillary unfairly in the past week, nearly two-thirds of Hillary voters thought that SHE attacked Obama unfairly.

After the contentious Democratic debate Monday night, three in four Obama voters said Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly and slightly fewer than half accused their own candidate of attacking Clinton unfairly. Two-thirds of Clinton voters said Obama attacked her unfairly and nearly as many said she attacked him unfairly.

What this suggests is that Obama voters were more ticked off at Hillary than Hillary voters were ticked at Obama. But even more, Hillary's own voters thought she was being unfair to a greater degree than Obama's voters thought that HE was being unfair to her. That means that their little pissing match of the past week may have hurt Hillary more than Obama.

Look at the distance the polls moved from the end of November to today. Hillary went from 40% to 27% today. But far more important, Obama went from maybe 28% to 55% today. That's an insane rise. Hell, look at the polls from the past few days - Obama never got above the mid 40s. Yet today he got 55%. Something happened. But what? Read the rest of this post...

HUGE Turnout for the Democrats in SC tonight -- surpassed GOP vote from last week by wide margin

Obama had an amazing victory tonight in South Carolina. He won by a two-to-one margin. Very impressive -- and his victory speech was quite impressive too.

Also impressive was the Democratic turnout. Last week, according to CNN's Election Center , 442,918 Republicans voted in a very, very competitive primary. It's fair to say that South Carolina is a red state.

Today, Democratic turnout far surpassed the GOP's performance. With 98% of precincts reporting, over 520,000 Democratic votes were counted.

Click to see larger image of the vote totals:
Read the rest of this post...

Alan Colmes recently started a blog

Be sure to check it out. Yes, he's the other guy :-) Read the rest of this post...

Obama wins South Carolina

AP is saying Obama "routed" Clinton. This is turning into a huge victory.

MSNBC is saying that Hillary will get second place. The question is by how much Obama will win.

So says CNN. Based on exit polling. Hmm.... This is all based on the exit polls:

Black voters: 81% Obama, 18% Clinton, 1% Edwards
White voters: Edwards 39%, Hillary 36%, Obama 24%
Black men: 80% Obama, 17% Clinton, 3% Edwards
Black women: 82% Obama, 17% Clinton
White men: Edwards 44%, Clinton 28%, Obama 27%
White women: Clinton 42%, Edwards 35%, Obama 22% Read the rest of this post...

South Carolina Exit poll results starting to spread around

ABC News reports that half the voters in South Carolina are African-American:

Preliminary exit poll results indicate what our smart people are calling a "very large turnout" among African-American voters -- definitely more than 50 percent of voters in South Carolina are black, according to the early numbers, compared to 47 percent in 2004, and 43 percent in 1992. There's also heavy turnout among female voters, who are making up about 6 in 10 S.C. voters.

Via The Page at Time.com come these numbers, which were apparently reported by Fox News:

African-Americans

Obama 81%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 1%

African-American women

Obama 82%, Clinton 17%, Edwards 0%

Whites

Edwards 39%, Clinton 36%, Obama 24%

Edwards winning white men, Clinton white women.

If these numbers are, in fact, accurate, Obama could be on his way to a big night. But, remember, these are exit polls....we'll know real results shortly. Read the rest of this post...

South Carolina polls close at 7pm Eastern

A bit more from Reuters:

Voter turnout was heavy soon after polls opened at 7 a.m. (1200 GMT) under cloudy skies and chilly temperatures around much of the state, with long lines at polling places reported in early morning balloting.

Record turnout of more than 300,000 is expected in the first Democratic primary in the South, where black voters are likely to make up about half of the electorate....

After two consecutive losses, in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama needs a win on Saturday if he hopes to head into the Feb. 5 "Super Tuesday" contests in 22 states with a realistic chance of victory....

A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll on Saturday showed Obama with a 41 percent to 26 percent edge over Clinton in South Carolina, with Edwards in third place with 19 percent.

The lead for Obama, who would be the first black U.S president, is fueled by his 62 percent support among black voters, the poll found. Clinton and Edwards are tied among white voters at 35 percent, with Obama at 19 percent....

The Republican presidential contenders, who held their primary in South Carolina last week [McCain won], are focused on Florida's Tuesday primary.

Read the rest of this post...

GOP prez candidates, and Bush too, all no-shows at Anti-abortion rally

As FDL notes, it's awfully interesting that the GOP candidates refused to show up in person at the largest "pro-life" rally in the country, when so many of them claim that abortion is their number one issue. Read the rest of this post...

Bush says he'll veto 30-day extension of FISA

Well, now we get to see whether Senator Reid has bigger balls than George Bush. I like Senator Reid, we haven't been nearly as critical of him as some, but at this point, I'd like to see some leadership. I'd like to see someone who is actually smarter, and tougher, than George Bush. That isn't asking for much. But we have yet to see it. If Bush wants to endanger the war on terror with a stroke of his pen, why is it so hard to understand that he will be the one paying the price. He lies and lies and blusters and lies. And all the Democrats do is cave. The Democrats aren't just sending the message that all you have to do is yell "Osama!" and they'll cave. Democrats are also sending the message that they aren't willing to stick up for themselves, ever. And as someone said to me about John Kerry right before the November 2004 election: If he isn't willing to defend himself, how is he going to defend my kids? The Democrats are defining themselves as their worst stereotype: weak-kneed wimps. And in a time of war, let alone most other times, people don't vote for wimps.

