Poll: Huckabee Has Commanding Lead In South Carolina

Comments (26)

Believe in Huck wrote on December 10, 2007 6:05 PM:

Huck is the man.

We don't need a Mormon whos father embraced a racist religion.
Imagine if we never turned away from out fathers beliefs.
Where would we be - Imagine.
Romney is a puppet of his fathers beliefs.

aretino wrote on December 10, 2007 6:18 PM:

This poll is a month old

Joe wrote on December 10, 2007 6:19 PM:

This is flat out weird...the interviews were done a month ago (Nov 9-11) and Huckabee was in the lead? By 11?

What are all these pollsters drinking?

bnb wrote on December 10, 2007 6:19 PM:

Since the theft of the 2000 and 2004 elections, do you think a discussion of election theft BEFORE 2008 might be warranted?

Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 6:21 PM:

I think that this may evidence the long awaited demise of the mitt the flip campaign. It's starting to look more and more like its going to be the huckster. Or, interestingly, I can't remember if I heard it on the radio or I saw a post about it, so I don't want to take credit for the idea. Since the republican field by and large doesn't evidence a candidate with the "beliefs" of the republican party, the republicans may be headed to a brokered convention. None of the candidates could come up with enough votes and someone in the wings might wind up with the nomination. That would be interesting.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 6:22 PM:

SurveyUSA has a new poll on the Republican side out. See here:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

For some reason Eric linked to a month-old SurveyUSA poll instead, and then reported the Democratic numbers from that poll.

DonnaG wrote on December 10, 2007 6:28 PM:

Hey, real slick Eric, especially putting this old Dem poll also on the poll tracker with the wrong date.

The SurveyUSA poll was done 12-7 to 12-9 for only the Republican race.....but the numbers for the Democratic race are from an earlier SurveyUSA poll done in South Carolina a full month ago 11-9 to 11-11.

The Insider Advantage poll was done 12-8 to 12-9.

So, while the month old SurveyUSA poll from early November had Clinton 47, Obama 33, Edwards 10---the newer Insider Advantage poll of early December has Obama 28, Clinton 22, Edwards 14.

Please do an update and a change of date on the poll tracker to be accurate. Thanks.

elizm wrote on December 10, 2007 6:34 PM:

Who the hell posts these polls here? No freaking wonder the SurveyUSA poll you link is in contrast to the new InsiderAdvantage poll out today....THe SurveyUSA poll is from NOVEMBER 13th!!!!!!!!!!!

Jim J wrote on December 10, 2007 6:39 PM:

Who's running the show here? How hard can it be to post the correct polls?

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 6:43 PM:

I honestly don't know why everyone else at TPM tolerates these antics from Kleefeld.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 6:50 PM:

By the way, both the RCP and pollster blogs simultaneously published the recent CNN results on both sides.

TPMEC? Not so much.

elizm wrote on December 10, 2007 6:50 PM:

I don't know why Eric still has a job. He gives TPM a bad name. This was deliberate. He posted the new poll showing Obama taking the lead in SC at 5:00 then makes another post at 6:00 with false information from a month old poll to negate the 5:00 post. He should be fired.

correctnotright wrote on December 10, 2007 6:52 PM:

we can only hope that Huckabee is the republican nominee. Huck has so many skeletons in his closet and seems so unaware of foreign policy, he is starting to make Bush look smart.

Huck's coup de grace is the Wayne Dumond pardon and his pathetic "answers" about it. He is lying through his teeth and even he knows it.

He started the conversation with the parole board to pardon dumond. He wrote to dumond and said that he should be freed. To claim that the parole board did it - when he initiated the conversation - is just more lies.

He ignored the pleas of the victims and let a convicted rapist free to kill again. Poor judgement and a cover-up make him unfit to be president.

DRinOH wrote on December 10, 2007 7:06 PM:

Eric,

Surely they could use some help at Clinton HQ. Save us all the trouble and send them a resume...

Maxwell wrote on December 10, 2007 7:08 PM:

Even beyond the fact that this Survey USA poll is one month old, which is indeed suspicious, or at least speaks to some incompetence on Eric's part...look at the ridiculous likely voter model:

62% women 38% men

Is there any precedent to suggest that primary voter turnout in South Carolina has a gender imbalance almost 2:1 ?

