Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina Paying Off?

by Jonathan Singer, Tue Nov 13, 2007 at 06:22:56 PM EST

According to The Hill, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has tripled its spending in South Carolina as of late. Is such a move paying off? A new SurveyUSA poll out of the Palmetto State suggests that it just might.

CandidateSUSAPollster.comClinton4739.8Obama3323.7Edwards108.1Other5N/AUndecided5N/A11/9-11, 448 D LVs, MoE +/- 4.7%

Note that the poll was worded in such a way that it included the three named Democrats above as well as an option for "other", potentially increasing the share of the vote received by the three named candidates (at least relative to other polling that includes other names). Nevertheless, with Clinton approaching 50 percent and maintaining close to the same margin over Barack Obama that she has in recent weeks (as gauged by the Pollster.com average not including the most recent poll), it seems that her increased spending in South Carolina just might be worth it.

Tags: 2008, Democratic primaries, South Carolina, South Carolina Primary (all tags)

Comments

27 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina

You failed to mention in the last poll taken in S.C. Obama had just 19%.......Now he is at 33%, he has gained the most of ANY candidate. The gospel tours seemed to have paid off.

by allmiview 2007-11-13 06:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina

You're the person who made a diary mocking those who were outraged by the McClurkin incident, weren't you?

I remember the "ha ha ha" you added in your diary.

For true, progressive Democrats, the gospel tour "paying off" doesn't exactly reflect well on our party.

Actually, it doesn't reflect very well that you are in my party.

by FilbertSF 2007-11-13 07:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina

Filbert yes. Obama pitting one constituancy against another was a foolish move and one that progressives deplore. Obama tried attacking Boomers on Friday and the blowback was so great he had to back off. What is with him? If he is a Democrat running in Democratic Primaries why do this? He is getting some bad advice and the fact that he doesn't push back harder against this bad advice means he stands for nothing.

by changingroom 2007-11-13 09:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina

Hillary is creating a GENDER WAR in her attempt to capture the White House that is not good for the country or the party. Your obsession with what a formerly gay gospel singers attitude towards gays is, is silly.

by allmiview 2007-11-14 03:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Clinton's Ramped Up Spending in South Carolina

Has he? Must because because of the rightwing Minister who says being gay is a disease and can be cured. Course hanging with Donnie has cost him the Gay Community and has brought his disapproval ratings up 13%.

by changingroom 2007-11-13 08:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

not really

I think this has to do with SurveyUSA's polling method. They may have pushed more leaners than other pollsters.

The gap between Clinton and Obama has been fairly stable in SC. Race and gender have definitely played a major role in this state. Basically Obama is losing white voters and AA women voters, Edwards is losing black voters. Only Clinton has a very balanced portofolio.

by prisonbreak 2007-11-13 06:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not really

Her continued "spending" via affiliations with the owner of SurveyUSA (Vinod Gupta) is certainly paying off.

Just more of the same media manipulation from the Arkansas mafia.

by PD1769 2007-11-13 07:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not really

Hillary's lead is huge in my state of Nevada -- Is there a Nevada Mafia too? lolol

by changingroom 2007-11-13 09:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not really

Yes despite the Media pushing Obama Hillary's numbers have remained steady.

by changingroom 2007-11-13 08:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

HRC Climbing Everywhere else, Iowa deadlocked

These numbers from South Carolina look good for HRC. Also, it is worth noting that story on an Obama "surge" and Clinton fall are grossly overexaggerated. Here is some data from Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll:

10/30 (the day of the debate)

Clinton 42
Obama 22
Edwards 14

Today (11/13)

Clinton 41
Obama 20
Edwards 16

This is margin of error stuff.

The newest numbers out of NH look solid for Clinton. The CBS Iowa poll is so close, and it looks deadlocked for now. No one is really pulling away.

My point is, much to the consternation of the Obama and Edwards camps nothing has materially changed. These South Carolina numbers are further evidence that, disappointing though it may be to the ilk of Yepsen and Russert, Iowa might just not matter very much.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-11-13 06:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: HRC Climbing Everywhere else, Iowa deadlocked

The media tried so hard to sell Obama. They weren't even subtle. The other night Huffington had a headline saying Hillary Fading. Thank God we Dems aren't as easily manipulated as the Repubs. This same media sold us Bush. So they haven't exactly got a great track record for picking winners.

by changingroom 2007-11-13 09:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

She is at almost 50% in this SC poll, the first poll ever to show that for SC. I guess South Carolinans did not get the memo that Clinton is actually, really, faltering.

by georgep 2007-11-14 03:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

sure!

the biggest problem Obama has in South Carolina is that black people don't think whites will vote for him . The second he wins Iowa all that changes, that's why Obama wisely is not on tv yet in the state, do well with whites in Iowa and NH then hammer his message hom in SVC in the last 2 weeks. 40% of NH voters admit they will be influenced by Iowa votersso the only polls that really matter at this point is Iowa with NH a distant second.

by nevadadem 2007-11-13 07:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

The biggest problem for Obama is Obama. He is an amateur at a time when we need a seasoned pro. African Americans are street smart. They are not going to be sold someone because he is the same color. Although the media has done everything but force feed him to us.

by changingroom 2007-11-13 09:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

the biggest problem Obama has in South Carolina is that black people don't think whites will vote for him .

