Zogby's first full three-day sample since Monday night's debate shows that John Edwards is now within 4 points of Hillary Clinton and second place -- inside the poll's margin of error.
Since Zogby's first tracking poll (released on Wednesday), Edwards has climbed from 15% to 21%, erasing six points from Hillary's ten-point lead. According to John Zogby, Edwards' growing support is coming from African American voters and from undecided voters. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has dropped five points, down to 38%
Only a fool would predict what's going to happen on Saturday, but this much is clear: South Carolina has an opportunity to be a part of something big.
According to pollster John Zogby (emphasis added):
The real movement here is by John Edwards, who is the only one who continues to gain ground in our three-day tracking poll. His increase appears to be coming from African American voters who are slowly making up their minds – he is up to 7%.
Whether motivated by a desire to stay in second place, or taking a shot at first place, Hillary did return to South Carolina yesterday. The Zogby poll's internal daily numbers hinted at the possibility of a late surge by Hillary, such as the one that happened in New Hampshire, but with the high margin of error for daily numbers (for example, Edwards has ranged from anywhere from 13% to 27% over the past 4 days), it could just as easily be noise.
The important point is that in just two days, Edwards has climbed six points.
Every vote Edwards wins on Saturday will be hard-earned, and the only thing we can be sure of is that after the squabble in Myrtle Beach, South Carolinians are taking another look at him.
He now seems to have a realistic shot at hitting 20%, which would be a far better performance than I thought possible after the letdown in Las Vegas.
Finishing second, however, would be a freaking earthquake. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible, and it would be huge.
::
Edwards excluded from two new general election polls (LAT/Bloom & NBC/WSJ)
Last night, Keith Olbermann reminded viewers of John Edwards' argument that John McCain is the Republican to beat in November.
Olbermann presented results from two new public opinion surveys -- Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll, the other the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.
Of course, as you would expect, John Edwards was excluded from the general election matchups in both polls.
As this chart shows, the available polling data shows that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat.
Edwards' electability isn't just demonstrated by polling data, however.
It's also the fact that Edwards is the only candidate who has faced a tough general election opponent. He's also the only candidate who has beaten a Republican in a red state. (He beat incumbent Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth in 1998.)
Meanwhile, neither Hillary nor Obama have ever faced a tough general election opponent.
They say they know how to beat Republicans in red states. Edwards has actually done it.
After this week's debate, you don't need polling data to know that John Edwards is the only Democrat ready to take on whoever the Republicans nominate, but it sure would be nice to be able to make apples-to-apples comparisons using fresh polling data.
There is a reason that FOX News has never once -- not one single time -- included Edwards in a general election poll: Rupert Murdoch doesn't want want to let Democrats know that the most progressive candidate in the race is also the most electable.
About half of Democrats say electability is their top priority, yet only six percent think Edwards is the most electable Democrat. By excluding him from polls, the corporate media is deliberately starving the public of useful information.
By the way, can I mention what a refreshing alternative Olbermann is to hacks like Mrs. Alan Greenspan (aka Andrea Mitchell), who this week actually referred to Bill Clinton as the third candidate in the Democratic race. Just imagine if every member of the media were as open-minded as he is.
::
Finishing second would be a political earthquake
As I said above, a second-place finish by Edwards on Saturday would be an absolute political earthquake.
I don't want to raise false hopes or expectations; in fact, I think a second-place finish would be such a big deal in part because I think it is not likely to happen.
It would show that despite what all the pundits believe, you can't count the votes until they are cast.
A second-place finish would allow John Edwards to spend the next two weeks berating the media for having ignored him; he could say that he prevailed despite the media, not because of the media, and he'd be right.
If the media continued to ignore his campaign, they would have no credible explanation for excluding him.
Even if he finishes around 20%, I think he has a strong case to make to the media; but if he finishes second, they have no easy comebacks.
Edwards has won about one-fifth of the votes cast so far (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada), but it seems like he gets about 1% of the attention.
There's a lot of reasons we're all rooting for him to finish second, not the least of which is exposing the media for being the corrupt bastards that they are.
::
Only 36 more hours!
Democrats in South Carolina have an opportunity to make a statement to the country -- let's help them do it!
Make another contribution to the campaign or do some phonebanking.