FACT: Obama might have lost the Margin Of Error of the white votes in SC

[Joe the Revelator]

I think its important that we don't let clever thread titles imply something that isn't true. Obama has not "collapsed" among white voters in SC. In December he held 24% support among white, and now he holds 19% which is within the margin of error of most polls.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/14/topsc2.pdf

If you were to take anything away from this, it should be that Hillary's strategy of race baiting is back firing on her, as her support among non-white voters is severely eroding in SC. In this same December poll, she held 46% of the black vote. She now only has 19% support.

So I ask you, what is the REAL big story coming out of SC?

[emilyg]

1. I can tell you the real big story coming out of Georgia...

we might get snow Thursday.

[Joe the Revelator]

3. I heard that, I'm excited.

Thanks for the kick. :)

[Bullet1987]

I don't think Obama ever had large white support in SC...

[jackson_dem]

8. He did just last week

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=066ea20c-d300-48cd-a585-cc9c356df4eb&q=44162

[Joe the Revelator]

12. So lets see what he has in the next survey USA poll

[Occam Bandage]

13. Funny. He dropped almost the exact same amount in NH and SC--and NH was before the race "issue."

Looks more like a fading bounce than racial politics having an effect.

[jackson_dem]

19. He is up 11 points nationally in a poll out just today

[Occam Bandage]

22. Good news for his campaign.

[Occam Bandage]

2. I gotta say, seeing that poll was kind of disappointing. I was expecting

to see a collapse, not this weenie little fluctuation. How desperately do you have to be wanting to see an Obama collapse among white people, to react the way people have been?

[Joe the Revelator]

6. Same here, it was jumped on by the buzzards among us

Too bad it was complete fabrication.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Standard MOE is about 3% for a 1000-person sample

If you want to look into the statistical reasoning for that, you'll have to consult some stats texts.

--p!

[Joe the Revelator]

5. According to the poll I linked, the MOE was 4.5 for democratic responders

nt

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Probably a ~3000-person sample

But that's just a ballpark guess.

The best polling comes from places like Quinnipiac and Zogby; they give full statistical support, though you generally have to pay for most of it during the campaign. It's good to know it's there for serious scholars.

In this primary season, though, voter volatility is quite high. I think there's going to be several more surprises in store, and I'd be surprised if John Edwards doesn't win at least one primary.

We really have to watch it with the in-fighting, though. The occasional Russert-driven phony controversy is one thing, but a steady stream of mudballs will start a shift toward the Republican candidates. No matter how much you or I may dislike the "wrong" candidate, the public is who we have to please.

--p!

[karynnj]

33. Quinnipiac is not good in NJ

They must have some problem in their sample design as they have consistently underestimated the Democratic candidates, compared to the actual results and better polls. (The Eagleton poll - I think out of Rudgers) is the one I trust far more. Quinnipiac had the Kerry race close, the Corzine race close and, in at least one poll, Menendez down - in actuality all won very easily and the Democrats never were worried - so their internal polls were likely in agreement with the others.

With Zogby, the internet ones have often been outliers. Probably the best thing is to look at all of them and see where the consensus seems to be - and know that if they are all over the place, it may be that things are still in flux.

I don't know about Edwards winning a primary - he is unlikely to get SC by all polls and accounts. He seems to have not made a real effort in NV, which a year ago people were saying he had an excellent shot in. He has little money so he will be at a huge disadvantage on super Tuesday where personal appearances can't be done in large enough quantity to make up for far less ad money.

[karynnj]

34. You also have to consider you are comparing two independent polls

each of which has its own MOE. The MOE of the difference is bigger. If the MOE was 4.5% as you state, then

the first poll was 19 plus of minus 4.5 and the second poll 24 plus or minus 4.5%. These intervals overlap. As you can see it can't be ruled out that the "true" percent is unchanged. (But given the MOE, only enormous changes will ever be statistically significant.)

[jackson_dem]

7. Last week he was at 28% and 1 point behind Edwards, 9% behind Hillary

Now he is eleven behind Edwards and 24 behind Hillary. Yeah, nothing has happened. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=066ea20c-d300-48cd-a585-cc9c356df4eb&q=44162

[Occam Bandage]

9. Which is almost exactly the same amount that he dropped in New Hampshire.

Which, crucially, was before the race-baiting. That was just Hillary's sympathetic turn followed by an ill-timed fade for his IA bounce. Sorry, but there's no "there" there.

