Monday, May 31, 2004
OH: Six-Point Bush Lead
Posted by DavidNYCI think I might be a bit late to the party in reporting on this poll, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer offers us some bad news:
Bush: 47
Kerry: 41
Nader: 3
Undecided: 9
(MoE: ��2.6%)
One unusual thing about this poll is the very large sample size (1,500), which yields, of course, a very low MoE. Other than that, I'm not sure what to say. The most recent prior poll by ARG showed Kerry with a lead of this size, while a trio of polls taken back in March showed a much closer race.
A quick side-note: Some people have asked about alternate empirical prediction methods, to contrast with Chris's GECC. David Wissing (who invaluably compiles all the state polling information in one place, as linked above) uses a very simple method: He awards a state's EVs to the winner of the most recent poll in that state, and where polling is unavailable, he uses the 2000 results. Right now, that gives Bush 296 EVs to Kerry's 242. David, by the way, is a Bush supporter - but his methodology, of course, is purely objective.
UPDATE: Brian in the comments points us to the Ohio Democratic Party's response to this poll. It's nice to see such responsiveness on the official level. Back in November, I asked the New York State Democratic Party if they were going to start a blog. I was told to take a hike. So typical. Sigh.
Posted at 04:07 PM in Ohio | Comments (15) | Technorati
MN: Slight Kerry Lead
Posted by DavidNYCIt's been a while since we've seen any polling out of Minnesota, a state which the Bushies allegedly are trying very hard to capture. So the St. Paul Pioneer Press brings some good news (no trendlines, registration required):
Kerry: 44
Bush: 41
Nader: 2
Undecided: 13
(MOE: ��4%)
Bush's approval-dissaproval stands at a dismal 44-56. (But be warned: This poll uses a "poor or fair vs. good or excellent" scheme for computing these figures, so these numbers might be a bit different - and in my guess, a bit more favorable for Bush - if they had asked a simple approve vs. disapprove.) Kerry, meanwhile, has a 43-25 approval-disapproval rating, which suggests that Bush's much-ballyhooed spending spree to drive up Kerry's negatives hasn't really taken hold, at least in MN.
(Thanks to sane democrat.)
Posted at 03:52 PM in Minnesota | Comments (1) | Technorati
Saturday, May 29, 2004
All State Voting Trends
Posted by Chris BowersOn Friday, on a day off, I spent literally the entire day producing this chart that shows the partisan index in every state since 1976 (after clicking the link, you will need to scroll down the page to see the chart). I think it reveals at least two particularly interesting pieces of information.
First, as a commenter in the thread noticed, there in fact does appear to be an ���Emerging Democratic Majority.��� Over the past seven election cycles, states with a combined electoral total of 233 are trending Democrat, while states with a combined electoral total of 188 are trending Republican. It would appear that good times are ahead.
Second, Perot clearly did not cost Bush the 1992 election. The partisan index measures the degree to which a state favors a party relative to the way the rest of the nation favors that party. This being the case, it would follow that if more typically GOP partisans had indeed swung to Perot than had typically Democratic partisans, the 1992 partisan index would reveal and anomalous pro-DNC swing due to a temporarily eroded Republican base.
However, only a handful of states that Clinton won show such trends. Perot definitely seems to have caused Bush to lose Georgia, as the usually double-digit pro-GOP partisan index in that state cratered at +5.0 GOP in 1992. The same goes for Nevada, which relatively favored the GOP by 13.2 in 1988 and 7.5 in 1996, but only by 2.9 in 1992. I���ll grant that without Perot, Bush probably wins both states.
Looking at the chart, however, only Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire and Tennessee are other possible states that Perot swung to Clinton. Still, even if Bush had won all of these states as well as Georgia and Nevada, Clinton swould have won the Electoral College 315-223. Further, there is no conclusive evidence that Perot actually cost Bush any of these other six states:
While Colorado had a PI of GOP +9.9 in 1996, far different from 1992���s PI of GOP +1.4, in 1988 the PI in Colorado was only GOP +0.1. It would appear that Colorado didn���t like Bush I either time he was the GOP nominee.
While Kentucky had a PI of GOP +7.6 in 1996, far different from 1992���s GOP +2.5, in 1984 Kentucky also had a PI of GOP +2.5. In 1988, Kentucky���s index was GOP +3.9.
Maine? Don���t even think about Maine. Bush finished third in every single county in Maine in 1992. If anything, Bush cost Perot Maine in 1992.
While Montana had an index of GOP +11.4 in 1996, far different from 1992���s GOP +3.1, in 1988 Montana actually was actually DNC +1.9. Like Kentucky, their pro-GOP swing did not seem to start in full-force until the 1996 cycle.
While New Hampshire���s 1988 index of +18.4 GOP in 1988 is shockingly different than 1992���s GOP +4.3, in 1996 the partisan index in NH was DNC +1.3. By 1992, New Hampshire was trending Democratic anyway.
Tennessee definitely cratered for the GOP in 1992, but having then Senator Gore, who at the time ws still a "real Southerner" on the ticket might just as well have been the cause for the pro-DNC swing as Perot.
Of course, like I already noted, even if I am wrong about all of these states, that means Clinton would still have won 315-223. No other state shows evidence of Perot costing Bush victory. Perot did not cost Bush the 1992 election--not even close. That is one popular myth that can be put to bed.
Posted at 06:38 PM in General | Comments (12) | Technorati
Friday, May 28, 2004
Quick Poll Roundup: AZ, IA, PA
Posted by DavidNYCArizona, ASU/KAET-TV (4/23 - 4/26 in parens):
Kerry: 38 (38)
Bush: 43 (41)
Nader: 2 (3)
Undecided: 17 (18)
(MoE: ��5.1%)
What minor moves there are here are all well within the MoE. However, Bush's overall approval rating stayed the same at 48-47. The last poll on that front was taken all the way back in February, so it seems like all the bad news for the Bushies hasn't hurt him much in this state. The big number of undecideds could wind up tilting our way, though. (CW says that undecideds break for the challenger in the end.)
Iowa, Research 2000 for KCCI-TV (January in parens):
Kerry: 48 (42)
Bush: 43 (49)
Undecided: 9 (9)
Kerry: 46
Bush: 42
Nader: 3
Undecided: 9
(MoE: ��4%)
No trendlines when the poll includes Nader. We should definitely win here.
Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac (mid-April in parens):
Kerry: 45 (42)
Bush: 42 (46)
Undecided: 9 (7)
Kerry: 44 (39)
Bush: 41 (45)
Nader: 6 (8)
Undecided: 9 (8)
(MoE: ��3.7%)
Definitely looking a lot better than last time around, but I think we still need to fight hard here.
Posted at 02:05 AM in Arizona, Iowa, Pennsylvania | Comments (4) | Technorati
Kerry's Ad Buy is Working
Posted by DavidNYCChris Bowers, guest-poster around these parts & brain behind the GECC, also has a regular gig over at the great grand-daddy of many liberal blogs, Jerome Armstrong's MyDD. Go read what he has to say about Kerry's big ad buy.
To make a short story even shorter: Kerry's favorable-unfavorable ratings in the 20 battleground states (that includes CO and LA, if you're counting) stood at 36-35 in late April, before his ads went up. By mid-May, according to UPenn's Annenberg poll, that spread jumped to 44-32. (With an MoE of 3%.) Over a similar time period, Bush moved from 48-38 to 44-44. So Kerry goes from +1 to +12, while Bush shrinks from +10 to 0. Wow.
I've long believed that this race would be decided very narrowly. I think I'm coming around to the Bowers view that we might just crush the crap out of these SOBs.
Posted at 01:17 AM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Difficulty Posting Comments? Read This
Posted by DavidNYCIn an effort to stop comment-based spam, TypePad (the host of this site) has instituted a new set of blocks on the comment features. If you get an error message saying the system won't allow you to post, scroll down and look for an image similar to this one:
By entering the text of the image in a separate box, the system will allow your comment to be posted. (This works because computers are unable to understand the image - known as a "captcha" - but humans can figure it out easily.) I'm sorry for the added inconvenience - this new system was installed by TypePad, not by me. But hopefully it will keep spammers from swarming the message boards - a very important part of this site.
If you run into any problems, please let me know.
P.S. If you aren't getting any error messages or seeing any funky text images like the one above, that's a good sign - it means you are in the clear. Only certain computers (those with allegedly "unsafe" settings, the kind that spammers can exploit) are being hit by this blocker.
Posted at 04:50 PM in Site News | Comments (2) | Technorati
Purple People Watch
Posted by DavidNYCThere's a new Purple People Watch column up at TAP. The PPW is the only other place I've seen so far (apart from this ol' site) that's dorky enough to say about Maine: "It's less a battleground state than a battleground congressional district." (Thanks to Maine's unusual process for awarding electoral votes.) I'd love to see some more polling from ME - the last one, taken ages ago, gave Kerry a huge lead - but my instincts tell me it's not seriously in play.
In Missouri, Kerry's finally appointed a campaign chief - but, oddly, he won't start work until mid-June. The bad news is that Bush has had someone in place for half a year. The good news (I guess) is that Kerry's setting up shop in MO before Gore and Clinton did.
And following up on a previous item, Kerry did raise the issue of Yucca Mountain on a trip to Nevada back on May 17th. I hope he starts airing ads on the subject, because Nevadans seem to be hopping mad at Bush on this topic - the Las Vegas Sun uses the verboten "L-word" and outright calls Bush a liar for backing down on his promise to halt the project.
Posted at 04:31 PM in General, Maine, Missouri, Nevada | Comments (1) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, May 27
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.3 (52.0)
Bush: 47.7 (48.0)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 327 (245 solid, 82 lean)
Bush: 211 (133 solid, 78 lean)
States Changing Hands: FL, MO, NH, NV, OH
I���m an artist (make sure you agree to display "non-secure items" to see the map):
Dark Red is Solid Kerry (by more than 7)
Light Red is Lean Kerry (by less than 7)
Light Blue is Lean Bush (by less than 7)
Dark Blue is solid Bush (by more than 7)
I think Dems should be red, and Repubs should be blue. But that's just me.
Posted at 03:38 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (7) | Technorati
Monday, May 24, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 24
Posted by Chris Bowers(5/23 numbers in parenthesis)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.0 (51.9)
Bush: 48.0 (48.1)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 320 (311)
Bush: 218 (227)
States Changing hands: Bush wins IA, Kerry wins FL, MO, NH, NV and OH
I���m going to step out of myself for a moment and go ahead and call the election for Kerry. I will continue these projections, and I could end up looking like an idiot, but I really believe all evidence points to a huge victory for Kerry.
Posted at 10:35 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (10) | Technorati
At Long Last
Posted by DavidNYCI finally really, really, really am done with the first year of law school - I just Fedexed my damn casenote for the damn journal write-on competition. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, consider yourself blessed.) What a nightmare: You finish final exams (which are hellish enough) only to have to suffer through yet another writing exercise - all for the privilege of spending your 2L year correcting footnotes in law journal articles.
My advice, which I think I've given before: Don't start a blog your 1L year. Alternately, do start a blog - you're going to need to procrastinate somehow.
Anyhow, Kos has a post up detailing Zogby's "battleground" poll. It looks interesting (and good for us, to boot). The only problem is, it's being conducted on the Internet. No one seems entirely clear about the precise methodology, but I have to assume it's a little more rigorous and controlled than your average AOL poll - after all, Zogby does have a rep to protect. If it turns out to be a serious poll, maybe then I'll take a closer look.
For now, though, I'm just gonna chill. Where's that beer?
Posted at 08:23 PM in General | Comments (3) | Technorati
Sunday, May 23, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 23
Posted by Chris Bowers(May 19 Results in Parenthesis, cross-posted at MyDD)
National Two-Party Vote Popular Projection
Kerry: 51.9 (52.4)
Bush: 48.1 (47.6)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection:
Kerry: 311 (337)
Bush: 227 (201)
States Changing Hands: FL, NH, OH
Bush is closing the gap. The race is now teetering on a return to ���too close to call.���
Since I have been asked several times, here is a description of how I project states this far from the election. I do not always trudge through the entire process, as it is very lengthy. If the ���assumed��� standing in the state leaves me confident one candidate or the other is ahead, I stop right there and get on with my life (which, this afternoon, includes seeing Howard Dean!).