Here is more on Bush now threatening a veto. And here is Senator Reid's response he just issued:

The White House threat to veto a short extension of the Protect America Act is shamefully irresponsible. The President is simply posturing in advance of Monday's State of the Union address.

When it comes to providing a strong long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance bill, Democrats in Congress are focused on solutions, while Republicans are obviously playing politics.

The House has already passed a FISA bill, and the Senate was ready to pass its own bill until Republicans blocked all amendments. At the same time, Democrats are ready to extend current law for as long as necessary, but Republicans are blocking that extension and the White House is threatening a veto.

It is shenanigans like this that make Americans so eager for change. We hope the American public will remember these Republican stunts when they go to the polling booth this November.

In any event, current law ensures that no ongoing collection activity will be cut off on February 1. There will be no terrorism intelligence collection gap. But if there is any problem, the blame will clearly and unequivocally fall where it belongs: on President Bush and his allies in Congress.

Read the rest of this post...

Members of Congress and governors could throw the Dem nomination for Hillary or Obama

As you know, the Democratic nomination is going to be decided by how many delegates each candidate has. And as you also know, candidates win delegates by winning state primaries and caucuses (or at least placing in those states that don't award all the delegates to the top candidate). Well, what you may not have known is that your vote may have nothing to do with who actually wins the Democratic nomination in August. That's because a number of "superdelgates" exist and they have nothing to do with how you vote. They are senators, House members, governors, and every elected member of the DNC, who are appointed as delegates automatically - they're called superdelegates - and they can vote for whomever they want. Keith Olbermann did a segment on this the other day and found the following:

Hillary's total delegates from the primaries and caucuses: 36
Obama's total from the same: 38

Hillary's total Superdelegates: 210-236 (depending)
Obama's total Superdelegates: 136-154 (depending)

Olbermann explains that there are 797 Superdelegates. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win at a convention. And that means that 39% of the delegates that a candidate needs to win are these superdelegates. Thus a candidate could win the Democratic nomination even if he/she lost the vote in the states. That means that our members of Congress and governors may throw the election. How's that strike you?

Just imagine if Obama wins but the big (white) boys in Congress throw the election for Hillary. What do you think the black community is going to do then? Do you really think they're going to vote Democratic in the fall? Fat chance if we steal their candidate. And same thing goes for Hillary, what if she wins the primaries but loses because of the superdelegates - how many of you Hillary supporters are going to be out there stumping for the guy who stole the election away from your candidate?

Even better, the Democrats came up with the idea of superdelegates to ensure that you, the voters, didn't end up picking anybody too crazy. This way the party could overrule your vote. Seriously. That's why they have superdelegates, expressly so they can overrule your vote just in case they don't like who the public voted for.

This is a super mess. And it's one more indication of how screwed up our electoral process is in this country. Read the rest of this post...

Naked body on TV leads to $1.4m fine

But killing a hundred thousand Iraqi people is just fine. Promoting war through the media is OK too. Heck, losing billions upon billions of dollars is just peachy as well. But don't think for one second that you can show a naked body on TV or else the FCC will fine you $1.43 million for indecency. Talk about disturbing and indecent, our priorities in government are screwed up.

For the FCC, the episode of "NYPD Blue" was an indecency twofer.

"We find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks," the FCC wrote in its ruling.

My goodness. These people require a serious dose of psychological assistance. It's always wonderful to be lectured on morality by the same Southern Baptists who stand at the top of Christian denominations with divorce rates. The Bible Belt leads the nation in divorce, yet they always cry and point the finger at everyone else as the root of evil. Look in a mirror and quit spending everyone else's money for silly puritan campaigns. If only they cared so much about peace in the world. Read the rest of this post...

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Good morning everyone.

It's primary day in South Carolina. Polls are open until 7:00 P.M. These are the latest -- and last -- numbers of the daily tracking poll from Reuters/CSPAN/Zogby:

Obama, an Illinois senator, gained two points on Clinton overnight to lead 41 percent to 26 percent just hours before voting began in Saturday's primary. John Edwards was in third place after slipping two points to 19 percent.

We'll keep an eye on things in S.C. throughout the day and report the tallies once the votes start rolling in tonight.

The poem of the week is "First Fig" by Edna St. Vincent Millay. It's short, simple and quite beautiful.

What's the latest? Read the rest of this post...

The Very Best of Jazz Club

This is from a funny 1990's BBC show, The Fast Show. Every time I saw 'Jazz Club' skits I was reminded of watching the real thing back in the '70s. My father loved jazz so during the weekend we always listened to the Temple University radio station in the house and on occasion would see what I thought was an odd TV show about jazz. I still love bebop though "modern" jazz never did much for me. What was the name of that old jazz show? Read the rest of this post...

McCain: I have no idea about economics, but I'll be great

Cut taxes, hooray! Lower spending, yippee! Oh boy, to think that he criticizes Romney for being a panderer. How can anyone take McCain seriously when he admits himself that he he doesn't know what he's talking about? At least he now has the common sense to quit laughing about his ignorance on the issue.

Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."

McCain believes if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent everything will be just fine. Otherwise it's a tax and tax cuts always pay for themselves,he says, except that they don't. He supports tax cuts by saying Americans "want to be wealthy people" though he fails to see that that dream has been held back for decades by Republicans who insist on jury-rigging the system to protect the elite, effectively blocking economic mobility. The middle class has been stuck in neutral since the early 1970s and to suggest otherwise is a lie. Why would anyone want someone so ignorant about the economy, being the lead on the economy in 2008? Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Read the rest of this post...