If you readjust those numbers to something like parity, you'll find that even a month ago, the Clinton-Obama gap was in single digits.

DonnaG wrote on December 10, 2007 7:45 PM:

Thanks, Eric or whomever at EC did the corrections above and on the poll tracker.

DTM wrote on December 10, 2007 7:56 PM:

As DonnaG said, thank you for the correction.

john mccutchen wrote on December 10, 2007 8:03 PM:

I Told You SO Weeks Ago

The inevitability campaign is OVER and Camp Clinton is in a panic. Weeks ago I said that the mounting blunders revealed a poll driven panic

Penn's internals are in the crapper and I told you so
Feel their fear and feed it

Let's be rid of her and her TPMEC choirboys

Albert Hunt: Hillary's Campaign Tense As Inevitability Fades

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/10/hillarys-campaign-tense-_n_76107.html

DRinOH wrote on December 10, 2007 8:13 PM:

I'll tell you something else, Eric putting those numbers up was no accident. Who among us, even Hillary supporters, at this stage in the game, would see a poll with Hillary up by 15 points in any of the early states and not think something was suspicious.

elizm wrote on December 10, 2007 8:30 PM:

I don't believe it was an accident either. At the very least Eric could show up and admit his 'mistake'. Before he took down the deceptive poll numbers he made the comment that perhaps the InsiderAdvantage poll showing Obama in the lead was on outlier. Does he think we are idiots?

JoshA wrote on December 10, 2007 9:00 PM:

Good golly. There's a correction to the post, guys, what do you want?

I think its a bit much to basically say he's either incompetent or in a pro-Hillary plot.

Northlite wrote on December 10, 2007 9:22 PM:

Stop pickin' on Eric. There was a technical problem. He or somebody fixed it. Unless its a habit, get off his case please. TPM and Co. are among the best.

I spend a fair amount of time reading the Repub political news and blogs(opposition research and subversive activity!) as well as plenty of time reading Huff, Salon, Slate, etc. The same blame the media, fervid claims of secret or and not so secret reportorial bias are a constant. At Politico, the Rombots accuse Jonathan Martin of being pro somebody Huck while the pro Huck folks think he's biased towards Rudy. Yesterday Stumper had a rather insightful but unflattering portrait of Mitt being questioned by reporters. The accusations of anti-R, anti-Mitt, anti-Mormon, and anti-religious bias were flying in the writer's direction. A few weeks ago, the writer, I now remember his name, Andrew Romano I think, had a similarly cutting story about Hillary with similar letters claiming his bias was....I sent him an email, something I heard Steven Kinzer say years ago: When both the right and left hate you, you know you're doing a good job.

So, unless yas' wanna be sleepin' wit da fishes tonight, leave Eric the f alone! and focus on the campaigns and the issues and the joyous muck. We are obviously in the golden age of muck--Enjoy! Thanks be to Jesus!

Sorry for the little rant.

NB wrote on December 10, 2007 9:34 PM:

I've contriburted to Obama, and ampretty rabidly anti-Hillary -- I mean, I'd almost rather have Mitt Romney as president, which is saying something. Nonetheless, I can't say I've noticed any bias on TPM's part to speak of. I'd vote for giving Eric a break as well.

DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 3:16 AM:

The problem is that this is far from the first time that something like this has happened.

Eric has a long history of spinning poll results, posting some polls while not posting other similar polls, selectively reporting numbers from polls, and so on. When he does those things, the results almost always favor one particular candidate. I suppose it is possible that Eric is somehow unaware of what he is doing as he does it, but the overall pattern is unmistakeable.

The good news is that the regular commentators here are so familiar with Eric's antics that they almost immediately double check whatever he does, as happened in this case. Many times what he has done has remained uncorrected outside of the comments, but I guess in this case what Eric did was so outrageous that TPM felt a correction was necessary.

At this point I have long since given up hope that Eric will change his ways. But as this episode in fact shows, it would be a very bad idea for the commentators to stop scrutinizing everything Eric does.

liz wrote on December 11, 2007 5:59 AM:

It's mighty strange that the only signs we see in South Carolina say RON PAUL>

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 11, 2007 9:07 AM:

Isn't it time for Huckleberry's rising star to become a meteoric fall?

Tancredo '08!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)