--Using the national two-party vote projection along with the partisan index projection, first calculate the ���assumed��� standing in the state. For example, the current national two-party vote projection is +3.8 for Kerry. The partisan index for New Hampshire is +1.8 GOP. This makes New Hampshire an ���assumed��� +2.0 Kerry.
--Assemble all of the post-Super Tuesday trial heats, job ratings and not-unfavorable numbers for the state:
(Kerry-Bush)
ARG Trial (43-48)
ARG Job (34-46)
ARG Unfav (53-53)
Ras Trial (47-45)
UNH Trial (49-45)
UNH Unfav (59-54)
--Calculate the central mean of all these numbers, including the ���assumed��� standings (Kerry 51-49 Bush). For every different polling firm being used, include the assumed standings once. In New Hampshire, with three different post-Super Tuesday polling firms, include the assumed standings three times. In order to balance the calculation, translate every poll number into a 100.00 scale before the calculation.
--Viola! The state is projected:
Kerry: 50.4
Bush: 49.6
--In a situation such as this where the state is ���too close to call,��� I will go ahead and call it for the candidate who is currently ahead as long as the long-term voting trends do not go against that candidate. In this case, New Hampshire has been strongly trending Democrat for sometime now, and so I feel confident in projecting the state for Kerry.
Posted at 02:49 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (6) | Technorati
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Crunching the Numbers on Jersey
Posted by DavidNYCRecently, there's been some hand-wringing about the closeness of some trial-heat polls in NJ. I maintained that Jersey is not a swing state, and I still do. Chris, writing over at MyDD, actually crunches the numbers and comes to the same conclusion.
Looking at the neglected step-child of polling stats - approval/disapproval ratings - Chris observes that Bush is strongly disliked. His only shot in NJ is to pump up Kerry's disapproval rating, but given the Bush campaign's current financial straits, it seems unlikely that they can afford to stay on the air in NJ. And hence, NJ is going to stay in our hands.
Posted at 08:00 PM in Safe States | Comments (1) | Technorati
Friday, May 21, 2004
NM: Bush Surrogates Visit Early & Often
Posted by DavidNYCOne reason - the main reason? - so many people want to see John Kerry pick his VP as soon as possible is so that we can have an effective, top-level surrogate to respond to the Bush team's nasty attacks, while letting Kerry keep his hands clean. Another almost-as-important reason is that it essentially lets Kerry be two places at once: A visit to a state by a VP nominee is nearly as good (in terms of the message you send to that state's voters & the local media coverage you get) as a visit by Kerry himself.
This is actually more important for Kerry than for Bush because Kerry doesn't have an armful of cabinet secretaries he can send shuttling around the country - he really needs his running mate to be his main surrogate. And so far, in the surrogate race, Bush is actually doing a very good job. Check out this list of GOP "luminaries" that have visited New Mexico:
In the past few months, the president has been to New Mexico twice, as has Vice President Dick Cheney. Others in the parade:�Ģ Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, Santa Fe Tuesday.
�Ģ Former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, in Albuquerque earlier this month.
�Ģ U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige last month.
�Ģ Mark Racicot, chairman of the Bush re-election effort, twice.
�Ģ Former President George Bush in January.
Kerry's been to NM twice himself, but hasn't really sent any surrogates. We do, of course, have the best guy in New Mexico on our team, Bill Richardson, but he's apparently heavily involved in national efforts and thus isn't spending as much time at home as he otherwise might.
I do also think Kerry has a pretty good cast of other potential surrogates who are capable of garnerning media attention. Howard Dean, of course, comes to mind first. But Al Gore gets automatic attention as well. I also have to imagine that people like John Edwards, Bill Bradley, and hell, Eliot Spitzer ought to be able to make an impact. And if Dubya can trot out his dad, surely Jimmy Carter can go build a few houses in some swing states. (We gotta be able to do better than "former U.S. treasurer" - man, that's lame. Do you even know who the current one is?)
I grant that it's hard, no matter what, for the Kerry campaign to draw in much political oxygen, especially with all the disastrous news that's been pouring out almost daily for the Bush administration. But the article I linked to isn't some roundup from Newsweek - it's by a local reporter writing in the Albuquerque Tribune, ie, someone who's best situated to keep an accurate count. Even the Kerry campaign acknowledges that they've been slow to deploy their surrogates, though they are promising a "flood" shortly.
Keeping up my "office watch," there apparently is no Kerry office in NM yet. If any New Mexican readers learn of an office opening, I'd be grateful if you could let me know. On the flipside, the "Contact Us" page on the Kerry site now lists their Columbus, OH headquarters.
Posted at 12:48 AM in New Mexico | Comments (6) | Technorati
Where Should You Volunteer?
Posted by DavidNYCI recently had an interesting discussion with a reader (via e-mail) who wanted advice on where she should move in order to make the biggest impact in the presidential election as a volunteer. I imagine that this question might be of interest to other folks who are considering moving & devoting their time to helping the Democrats. Anyhow, my suggestion was pretty straightforward: Pick one of the closest and most important swing states (eg, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, etc.) and head there.
As it turns out, a diarist at DailyKos has actually tried to quantify this question - ie, where can your volunteering deliver the most bang for the buck. Based on a metric (explained in the post) that he/she calls the "vote multiplier," globecanvas determined that New Mexico is the best place to go, followed by IA, OR, WI and NH, in that order.
Of course, the methodology is far from perfect. It relies heavily on the author's predicted margins of victory and also doesn't take down-ticket races into account. But globecanvas acknowledges that this list is just a starting point for discussion - and an interesting one at that, I think.
On a related note, I would advise anyone who is considering moving to a new state & volunteering to consider the culture of the place you want to move to. As many of you may recall, there were reports that at least some Iowans grew to resent the "invasion" of (over-)zealous young volunteers during the primary campaign. So naturally, you might find it easier to fit in in some places rather than others - and you'll probably be able to do more good (and be happier, to boot) in a place where you're more comfortable.
(Via a commenter at MyDD.)
Posted at 12:15 AM in Activism | Comments (5) | Technorati
Thursday, May 20, 2004
TAP's "Purple People Watch"
Posted by DavidNYCOkay, so, the name's a little goofy, but The American Prospect has just launched a new weekly roundup of swing state news, called the "Purple People Watch." (In case you were wondering, some people refer to the swing states as "purple" - ie, a combination of red and blue.)
