Clinton leads in South Carolina (Clinton 32%, Obama 23%, Edwards 21%)

Polls in SC are giving wildly conflicting results.

Among the likely Democratic voters, Hillary Clinton is on top, with 32 percent. Barack Obama is second with 23 percent and John Edwards has 21 percent.

Clinton is leading Obama among African American females, 41 percent to 29 percent. Obama is leading Clinton among African American males 34 percent to 28 percent. Among all women Clinton receives 38 percent to Edwards' 19 percent and Obama's 22 percent. Clinton has a slight edge on Edwards with white females 35 percent to 33 percent. Edwards has the lead among white males with 45 percent to Obama's 10 percent and Clinton's 10 percent.

That poll was conducted April third and fourth and had a margin of error of 4.9 percent.

The SC Index is done quarterly by groups not affiliated with any of the candidates.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6358431

Another poll has Obama ahead by roughly the same amount Clinton leads him in this poll.

It shows to what point polls are useless at this point except for propaganda reasons.

And 2005. And 2004 (if you believe the offical results).

*Primary* polls are notoriously hard to do because so few people vote in them.

we are heading toward a Nov 08 trainwreck.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3211660

Edwards apparently was not polled against Giuliani in that poll. In virtually every poll he does better than Obama among Republicans. If Obama did 10 points better than HRC against Giuliani in that poll, Edwards would have likely be 12-15 points stronger versus Giuliani.

As I have said before, if we nominate a weak candidate given the overwhelming information we have about her weakness in a general election and knowing that we will likely face a strong Republican candidate in either Giuliani or Thompson we deserve to lose. We might as well nominate Kucinich. At least he stands for something and has an actual message.

comparitively. Quite a bad combination. Here are the latest Ras polls...

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (44%) McCain (44% ) TIED

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Even relatively unknown candidates reach at least 40% against her. In an actual campaign that figure would rise as they became well-known. A real matchup against Hagel, for instance, would be a nailbiter against HRC, even though she leads him fairly comfortably in this poll.

The floor for opposition to Obama is 34% and for Edwards it is 29% in these polls. What does this mean? It suggests 71% of people would at least contemplate voting for Edwards and 66% would do the same with Obama. HRC automatically turns off a lot more people than these two candidates.

I would love to see polling about how our top three do in general election match-ups among independents. That is where the major difference would be revealed. HRC automatically reaches a certain level by virtue of having a "D" next to her name. How many swing voters does she win?

:wow: