worldrunover said:
Why is SC for the dems a given when the same polls had Obama ahead by similar margins in New Hampshire and he lost? Why are we trusting polls again all of a sudden?
Obama's win in New Hampshire and the margin of Romney's win in Nevada are the only two real anomalies in this primary season. Other than those two, average polling data has been accurate within about 5%. Obama's 10.9% swing is the exception, not the rule. Also,
Obama currently has a 12.2% lead in the average polling data, so Hillary would have to pull an even larger swing in order to beat him.
As ridiculous as it sounds, another potentially significant factor in New Hampshire was Hillary's crying incident. Hillary won big among women in New Hampshire after losing the female vote in Iowa. Her tears happened so close to the primary polls were not able to accurately capture their effect. The effect could have been nothing, but a lot of people think those tears were the reason for the swing.
In summary, New Hampshire was the exception, not the rule. According to every reasonable indicator the results of South Carolina are locked up, unless a megaton happens (ex. Hillary's tears.)