This week, they have tidbits on AZ, AR, FL, MI, MO, OH and OR. I like the quick-hit roundup format - it's what I aspire to do here, when I'm not busy working on longer pieces. Go check it out - it's very well-done - and watch John Kerry do his best Howard Dean rendition down in Arkansas:
While in the state, Kerry also fought for his own bragging rights on guns. "I'm a gun owner and a hunter," he said during his visit. "I've hunted since I was 12 years old. I still hunt. I've gone out on deer hunts. I used to hunt woodchuck as a kid, or squirrel or crow or whatever. I used to shoot birds. I still do."
Born on a military base in Colorado, heroic Vietnam service, likes to hunt. Hmm, maybe Kerry actually can shed the "Massachusetts liberal" label - if he can define himself before Team Bush does.
Posted at 04:13 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
ARG: Tie in Florida
Posted by DavidNYCARG's new numbers show that Florida looks like, well, Florida:
Without:
Bush: 47
Kerry: 47
Undecided: 6
And with (April numbers in parens):
Bush: 47 (46)
Kerry: 46 (45)
Nader: 3 (3)
Undecided: 4 (6)
(MOE: ��4%)
You've probably already seen the NYT main-pager about Kerry wooing Nader. So maybe the "without" numbers are what we'll soon be focusing on, with any luck.
(Thanks to Paleo, who seems to get updates on polls before even Polling Report does.)
UPDATE: Noam Scheiber adds his two cents on the Kerry-Nader summit, calling it a good move on Kerry's part.
Posted at 11:21 AM in Florida | Technorati
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 19
Posted by Chris Bowers(May 17 results in parenthesis)
National Two-Party Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.4 (52.9)
Bush: 47.6 (47.1)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 337 (348)
Bush: 201 (190)
States changing hands: AZ, FL, MO, NH, NV and OH
The new Christian Science Monitor / Investor���s Business Daily poll, combined with the new Rasmussen approval ratings, have allowed Bush to close the gap on Kerry. However, from what I can tell, Kerry still holds a lead outside of the margin or error.
Here are all twelve data points used in the national two-party popular vote projection:
The Four Most recent Bush-Kerry-Nader trial heats: TechnoMetrica, Princeton, Harris, and Zogby
The Four Most Recent Bush Approval Ratings: Princeton, Harris, Zogby and Rasmussen
The Four Most Recent Bush and Kerry Unfavorable Ratings: Harris, Zogby, Opinion Dynamics, and Hart / Teeter
Right now, the number of data points is flexible. However, I am considering fixing the number of data points at the five for each category, simply because the ���five poll moving average��� seems widely accepted in popular political discourse. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Posted at 08:13 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (1) | Technorati
Kerry in the West
Posted by DavidNYCRalph (of the semi-eponymous MakesMeRalph) takes a look at Kerry in the Western and Southwestern swing states. One reason to think we'll do better in this region than last time: Al Gore essentially wrote off much of the West in 2000. Kerry's given every indication (so far) that he plans to compete out there. (The recent Colorado ad buy is one sign.) Given Kerry's vastly superior financial situation (compared to Gore's), I really do think we can be competitive across a wide swatch of the country. Even if we don't win states like CO, just by showing up there, we force Bush to divert resources from places like Ohio.
Posted at 08:04 PM in General | Technorati
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Theresa Heinz-Kerry
Posted by FesterI am not worried about Pennsylvania going red this election. Kerry will need to run a quasi-competent campaign to win the Commonwealth, but that is as close to a given as Secretariat was to win the Triple Crown. I could offer you some basic reasons such as the overall economic profile of the state has been poor, or that the Democratic Party led by Gov. Rendell has its act together, or as an extension of that, SW PA Democrats led by Onorato have been able to squelch the Roddey led GOP money machine down here. Or I could offer you the thesis that the radical right has overreached and that the Toomey voting base is willing to throw a temper tantrum in November. These are all good reasons to believe that Pennsylvania should be a blue state this year. However the primary reason is John Kerry's wife; Theresa HEINZ Kerry.
Theresa is golden in SW PA which is the swing region of the state. But before I explain why, I must disclose that I work at an organization that will soon be applying for significant Heinz Endowment Funds, I went to grad school at the Heinz School for Public Policy, and I occassionally go to the Symphony at Heinz Hall and the history musuem at the Heinz Regional History Center.
Theresa has massive credibility with the people of Southwestern Pennsylvania because she has stuck with the region through the thick and the thin. After her first husband died in a tragic helicopter crash, she could have left the region, but she stayed and entrenched herself as a Pittsburgher, one of the few new migrants to stick with the region. Her efforts in philanthropy have made the Heinz Endowments one of the most effective regional foundations in the country. She has made it a philosophy to get results with foundation money and she has achieved results in community development, education and now real estate development with the Hazelwood Works project. Healthcare and environmental education have also been a significant priority for the Heinz Endowments over the past fifteen years.
She has the credibility to make changes because she has made changes. She was for a long time, a moderate Republican and one of the two or three most powerful Republican women in the state. She switched becasue her husband was running for the Democratic nomination AND the Republican Party of John Heinz III is no longer a continuing entity. The Heinz Endowment was also willing to pull funding from the failing Pittsburgh public schools and then in conjunction with the other major foundations create solutions that the school system could use to improve the educational experience of the children involved. She has the credibility to propose change because she has the history of making successful change.
Finally, I have had the pleasure of listening to her speak publicly numerous times, and she is an enjoyable person to listen to. Her accent is distinct but not disturbing, while her words burn with both passion and intelligence. If John Kerry sets his wife out to do what she would do anyways; find ways to speak her mind and her passions, Southwestern Pennsylvania will follow her to the ballot box.
Posted at 10:18 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (32) | Technorati
Monday, May 17, 2004
In Transit
Posted by DavidNYCI just moved back up from DC to NYC last night - an exhausting trip. I'm still settling in here (and working on my law school's journal writing competition), so updates may be a bit infrequent over the next week or so. But keep checking back for Chris's General Election Cattle Call.
