U.S. Senate, SC GOP Primary poll by SurveyUSA

surveyusa.com ^ | 04/29/04 | surveyusa

[KQQL]

Beasley 38%

Demint 27%

Condon 19%

Ravenel 11%

Other/Undecided 6% Data Collected 4/26/04 - 4/28/04

Geography State of South Carolina

Sample Population 427 Certain GOP Voters

Margin of Error 4.9%

[doosee]

the problem to SC textile industry

The real problem to the American textile industry is Americans like to buy Levis for $19 each instead of $50 each. It is as simple as that but at the same time a lot of workers have been hurt by the economic driven changes. The only solution is - dont work in textiles.

[Kuksool]

In GOP friendly South Carolina, can't we find better candidates than the 3 running?

[Clintonfatigued]

I asked myself that, also. One problem is that every major Republican statewide officeholder was elected to his first term in 2002 and don't want to be accused of neglecting their current duties. I'm not thrilled with the current field, either. Let's just be thankful that South Carolina is a Republican state.

[Kuksool]

Too bad Carol Campbell has health problems. He would have been a fine Senator.

[Red Phillips]

Beasley is a scalawag SOB who bowed down and kissed the feet of the forces of political correctness by removing the Confederate Battle Flag under pressure. Shame on the SC GOP if they nominate that yellow-bellied coward.

[VeritatisSplendor]

No! We got SC wrong, and it was the ONLY state we got wrong in 11/02. We got MO right -- we called it a statistical tie (Carnahan 49-47) and it was a tie (Talent 50-49). Given the tendency of undecideds to break against the incumbent, I don't see how we could have done a heck of a lot better. If I could get a 3-point spread error in every election we do, I'd take it, and so would any other pollster! Go here for the details.

[KQQL]

I know all polls, I don't need to go anywhere.
( if Surveyusa wants to hide behind MoE , that's your business)

You folks predicted a Talent loss in MO, and that was in correct.


(Overall you folks did a great job , minus SC and MO)

RESEACH 2000 got MO right and Mason Dixon got SC right.

[KQQL]

SC

Sanford 49% Hodges 42% Mason Dixon 10/28-29 4%
Sanford 46% Hodges 52% Survey USA 11/1-3 3.6%

Sanford 53% Hodges 47% Final Results

SRC:http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2002/polls02.htm#SCGov

---

MO

Talent 50% Carnahan 46% Research 2000 10/28-30 4%
Talent 48% Carnahan 44% The Gallup Poll 10/30-11/2 4%
Talent 47% Carnahan 49% Survey U.S.A. 10/31-11/3 3.3%

Talent 50% Carnahan 49% Millay (L) 1% Final Results
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2002/polls02.htm#MOS1

---

Graham 49% Sanders 48% Survey USA 11/1-3 3.6%
Graham 54% Sanders 44% Adams (C) 1% 1% L Final Results

[KQQL]

Finally, Talent in SurveyUSA poll was always behind and only once tied .

That's all I have to say about MO and SC.......

[VeritatisSplendor]

With all due respect, you're full of baloney about MO.

We SAID that the race was a TIE. We actually used the word "tie". The pollsters you cite had Talent by 4. We had him behind by 2. The actual result was Talent by 1, precisely in between.

Are you going to tell me next we got Pennsylvania wrong because we said it was a tie and Specter actually won by a point or two? By your logic, SurveyUSA was outpolled by Quinnipiac and Keystone in PA because they had the right winner. Sheesh.

And criticizing us for our EARLIER polls, which were superseded by our final one, is just silly. You have no way of knowing what the actual facts were in MO except on election day.

I'm sorry to be so persistent about this, but it is unfair to say that we said Talent would win when we explicitly called the race a "statistical tie". And it is also unfair to suggest that the actual result, which was a 1 point margin, was NOT a "statistical tie".

[KQQL]

First of all you are rude (You said: With all due respect, you're full of baloney ).I didn't call you names and if don't like my opinion, then please don't bother with me.

Anyway, looks like you can't accept that you folks were wrong about MO.( It was very clear to me that Talent will win by 1-3% and Gallup and Research 2000 showed him ahead by 3-4%)

With due respect, I have defended your polling firm here and other places and clearly you folks did a good job except for SC, and somewhat in NC and slightly in MO.

I had informed you ( in Sept/Oct 2002) that your SC poll is off by at least 8% and NC poll by at least by 4%. Now we all know you folks blew big time in SC, and in MO SurveyUSA poll showed talent behind during the race and he was tied only once.
(Survey USA last poll showed him losing by 2% and I don't really care what pollster have to say, since we all know Zogby sauces his comments. For me I let the pollsters numbers speak for them. I consider races tied if they are within 1.3% of each other not 2%)

I have right to my way of looking at polls, and I don't consider it BALONEY !

Are you going to tell me next we got Pennsylvania wrong because we said it was a tie and Specter actually won by a point or two? By your logic, SurveyUSA was outpolled by Quinnipiac and Keystone in PA because they had the right winner. Sheesh

Give me a break , I never said your poll was wrong about PA, I actually congrats you on being the best pollster for PA senate race. Also, I told you I thought Specter would win by at least 5% , because of W and Rick support(He won by 2%) and I direed with your personal not professional opinion that you thought Toomey will win by 4%.

Furthermore, if you want to be petty and make fun of my logic , then I from now on will not respond back or bother with your polls. Good luck abd best wishes too you.

------------

Besides predicting Spectors win, here is rest of my baloney record:

To: All
After what I saw in the USA Today polls....
Here is what I think.
House GOP 229 Dem 205 IND 1
Senate GOP 51 Dem 48 IND 1
GOV 25-25 a tie..

There is a 50% chance LA goes to a runoff.

Zogby is just catching up to Harris /other state polls...

164 posted on 11/04/2002 7:23:34 PM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[KQQL]

direed = disagreed

[VeritatisSplendor]

I apologize for my "strong language", though compared with what we often see on this forum "baloney" is pretty mild. I appreciate the support you have given us, and value your responses.

I'm just upset that you don't recognize that, statistically, calling a race -2 that was +1 is a comparable performance to calling a race +8 that was +11. If Talent had won 55-44 and we said it would be 52-44, that would have been considered pretty good -- but coming within 3 spread points as we actually did wasn't any easier just because the race was extremely close. This point is basic statistical sampling theory.

[KQQL]

I apologize for my "strong language", though compared with what we often see on this forum "baloney" is pretty mild. I appreciate the support you have given us, and value your responses

Your apology is accepted , and I will continue to post your polls and a good debate should be civil w/o calling names.

I am suprised you took to calling me names, when I have since the elcetion of 2002 called you folks the 2nd most reliable pollster in state polls.

I understand stats , but when I call races I don't really care what pollsters have to say, since we all know Zogby sauces his comments and many others do too. For me I let the pollsters numbers speak for them. I consider races tied if they are within +/-1.39% , anything else leans one way or the other.

[BillyBoy]

Red Phillips Disruptor Since Apr 27, 2004