SC-PPP: Trump +2

[Seriously?]

Yeah, this is NOT a straight PPP poll and should be reported accordingly. It's akin to an internal if it was done on behalf of the Democrats. The thread should start PPP (D). The margin is probably overstated, as it was a client-based poll.

What tipped me off was the weird pro-LGBT numbers in a state like SC.

PPP is usually better disclosing stuff like that, you had to dig down into the release to get to that part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Seriously?]

Yeah, this is NOT a straight PPP poll and should be reported accordingly. It's akin to an internal if it was done on behalf of the Democrats. The thread should start PPP (D). There's really nothing to see here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are not going to fake a damn poll.  Why would they risk their name.  You are just salty because your candidate, the bigot who can't even take being beaten by a woman is only winning a state right now that he should be up in by much more.

Fake a poll. No. Draw results more favorable to the party that commissioned the poll. Of course.

I'd be saying the same exact thing if the poll was done on behalf of the Republicans.

[Seriously?]

Yeah, this is NOT a straight PPP poll and should be reported accordingly. It's akin to an internal if it was done on behalf of the Democrats. The thread should start PPP (D). The margin is probably overstated, as it was a client-based poll.

What tipped me off was the weird pro-LGBT numbers in a state like SC.

PPP is usually better disclosing stuff like that, you had to dig down into the release to get to that part.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or maybe, you know, the state party paid them to conduct a poll because they wanted a poll done and polls cost money. This isn't an internal poll, it was conducted by the same PPP that conducts the other PPP polls.

Does PPP usually post LV polls or RV polls? This is a RV poll.

[Seriously?]

A few things here:

1. Just because the poll was commissioned by the SC Democratic party doesn't mean it's inaccurate. This typical Atlas "INTERNAL = JUNK POLL" idea is nonsense (not to mention that this isn't even an internal). Obama's approval rating looks about right, as do the Senate numbers.

2. Also, the margin isn't really surprising, either. In a state where Clinton is basically winning 100% of Black voters and tons of Republicans/Whites haven't rallied around Trump (yet?), he's going to underperform big time. She's probably ahead or very close in TX and MS right now as well. If they're both tied in GA, Trump's not going to win SC by more than 3.

3. The 5% number for Gary Johnson is probably hurting Trump as well. I don't know why PPP didn't poll a two-way race this time.

So yeah, Trump should win SC in the end, but this is still a terrible poll for him, obviously.

Did I call it a junk poll? No.

I stated the obvious, that this poll should be labeled PPP (D). It was freaking commissioned by the Democrat Party for crying out loud. This is NOT a normal PPP poll. It's called intellectual honesty.

If I posted this and it was commissioned by the Republicans or even a Republican-leaning advocacy group, it would be PPP (R).

[Seriously?]

Trump supporters have resorted to parsing polls that show him barely up in South Carolina. Sad!

Seriously's utter despair is oozing through my screen.

Ummmm. No.... It's the utter stupidity of some of the avatars on here not to recognize the methodological difference here and to admit that it's an advocacy poll. I believe in full disclosure. Most of you red avatars prefer hackery.

Trump leads in a red state with a worst-case scenario poll commissioned by the Democrats. Why exactly should I be concerned?

[Seriously?]

I'm sure Trump supporters are just as skeptical of polls showing a tight race in Safe D states like OR, CT, ME, and NV.

With the exception of NV, which is a legitimate swing state, I am. Go check my posting history and try again.

[Seriously?]

lol Seriously?'s response to a joke Republican firm - LET'S USE ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION

Seriously?'s response to a firm who general record is pretty good - LOL DEMOCRAT HACKS.

then again, i'm sure he believed the fake breitbart polls in WI-1.

You are seriously taking what I said out of context in BOTH scenarios, where i have clearly stated to take both polls with a grain of salt given the sourcing.

A PPP Poll of registered voters for the Democrats will not end up with the same numbers as a PPP Poll of likely voters done by themselves. It's obvious common sense.

[Seriously?]

Margins Spread • Georgia vs. South Carolina
• 2004: 0.48
• 2008: 3.78
• 2012: 2.67

Average 2.31

This SC poll does make sense considering what we have seen out of recent Georgia polls...

I thought the main argument as to why SC would not be competitive anytime soon had to do with a relatively inelastic electorate, where more liberal Northern Coastal transplants are offset by "country club" Republican types, frequently from other Southern states.

What % of the White vote would Hillary have to garner in SC to potentially flip the state?

Right now this poll indicates she is at 20% and a significant number of undecided White voters, that typically break Republican closer to election day (Although 2016 might be an exception).

Not implausible, but remember: South Carolina was very good for Trump in the primaries. He won just about every county except for Columbia and Charleston on the coast and took every delegate.

There's little reason to think that against that backdrop, the country-club types will defect en masse, except in Columbia. While there are still some traditional Southern country club-types in Charleston, there's also a good amount of military and retired military.

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Trump lost almost two thirds of Republicans in South Carolina.

In a field of 12 or so at the time. He still won with a pretty comfortable plurality. Even Jeb! was still in the race.

Trump did a lot better in the traditional country-club counties than Newt did the previous cycle.

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Newt won the exact same counties that Trump won, plus Newt won 42 percent of the South Carolina vote.

You've convinced me that Newt > Trump.

Newt had three challengers. Trump had six. Do the math on how the vote gets split.

[Seriously?]

There's another explanation, one that many of us have ignored: that Donald Trump is simply an awful  candidate for President. He's losing voters who ordinarily vote Republican, and the polls are beginning to show that.

Does the Sough Carolina Democratic Party want an objective poll or does it want to be told what it wants to believe?

Good question.

On this note, I'm wondering if (given they're shifting to likely voters now) we could be seeing the effects of reduced Republican turnout.

Do you know why I think the Democrats didn't want an "objective poll" here?

They went with Registered Voters instead of Likely Voters. PPP generally does Likely Voter polls. That departure raised an alarm with me.