Posted at 05:32 PM in Site News | Technorati
Sunday, May 16, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 16
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.74
Bush: 47.26
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 316
Bush: 159
Too Close to Call: 63 (AZ, AR, CO, LA, MO, VA and WV)
States Changing Hands: FL, NH, NV and OH
Now, some people may object to the states I have either projected for Kerry or listed as "too close to call." They may point out that recent polls from Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Oregon, and West Virginia actually show Bush leading Kerry by a few points. While I am aware of these polls, I need to point out that my state-by-state projections are based on a variety of indicators, including the national two-party vote projection, the partisan index for each state, recent state trial heats, long term-state voting trends, state-by-state approval ratings and state-by-state negatives. All of these indicators provide a more complete context in which I can make state-by state projections, rather than just the twists and turns of random state-by-state trial heats.
Kerry is up by 5.48% now, and he is starting to knock on the door of a ���solid��� lead (7.01%+). He is also starting to threaten the outer limits of pro-Bush swing states: CO, LA, NC, TN and VA. For the first time, all data points used in the calculation of the GECC favor Kerry.
This is an important turning point in the election. If Bush can stop his slide, he should still be close to Kerry when the Democratic convention comes around. If not, his situation will start to become serious.
Posted at 07:09 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (11) | Technorati
Saturday, May 15, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 15
Posted by Chris Bowers(Cross posted from MyDD)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.1
Bush: 47.9
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 317
Bush: 177
To Close to Call: 44 (AZ, MO, NV, WV, VA)
By now you have probably heard one pundit or another claim, without anyone putting up a significant argument otherwise, that in the final week of a campaign most undecideds break for the challenger. Of the three most important poll numbers--trial heats, approval rating, and favorables / unfavorables--the numbers best able to measure this often overlooked aspect of a race is the most overlooked metric of the three: favorable / unfavorable numbers.
The advantage of the challenger is that the challenger almost always has lower unfavorables than the incumbent. When, after four years, people still cannot make up their mind, votes break in favor of the least disliked candidate. This even happened for Dole in 1996, as he ended up losing by 8.5 instead of the 12-13 points most polls had projected during the final week of the campaign.
For nearly two months now, Bush���s re-election campaign has hinged far more on attacking Kerry and driving up Kerry���s negatives than it has on building up Bush���s record. His administration may be immoral and incompetent, but it is not stupid.
However, despite spending over $100M in this task, so far Bush���s team has failed miserably. This may be directly connected to the waning influence of television ads, something which Jerome Armstrong of MyDD could speak far more intelligently about than I. Anyway, here are the most recent unfavorables for Bush and Kerry in fourteen of the twenty-two states where ads are being run (the other eight, AR, AZ, CO, DE, LA, ME, TN and WA, do not have recent data available):
Florida
Bush: 45 (47)
Kerry: 45 (41)
(American Research Group, 4/18-4/21, 600 LV, MoE 4, March 4 results in parenthesis)
Illinois
Bush: 37
Kerry: 19
(Mason-Dixon, 3/8-10, 625 ���active voters���, MoE 4)
Iowa
Bush: 44
Kerry: 34
(American Research Group, April 18-21, 600 LV, MoE 4, no trend lines)
Michigan
Bush: 48
Kerry: 38
(EPIC/MRA 3/28-4/1, 600 LV, MoE 4, no trend lines)
Minnesota:
Bush: 46
Kerry: 31
(Star Tribune, 3/28-3/31, 562 LV, MoE 4.1, no trend lines)
Nevada
Bush: 37
Kerry: 36
(Mason-Dixon, 3/15-3/17, 625 ���active voters,��� MoE 4)
New Hampshire
Bush: 45
Kerry: 41
(UNH, 4/19-4/26, 542 Adults, MoE 4.2, no trend lines)
New Jersey
Bush: 44
Kerry: 27
(Star Ledger/ Eagleton-Rutgers, 4/28-5/4, 643 RV, MoE 4)
New Mexico
Bush: 45
Kerry: 19
(American Research Group, 3/30-4/1, 600 LV, MoE 4, no trend lines)
Ohio
Bush: 52 (!)
Kerry: 36
(American Research Group, May 10-12, 600 LV, MoE 4, no trend lines)
Oregon (No link, from the subscriber section of Polling Report)
Bush: 46
Kerry: 32
(Research 2000, May 6-8 and 10, 603 LV, MoE 4, no trend lines)
Pennsylvania
Bush: 37
Kerry: 31
(Q-poll, 4/13-4/19, 769 RV, MoE 3.5, no trend lines)
West Virginia
Bush: 43
Kerry: 43
(Ipsos, 4/26-29, 984 RV, MoE 3.1, no trend lines)
Wisconsin
Bush: 54 (!)
Kerry: 26
(American Research Group, 3/23-3/25, 600 LV, MoE 4. Also, there was a slightly more recent Badger poll, 3/23-3/31, showing different unfavorables, 41 Bush and 34 Kerry, but the Badger poll has consistently been a massively pro-Bush outlier in the state).
Rove's plan appears to be succeeding only in Florida, Nevada and West Virginia, all states that Bush won in 2000. Who knows why he continues to waste money in New Jersey and Illinois (or even Ohio for that matter!).
Posted at 03:41 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (6) | Technorati
Friday, May 14, 2004
Job Losses & Swing States
Posted by DavidNYCDHinMI at Kos takes a look at how job losses over the last 3-plus years have been spread across the electoral map. Some of his findings:
�Ģ Only four swing states have experienced a net gain in jobs since Bush took office: AZ, FL, NV, NM.�Ģ But in none of those states has job growth outstripped population growth. Says DH, "Thus, despite more jobs in some places, in 49 of 50 states there are more job seekers today, in both raw numbers and as a percentage of the state's population, than there were 3 years ago." (The only exception is Alaska.)
�Ģ The Census Bureau refers to metro regions as "Metropolitan Statistical Areas," or MSAs. DH again: "Of the 100 largest MSA's, 43 have gained jobs; 27 of those 43 MSA's are in swing states. But those gains are concentrated in a handful of states; 11 of those MSA's are entirely in Florida, and another 5 encompass most of Tennessee.
"For example, all major MSA's in Ohio, Michigan and Missouri have lost jobs, as have the majority in Pennsylvania and Iowa. Other states with major metro areas that have lost jobs encompass heavily populated areas of Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin."