[Joe the Revelator]

10. It was a 5 point drop across the board from last month to this month

Statistical noise should not be foreign concept from you, and certainly shouldn't be followed by adjective like "collapsed".

[Anouka]

11. Edwards is gaining on both of them, basically?

Where does this put Edwards? and why?
Will it sustain?

[Joe the Revelator]

14. Unfortunetly, still a distant third.

[jackson_dem]

20. In contention for a strong second behind Obama

Hillary is down to 19% among blacks and will probably go even lower as the attacks from the Obama campaign continue. Edwards should be able to win the white vote in South Carolina by campaigning hard there like he did in 2004. He was 4th weeks before the primary and he won it with 45%. He can't win this time because Obama is at 68% among blacks and he is at 5%.

[Occam Bandage]

23. "attacks from the Obama campaign?" Obama has not played the race card, nor has the Obama campaign.

[jackson_dem]

24. I admire your tenacity

I am glad you will be on our side in the fight against the rethugs after this is all said and done. :)

P.S. I replied to that about five times already.

[Occam Bandage]

25. And I replied to every one of your replies. You couldn't challenge.

[jackson_dem]

26. You have one set of reality for Obama and another for Hillary. Like most Obamites

[Occam Bandage]

27. Certainly untrue. Case in point:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4056353&mesg_id=4056353

[CoffeeCat]

15. I have to say...

Hillary Clinton's reputation as a world-class campaigner has certainly been destroyed while watching
her campaign since November.

I have watched her make so many stupid mistakes.

She stepped into the buzz saw with her asinine remarks involving race. I mean, she tried to make the
point that Martin Luther King didn't act on his own, and it was a politician who helped King realize
his dream. She was trying to make the point that a seasoned politician turned that dream into a
reality and experience is key. However, she ended up really stepping in it. By propping up Johnson,
did she not see that she was diminishing King? To fail to see that was overwhelmingly stupid.

Making these remarks as she goes into SC....not exactly brilliant strategy. Major error.

In Iowa, she was closed off, impersonal and insulting to voters. She planted questions, was totally
inaccessible and was totally arrogant, while Obama and Edwards talked to Iowa voters at most events.
She lost the state because of her very-bizarre unwillingness to connect with voters. Again, colossal
error. Why on earth would you run for President and shut yourself off from an entire population of
caucus goers?

Now, we see the antics in Nevada with the caucus lawsuits. She could stop this nonsense with one
phone call. Hillary surrogates are behind this lawsuit. It looks like sour grapes, "Well! If
they're not going to support me...let's make this difficult for them!"

Don't get me wrong...I'm glad to see her tripping up like this. I was worried about Nevada, but
I'm not now. You can't do these crazy things and act like such a jerk, to a public who will be
caucusing shortly. This debacle in Nevada is equivalent to when Hillary planted questions in
Iowa. It's very insulting and the people of Nevada will clearly see what is going on.

There is a pattern of ignorance and incompetence in the Hillary campaign, and I'm really wondering
how someone who touts "35 years of experience" can be such a bungling mess.

[madrchsod]

21. she`s going to win in south carolina and nevada

there is no way to stop her from being the people`s choice... she`s not perfect but you must admit she has 35 years of experience in throwing anyone under the bus if it is politically expedient..

[CoffeeCat]

28. So, you're saying that Hillary...

...will win because she is more than willing to throw people under the bus if it suits her
needs?

I must assume that you're being funny, and that I'm too tired to detect humor, because it's so late.

:)

[dmallind]

30. No she isn't - and doesn't need to

This year the early states are prettyt much there to sell newspapers. Feb 5th is what matters where it counts - and she's holding decent leads in more delegate rich states than others. It's getting closer, but right now she'll pull ahead. NV and SC are not that relevant, and neither is even close to sure for HRC. In fact SC is pretty close to being a sure loss and the caucus in NV is generally dominated by a union committed now to BO, so the chances are she'll lose both or maybe maybe split depending on turnout and last minute news.

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. There was no basis for it to begin with. She has only fought 2

campaigns, and in both of the her opponants committed suicide. She basicaly won by default, as the Democratic senate candidate in a solid blue state. Everything else was just PR.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Kick to clear the confusion.

[Joe the Revelator]

17. Its amazing what lows some people will stoop to

nt

[ShortnFiery]

31. Speaking of gender and race is not helping "the debate."

Shame! :thumbsdown:

[depakid]

32. Nothing factual about arguing over cheap media polls

might as well discuss how many angels dance on the head of a pin.