They are right.

And, don't give me that Iowa song and dance. Iowa makes South Carolina look last a bastion of progressive politics. Two-thirds of Iowans won't vote for the black guy (heck two-thirds of Iowans have probably never even seen a black guy). Two thirds of Iowans won't vote for a woman. And, two thirds of Iowans won't vote for John Edwards because he's so annoying. Hence, a three-way tie that hasn't moved in months. And, in November 2008, Iowa will again go for the good ol' boy white dude Republican who assures them he will take care of "those people".

If the Democratic Party really wanted to "shut some guts", they'd schedule Iowa's caucus for July and move on to some states that aren't tied with Mississippi for being stuck in the 1950s with Ward and June Cleaver.

by hwc 2007-11-13 09:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

You really seem to get off on insulting Iowans for some twisted reason. Two-thirds of Iowans have never seen a black person? Where do you get this crap?

by Steve M 2007-11-13 11:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

I'm disgusted that a Republican state that is 98% lily white and has such an eff'd up caucus system that only 5% of the registered voters show up is able to extort so much money from the Democratic candidates and participate in blackmailing them into writing off 27 electoral college votes in a critical swing state of Florida.

As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party should tell Iowa's 98% lily white voters to go to hell.

by hwc 2007-11-13 11:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

Look at the ridiculous time and money the candidates are spending in Iowa. For what? So 95% of registered Iowa voters can sit at home and not even be bothered to vote? Let's go to a state where people care about politics and where voters are at least semi-representative of the Democratic Party.

It's bad enough that NH is lily white. But, at least they show up and vote in the primary instead of jerking the candidates around for a year and stiffing the entire field on caucus day because they are so apathetic.

by hwc 2007-11-13 11:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

I think you ought to be able to make the case that a different state should be first in line without calling the people of Iowa racist, sexist, backwards, and every other name in the book.

What state do you have in mind that has significantly higher participation rates in its caucuses, by the way? I assume you're going by more than just the apples-oranges comparison between caucuses and primaries.

by Steve M 2007-11-14 05:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

Meanwhile, Floridians are dying to vote for Democratic candidates and the brain dead national party allows Iowa to tell Florida voters the can't see the candidates and their primary votes don't count.

by hwc 2007-11-13 11:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

You still haven't shown a shred of evidence that Howard Dean or the national party had anything to do with the candidates' pledge not to campaign in Florida, but you keep making this assertion in thread after thread.

Interesting how you understand the disadvantage of implying that Florida should kiss off, but you're happy to recommend we send Iowa that message explicitly. This is a state that voted for Gore, you know. Man cannot live by Florida alone.

by Steve M 2007-11-14 05:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

I'm not saying that Howard Dean should orchestrate a ban on campaigning in Iowa. If candidates want to make a big push for Iowa's 7 electoral college votes, knock themselves out.

I'm simply saying that lily-white, unrepresentative Iowa, with an electorate so disinterested that 95% of them don't bother caucusing, should NOT be given a priority position in the nominating order.

The Democrats could far better spend the tens of millions of dollars they waste in Iowa on states that are really representative and important to the Democratic Party coalition. NH is unrepresentative, too...but at least they vote unlike Iowa that jerks these candidates around for a year and then doesn't even bother to vote.

by hwc 2007-11-14 09:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: sure!

Tom Harkin

by the mollusk 2007-11-14 05:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hillary Clinton

I can't wait to replace the President who started the Iraq War with a Senator who merely voted for the Iraq War and strongly supported it for years. What a huge step forward that is!

by Will Graham 2007-11-14 02:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

Clinton has just doubled ad spending in Iowa. If her increased spending in SC is having such a dramatic positive effect on her numbers (she is at almost 50% there now) then her current small lead in Iowa may get larger as a result of increased spending there as well. Obama had outspent Clinton in Iowa by more than 2 to 1 for 2 months now, but that has changed as per latest ad buys.

by georgep 2007-11-14 03:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

1st and 2nd choices matter in Iowa. The fact that Hillary is a DISTANT 3rd in 2nd choice does not bode well for her.

by allmiview 2007-11-14 03:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

You are going to run with ONE poll you have seen on that, the CBS poll? Nice cherry picking there.

The fact that Clinton has big advantages on the big poll questions (i.e. most likely to beat the GOPer in 2008, best on economy, health care, Iraq, etc.) and the fact she leads Obama by a mile amongst the age group most likely to caucus does not bode too well for Obama's chances. Counting on that "cell only" contingent usually does not work out too well.

by georgep 2007-11-14 04:41AM | 0 recs