I don't like bad economic news - but as DH concludes, at least this bad news might lead to some good news: "The job situation in the U.S. is full of grim statistics. Finally, however, there is a silver lining ��� the job losses of the last three years are likely to cost the current occupant of the White his own job."
Posted at 01:52 PM in Economy | Comments (2) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, May 14: Lean Kerry
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 51.6
Bush: 48.4
Electoral Vote Projection*
Kerry: 311
Bush: 181
Too close to call: 46 (AR, AZ, CO, MO, NV, WV)
(* = I have adjusted state polls more than two weeks old to account for Kerry���s new lead in the national popular vote projection.)
I have been calculating the General Election Cattle Call for over three weeks now, and this is the first time either candidate has held a large enough lead for the status of the race to not be ���too close to call.��� With a 3.2% lead in the national popular vote projection, I now currently consider the race to be ���lean Kerry.��� As Bush���s approval slumps and as Kerry rises in trial heats, the immediate future looks bright for the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Currently, only two of twelve data points favor Bush: the Rasmussen Approval Rating and the Christian Science Monitor Trail Heat.
It is also interesting to note which states become ���swing states��� now that Kerry has a reasonable national lead over Bush. If Kerry���s lead rises to seven or eight points, some seemingly untouchable Bush states start coming into play (including the Carolinas). Without Nader, Kerry would be ahead by more (but not that much more): 52.02 to 47.98. Whenever a candidate achieves a lead of seven or more points in the national popular vote projection, the status of the race will shift to ���solid Kerry / Bush,��� depending on who is ahead.
Historically speaking, Kerry is in the best position a challenger has ever been in during May. However, although Bush���s numbers look very bad for an incumbent, polls are reflections only of the time period in which they are taken. Presidential election polls are a poor reflection of broad, underlying trends and cannot be easily translated into historical cause and effect. While I expect Kerry���s lead to continue to rise, I also expect that at some point Bush will begin to close the gap. Just because Kerry is in a better position than any previous challenger at this stage in the race does not mean he will continue to be in the best position a challenger has ever been in at later stages of the campaign. Come mid-September, who knows where the race will be.
In other words, keep working.
Posted at 01:49 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (10) | Technorati
OR: Kerry Pads Narrow Lead in Latest Poll
Posted by DavidNYCThe Portland Tribune (whose polling is apparently done by Research 2000) gives us some new numbers (late April in parens):
Kerry: 50 (48)
Bush: 46 (46)
Undecided: 4 (6)
Avec Ralph (no April numbers, apparently):
Kerry: 47
Bush: 45
Nader: 3
Undecided: 5
(MOE: ��4%)
Some other good news in this poll: Independents now favor Kerry 54-39 (up from 51-39). Bush's approve-disapprove is way below the Mendoza line: 43-46 (from 46-42). And Nader's support is a lot lower here than in other polls (albeit by different outfits), though two different gurus quoted in the article are certain Nader will be a factor in this race.
(Thanks to Paleo.)
Posted at 01:01 PM in Oregon | Technorati
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Kerry Camp Setting Up Shop in Ohio
Posted by DavidNYCSee, they're obviously listening to me: A headline in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer reads: "Kerry's election team sets up camp in Ohio." Apparently, the Kerry campaign is opening field offices in Cleveland, Youngstown, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron and several other cities. A Columbus office is slated to become the Ohio HQ. Of course, I'm incredibly happy to finally see this, and I'll talk a little bit more about why.
On the Dean campaign, I saw both sides: I started off in the grassroots, but when Dean opened an office in New York City, I went to work there. As important as the grassroots work we did was, there's only so much you can do without the guidance and resources of the campaign itself. In the grassroots phase, we went largely by instinct and never had much direction from above. We were able to hand out flyers at rallies and spread the word at meetups and online - all good things - but our abilities were pretty limited. And our budget (apart from people covering things out-of-pocket) was exactly $0.00.
In the campaign phase, we were able to do so much more: Charter buses full of volunteers to go up to New Hampshire, hold huge fundraisers, ensure that we got media coverage, and so forth. We were also able to give direction and advice (when needed) to independent grassroots groups. The bottom line is that it's important to have both a grassroots and an official presence. And now that we do in Ohio, I think we can really start to kick some ass.
Furthermore, the Kerry people are pledging that they'll stay in Ohio until the bitter end. A lot of people (I think rightly) blame Gore's loss in Ohio on the fact that he abandonded the state in the waning weeks of the 2000 campaign, so it's good to see Kerry making this kind of promise.
Now, about that voice-mail system.... :)
(Thanks to Cindy.)
Posted at 10:06 PM in Ohio | Comments (6) | Technorati
Kerry Up Big in New Ohio Poll
Posted by DavidNYCARG just released a new poll for Ohio. Yes, I know it's only one poll, and we are many months away from the election. But this is some good, good news:
Kerry: 49
Bush: 42
Nader: 2
Undecided: 7
Sans Nader:
Kerry: 50
Bush: 43
Undecided: 7
(MOE: ��4%)
I know I was a bit rough on the Kerry campaign in yesterday's post, though I still maintain that we need a strong Ohio presence, pronto. In fact, I think poll results like these make that argument more powerful, by showing that we can definitely win this hugely important state, and that we have a lead worth defending.
(Thanks to paperbag.)
Posted at 03:27 PM in Ohio | Comments (4) | Technorati
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
WaPo Op-Ed Revisited
Posted by DavidNYCThe other day, I took issue with an op-ed in the Washington Post which argued that the list of swing states changes a lot more than a lot of people claim.
Well, angry moderate over at DKos took a sledgehammer to the piece. He (or she) points out that the op-ed is even more wrong-headed than I realized. If you look at the states which had a Dem-GOP margin of 10% or less in 2000, 19 of 21 were also under 10% in 1996 and 20 of 21 were in 1992.
What's actually happened is that the total number of swing states has diminished over time, as the nation has seemingly become more polarized. In `92, there were 33 states which were 10% or less, and in `96 there were 27. (The Perot factor might have skewed this a bit, but exit polls show that he took votes pretty equally from Clinton and Bush/Dole.)
