SUSA South Carolina: McCain up double-digits in obviously racist state

[ChrisFromNJ]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Rowan]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats what I said you moron.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats what I said you moron.

So why can't there be a 4 point swing towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008?

Having fun spinning yourself in circles yet?

[Rowan]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats what I said you moron.

So why can't there be a 4 point swing towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008?

Having fun spinning yourself in circles yet?

Do you know how to read? Thats what I said for Christ's sake. And here is my quote: "Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4."

I said yes they MIGHT have a party ID of D+4 this year. But its doubtful based on history.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats what I said you moron.

So why can't there be a 4 point swing towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008?

Having fun spinning yourself in circles yet?

Do you know how to read? Thats what I said for Christ's sake. And here is my quote: "Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4."

I said yes they MIGHT have a party ID of D+4 this year. But its doubtful based on history.

This is what you said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were implying that this year's party ID results would be similar to 2004's, rather than the D+4 average you are now talking about.

You're such a hack.

[??????????]

quit the quote line.

[Rowan]

Yes exactly. Who votes is most important. Thats why most party ID's of these polls this year are terribly off. Change them to 2004 exit polls party ID and then you get McCain lead.

Party identification will not be the same as was it in 2004. For a better comparision, look at 1992 or 1996.

Says who? You? I don't think so. Since 1980 there has never been a shift of more than 3 points in the party ID. So you can believe that there will be, but I'll go with history instead.

You're not a very good liar.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html - 4 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/1998/states/CA/polls/CA92PH.html - 5 here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html - 4 here

I don't understand your point. You just showed me that the party ID didn't change which is my whole point.

I just showed you that party ID isn't always the same for each party every election.

Huh? You showed me that both 1996 and 2000 were both D 39- R 35. Looks the same to me.

How come the party ID changed so drastically from 2000 to 2004?

Wouldn't that shoot a hole in your theory that party identification numbers don't change that much over the course of 4 years?

So drastically? It was 2 down for the D's and 2 up for the R's. Thats not drastic. Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4. So yes, any poll with a split greater than that is wrong in my book.

It was a 4 point net swing for the Republicans from 2000 to 2004.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Thats what I said you moron.

So why can't there be a 4 point swing towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008?

Having fun spinning yourself in circles yet?

Do you know how to read? Thats what I said for Christ's sake. And here is my quote: "Okay so lets assume we get another 4 point shift this year, the max party ID the D's will have is D +4."

I said yes they MIGHT have a party ID of D+4 this year. But its doubtful based on history.

This is what you said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were implying that this year's party ID results would be similar to 2004's, rather than the D+4 average you are now talking about.

You're such a hack.

I said that because he was saying that if you set the poll to the 2004 exit polls that Obama would be closer.

What my point is, is that if you set all the polls to the 2004 exit polls McCain would lead in the electoral college.

And my other point, is that AT MOST the Dem's will have a 4 point lead in party ID. More likely, it will be less.

[Ronnie]

Nope can't be.  Dick Morris rates this state as tossup.

[Sam Spade]

Nope can't be.  Dick Morris rates this state as tossup.

I hear that Morris rated Arizona as a tossup too.  In other news, I hear toe-sucking may be coming back into style.

[Rowan]

Nope can't be.  Dick Morris rates this state as tossup.

I hear that Morris rated Arizona as a tossup too.  In other news, I hear toe-sucking may be coming back into style.

Coming back? It's already one of ChrisfromNJ's favorite hobbies.

[??????????]

Nope can't be.  Dick Morris rates this state as tossup.

I hear that Morris rated Arizona as a tossup too.  In other news, I hear toe-sucking may be coming back into style.

Coming back? It's already one of ChrisfromNJ's & Politicos favorite hobbies.

Yep

[Tender Branson]

South Carolina will be much closer than that. They are underestimating African-Americans by about 5% (23% -> 28%). Obama @ 25% with Whites would equal about 46% of the vote overall.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

South Carolina will be much closer than that. They are underestimating African-Americans by about 5% (23% -> 28%). Obama @ 25% with Whites would equal about 46% of the vote overall.

Except he will not be outperforming Kerry among whites. Sorry.

[Ebowed]

Nope can't be.  Dick Morris rates this state as tossup.

I hear that Morris rated Arizona as a tossup too.

No, Morris now rates Arizona as lean Obama.

[Tender Branson]

South Carolina will be much closer than that. They are underestimating African-Americans by about 5% (23% -> 28%). Obama @ 25% with Whites would equal about 46% of the vote overall.

Except he will not be outperforming Kerry among whites. Sorry.

Why not ?

Base: Kerry 22%, Bush 78%

Standard national increase from Bush+3 to Obama+6 = 9-point swing.

Applied to SC Whites = 31% for Obama.

Minus 6%-racism = 25% for Obama among SC Whites.

[??????????]

Minus 6%-racism

[Democratic Hawk]

Republican 46% (41%): McCain 89% (94%); Obama 9% (5%)

Democrat 35% (35%): McCain 9% (13%); Obama 88% (86%)

Independent 18% (17%): McCain 56% (61%); Obama 33% (30%)

Conservative 42% (38%): McCain 85% (89%); Obama 13% (10%)

Moderate 31% (34%): McCain 39% (48%); Obama 57% (49%)

Liberal 9% (10%): McCain 17% (21%); Obama 76% (77%)

Top issue - the economy 64% (59%): McCain 53% (55%); Obama 43% (43%)

(denotes SUSA, Sep. 21-23, 2008)

Well, it's slightly moved towards Obama (a 14-point deficit beats a 20-point one). Not bad considering there are, significantly, more Republicans in this survey. Moderates are moving in the right direction, if nothing else

Dave