S.C. Poll: Obama's Lead Narrows But Still Ahead

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:21:49 PM EST
Tags: South Carolina 08, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A post-debate South Carolina Reuters-Zogby poll was released today. Obama is still ahead, but his lead has narrowed and Edwards has gained.

Obama's lead fell 3 points overnight to give him a 39 percent to 24 percent edge over Clinton in South Carolina, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Thursday.

Edwards, a former senator from neighboring North Carolina, climbed four points to reach 19 percent -- within striking distance of Clinton and second place.

Obama's drop is among black voters -- and Hillary gained two points with them. Among white voters:

Edwards held a slight lead over Clinton among likely white voters at 35 percent to 32 percent. Obama had 19 percent.

< NE Journal of Medecine: Doctors Should Not Participate in Executions | Huffpo Launches Huffpollstrology >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

S.C. Poll: Obama's Lead Narrows But Still Ahead | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

15 Points. (none / 0) (#1)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:00:13 PM EST

Still blowout territory if it actually works out that way.

Not that it may mean anything, but I believe Clinton out-performed her polling in the last two states (Obama out-performed in Iowa).

She is not seriously contesting SC (none / 0) (#2)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:03:29 PM EST

all things considered, I wouldn't either. It can only get uglier here.


She doubled her ad money there and (none / 0) (#4)
by Geekesque on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:06:23 PM EST

has Bill campaigning all week there.

She took two days off for Super Tuesday--she's back there now.

Clinton is not going to abandon a state and risk a third place finish--the meme would quickly become that she's unelectable in the South.


: your meme (none / 0) (#21)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:47:53 PM EST

I am sure it will be.

She is, I think. (none / 0) (#5)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST

It's true that she absented herself from the state for a few days, but I think she's back now (or will be tonight) and she left Bill there for the whole week. And she's running tough radio ads there.

I think she's competing but simply feels that in the grand scheme of things her time would be better spent in the 2/5 states.

Of course, they may have removed her from the state for a few days simply to create the opportunity to spin a loss there ("Well, we didn't really compete there . .").


Larry (none / 0) (#20)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST

I think the Clinton efforts in SC are mainly to avoid coming in 3rd and to try to garner at least a respectable portion of African American votes. 20% would seem to be in their reach.


I think you're overanalyzing. . . (none / 0) (#22)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:48:43 PM EST

Candidates run to attain the best possible result. Despite all the chattering that folks like us do, the only thing a candidate can really do is get down on the ground and run to win -- even when it's pretty clear that they're not going to.

I think Clinton wants the best result she can get. She'd rather come in first than second, and rather second than third (which would dent her). And whichever position she's in, she wants the largest percentage of votes possible, and the smallest distance between herself and the winner.


no it's pretty simple (none / 0) (#24)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST

Considering how smart they are, I really doubt the Clintons are expecting to win in SC. They just need to make sure not to "lose" it.

And by the way, isn't overanalyzing what bloggers do? I was terrified when I saw the list of top 100 commenters on Daily Kos. The volume of those guys/gals was astonishing and made me wonder if they ever saw the sun.


: Yes. . . (none / 0) (#25)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:46 PM EST

I'm sure they're pretty aware that they can't beat Obama. I guess I read your comment as their having a plan to come in second. I think their plan is simply to get as many votes as possible.

If you put a gun to my head, I'd (none / 0) (#3)
by Geekesque on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM EST

predict a similar margin for him that Clinton got in NV.

I don't buy the double-digits stuff. That would be the biggest primary blowout, only exceeded by Mitt's uncontested win in NV and Clinton's defeat of Uncommitted. These things always tighten towards the end.

Ironically, both Obama and Clinton outperformed their polling in Nevada. It was Edwards's complete and utter collapse there that was a surprise.

Don't tempt me. (none / 0) (#6)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM EST

Clinton better hope Edwards collapses in South Carolina -- although there's much less chance of that in SC than there was in NV (although I don't think anyone saw it coming in NV either).


Does anybody know (none / 0) (#7)
by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST

what the entrance polls for Edwards looked like in NV? How much was an actual collapse and how much was that he just couldn't make the viability threshold for the caucus?

I expect he'll do reasonably well in SC, especially after the debate. I would be very surprised to see a similar crash for him there.


from what I saw that today (none / 0) (#19)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST

I remember some bloggers mentioning he got something like 9% or 12%

But a couple of days prior the polls were showing him doing much better, with up to 30% at one point.


Thanks for the response (none / 0) (#28)
by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST

I'll have to do some digging. Seems very odd, if it's about more than viability.

Still, I expect he'll do quite well in SC on the back of that debate. Everybody I've talked with, anecdotally, thought his performance in it was terrific.


: and his David Letterman appearance (none / 0) (#32)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST

you could see it on YouTube. Great energy throughout the interview.

Turnout (none / 0) (#30)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST

Clinton's and Obama's teams were working with radically expanded turnout models while Edwards' team was working with one more in line with previous years and was utterly blindsided. Yet another Trippi failure.


Remember that (none / 0) (#8)
by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:18:32 PM EST

Edwards is a favorite son in South Carolina...He was born there....


: and won there in 2004 (none / 0) (#17)
by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:36:54 PM EST

The story could end up being less about Edwards and more about the slight rejection/erosion of Obama by African Americans post-debate.

I had a suspicion it could happen in NV (none / 0) (#10)
by Geekesque on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST

due to the late polling trends and because of the hyper-importance on organization and the 15% threshold in a caucus state.

Edwards was counting on Culinary and SEIU to be his ground game there.

I woke up that morning suspecting Clinton could break 50%. Which I had predicted it in public.


don't forget (none / 0) (#12)
by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST

Mitt's resounding victory in Wyoming!