Angry moderate's point essentially is this: If you were running the Swing State Project back in 2000, you would have started with a list of 27 states. After the election, you would have missed only Maine and Virginia, and you would have over-included California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland & New Jersey. That's a pretty good track-record, I think.
My aim at the very start was to cast my net as widely as possible. If I miss one or two close states, I'll be alright with that. And if I cover too many states, that's certainly fine with me as well.
Posted at 07:14 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
The Economist Swing State Series (or, My Rant About the Kerry Campaign)
Posted by DavidNYCThe Economist is starting a new series, taking an in-depth look at each of the major swing states. (Man, they're gonna put me outta business!) Ohio is the first one. The bad news: John Kerry's campaign there is a "shambles" - yikes, he still hasn't opened his first office there? I'm pretty damn shocked to learn that. I kvetched about this a month ago, but I figured for sure he's have set up shop in Ohio by now. I mean, he's raised a boatload of cash. So what gives?
Well, I went over to the Kerry website and checked out their "contact us" page. They have offices in precisely TWO swing states: Florida and Iowa. The rest? California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Texas. Texas? What the hell? Anyhow, The Economist, so far, was right: nothing in Ohio (or New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, etc.).
So I decided to call the main HQ here in DC, to see if maybe the website wasn't updated, or if there were smaller offices that for some reason weren't getting billed on that page. The call goes straight to an automatic recording (already a bad sign) which says "normal business hours" are from 9am to 9pm. Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Normal business hours" in this line of work are 24-hours-a-fucking-day. I mean, have these people never heard of Bill Clinton, "rapid response," and The War Room?
It gets better, though: "No one is available to take your call," the voice mail system tells me. I can't even wait on hold! I have to leave a message. But oh wait - the general mailbox is full. So I can't leave a message. That is just rank incompetence. Maybe "shambles" is the right word. I mean, I dealt with crap like this often enough on the Dean campaign, but the one thing we were told we could expect of Kerry was that his operation was crisp, professional and attentive to detail. It hardly felt that way to me this afternoon.
Anyhow, the semi-good news is that ACT has opened up 20 offices in Ohio and seems to be picking up some of the slack. But that's no substitute for a real campaign operation, especially when, as the Economist notes, Ohio is an "horrifically expensive state to campaign in, with three big metropolitan areas and six different big media markets."
We need boots on the ground there - and volunteers answering the phones here - right away, Sen. Kerry.
(Economist link thanks to Luke.)
UPDATE: Luke also informs me that the Kerry campaign just announced that their "first wave" of field staff has just deployed to Iowa, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Better late than never, I suppose - but still no Ohio on the list.
Posted at 05:17 PM in General | Comments (8) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, May 12: Kerry Widens Lead
Posted by Chris BowersProjected National Two-Party Vote
Kerry: 50.5
Bush: 49.5
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 231
Bush: 227
Too close to call: 80
Obviously, Kerry is not pounding Bush into the ground, but this is still his widest lead since I began these measurements. Considering the current trend, it is quite possible that Kerry will receive a slight lean in the race before Bush does (the first three weeks have all been too close to call).
Kos quotes a Democratic pollster who argues that Kerry is much closer to Bush than any challenger has been to an incumbent in many decades. Personally, I suspected this was true, but did not have access to the historical data to prove that point.
I still feel the dam is about to burst for Bush, and Kerry will be up big by the end of June.
Posted at 05:00 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (2) | Technorati
NYT Weighs in on the Swing State Battlegrounds
Posted by DavidNYCI am finally done with finals - thank the maker! Oddly enough, the past week has been one of the busiest for the SSP, with a lot of posts and a lot of visitors. My un-shocking discovery: Blogging is a great way to procrastinate - so maybe it's not so odd, then!
Anyhow, I just wanted to point you to Adam Nagourney's NYT piece on the swing states. Nagourney would be one of my least favorite writers at the Times, were it not for the existence of Jodi Wilgoren, Kit Seelye, Jeff Gerth, Judith Miller and... oh, why bother? But Nagourney is their main political go-to guy, so let's see what he says.
His argument seems to be that some people think that more states are in play than the usual list of 16, 17, 18 or even 22. But the only ones past even the broadest group of 22 that he mentions in the article are NJ and Delaware. A map attached to the story also includes IL, VA, NC, KY and MT. Yes, that's right - Montana. I think Nagourney took a quick glance at the 1992 map and didn't look at the actual numbers there. Bush took the state by 25 points last time.
I think that such discussions aren't very meaningful, though. I have to consider New Jersey a Jack Daniel's state: If we lose there, we've lost big-time. (Though, Namath-like, I've guaranteed a Jersey win for us.) So yeah, while theoretically plenty of states could vote differently than expected, that fact doesn't inform our thinking about which ones should be our battleground states.
Posted at 04:46 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Kerry & Bush in Arkansas
Posted byPresident Bush is scheduled to give a speech on his No Child Left Behind Act today, at a Van Buren, AR high school. The stop in the Republican controlled region of NW Arkansas will mark the third trip to Arkansas for Bush since the start of the year. In his 2000 campaign, against Al Gore, Bush made a total of eight trips to the state.
John Kerry is scheduled to make his first campaign trip to Arkansas on Wednesday and Thursday. Kerry will be accompanied on his trip by retired General Wesley Clark. They will attend a fund-raiser reception at the Peabody Hotel in Little Rock and on Thursday Kerry will make a speech on health care, before leaving the state.
Arkansas is often touted as a must-win state for President Bush and he has campaigned heartily here, while Kerry has yet to spend much time in the state. Arkansas has lost 40,000 jobs in the past 3 years and that is certain to hurt President Bush, while giving Kerry a boost in the state. In response, the Bush campaign has been running 30 second ads claiming that Kerry voted against Patriot Missiles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and BlackHawk Helicopters, noting that they're "all built here in Arkansas."
Retired General Wesley Clark - who is increasingly being mentioned as Kerrys' running mate - recently announced the creation of a new political-action committee, titled WesPAC - Securing America's future. General Clark plans to use the PAC money to "replace the current, radical administration and its political allies" and to advocate the Democrat Party as the emerging party of strong leadership on national security. In addition, he plans to continue making trips to key battleground states to speak for Kerry and praise the candidate on television appearances.
Hal Bass, a political-science professor at Ouachita Baptist University, had expected Bush to win Arkansas, but now believes it could go to John Kerry, instead. He notes recent information coming out of Iraq as harmful to Bush and opening the door for Kerry in Arkansas - a state where the latest poll has Kerry and Bush tied.
Posted at 03:03 PM in Arkansas | Comments (2) | Technorati
Monday, May 10, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 10: New and Improved
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.2
Bush: 49.8
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 275
Kerry: 263
States changing hands from 2000: Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire
After completing a round up of the past five weeks of polling on Saturday, I realized a huge flaw in my methodology. While I still believe I am correct in factoring trial heats, approval ratings and favorable / unfavorable numbers equally at this point in the election, placing theses three types of polls into three separate, equally weighted categories does not allow me to properly measure the central mean of the entire data set. In other words, instead of measuring the central mean of the three separate categories and then taking the central mean of the categories themselves, I should include all of the data in a single central mean calculation. Thus, I have eliminated the separate categories, thereby allowing the three types of polls to be weighted equally.
Also, I will no longer project any states as ���too close to call.��� Instead, I���ll be gutsy, look as deep into the numbers as I can, and make my best guess. (Man, I do not like predicting Kerry slightly ahead in the popular vote and slightly behind in the electoral vote).
I know that changes to my formula and a common occurrence these days, but please bear with me. I am trying to develop the best snapshot / predictor possible, and it will take a while to work out all of the kinks.
(Also posted on MyDD)
Posted at 07:43 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (3) | Technorati
WaPo Op-Ed Questions CW About Battleground States
Posted by DavidNYCRichard Morin & Gary Langer, polling directors for the WaPo and ABC News, respectively, make the argument on the WaPo op-ed page that the list of swing states people are looking at won't necessarily be the close, deciding states on election day. Well, of course not: Some will and some won't. In asserting this claim, they mostly cite a bunch of historical evidence about close states in one year not always being close the following presidential election.
That's great - but so what? What matters are whether the states which were close last time still look close this time, and whether any states that weren't close last time look surprisingly close this time. And on that front, they produce some pretty thin evidence. One Wisconsin poll had Bush ahead by 12 points. So it's no longer a battleground, then? Wrong - the very next poll showed Kerry up by 8. New Jersey is "neck-and-neck," they say? Yeah - in precisely one poll. Two more recent polls showed Kerry up by 12 and 6 points.
I don't mean to disparage the idea of looking at past voting trends - obviously, these matter a great deal. But unless you can show me that an actual state we're calling "swing" really isn't, or a state we're calling "safe" really isn't - in the here-and-now - then it makes sense to stick with this list. And the 17 or so main swing states have polled consistently closely for some time.
The second half of the op-ed reads like a memo to the media: "Please don't regard this as just a horserace to 270 electoral votes and cover the issues, too." The problem is that the electoral college just isn't complicit here. Even if we got rid of it, the media would still treat this as a horserace - just as they do every election. The only real difference would be that national polls would be all-important, and campaign activity (and political coverage) would focus on major population centers. So the media ought to blame itself for shoddy coverage, not the electoral college.
Posted at 12:03 AM in General | Comments (3) | Technorati
Saturday, May 08, 2004
LA Times on Nevada
Posted by DavidNYCThe LAT has a piece on Nevada-as-tossup-state. Not much new here. Basically, Yucca Mountain might be an issue, but only if we raise it. It strikes me as a definite political winner, so I'm not sure why Kerry hasn't started running ads on it. He should.
The author also says that Bush's cowboy image plays well in NV, but doesn't offer any polling to support it. In fact, two months ago, Bush only got a 48% approval rating there. And though Kerry's been behind by double-digits in the polls, no one has conducted any polling since the middle of March - which is a long time ago in political terms, and prior to any big Kerry ad buys.
(Via Healthy Debate.)
Posted at 10:01 PM in Nevada | Comments (6) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, May 8
Posted by Chris BowersSince we are still so far from the conventions, much less the election, I thought I would use my first Saturday off in many weeks to produce a monthly round-up of all polls released since the start of April. This resulted in 16 data points for the trial heat category, 13 for the approval category, and 8 for the favorables category. On the negative side, it took forever to compile this and will not be congruent with other GECC results. On the positive side, these standings contain data points from almost every single national polling outfit.
National Two-Party Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.22
Bush: 49.78
How close is this election? In 2000, Gore received 50.268% of the national two party vote to Bush���s 49.732%.
With an election this close, swing states would be the sole determining factor as to who would win the Presidency. Without even using state polls, which right now are all over the place (in terms of methodology, date, question asked, and results), and instead focusing solely upon long-term voting trends, here is how I would project the electoral vote to break down in an election this close:
Kerry: 289
Bush: 259
My bet is that among the Bush states, FL, NV and NH swing to Kerry (all three states have been trending Democrat for some time now), while Bush picks up IA and WI among the Gore states. Kerry just barely holds on to NM, MN, OR and PA, while Bush just barely clings to OH and AZ.
In this scenario, Pennsylvania would be the decisive state. While Florida is trending Democratic and Ohio is trending a static, slight Republican lean, until the 2000 election PA was moving Republican. Continuing to hold off that trend and prove the 2000 rally was not a fluke is Kerry���s key to victory. Depending on the size of the voter purge, Florida should be Democratic this time around.
Posted at 04:11 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (5) | Technorati
Friday, May 07, 2004
Gallup: Kerry Leads in "Purple" States + Is Illinois in Play?
Posted by DavidNYCOn my map, states which went narrowly for Bush are yellow; narrowly for Gore gets ya green. There was nothing intuitive about this color choice - they were just handy. Some cleverer folks, however, have taken to calling the battleground states "purple" - I guess this is where Grimace and Barney live - and Gallup adopts this terminology in some pleasing recent poll results.
Kerry leads 48-44 in the purple states, which Gallups defines as having a margin of less than or equal to 5%. That's just 12 states: Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,Tennessee & Wisconsin. But these are pretty much the most important ones. Ruy digs into the details and says it looks even better.
On a related note, Mark Gersh (writing in the DLC's Blueprint magazine) takes a look at subtle demographic trends and decides that there are only 13 true toss-up battleground states, plus 7 leaners. (Luke discussed various lists of swing states here a little while back.) Gersh's toss-ups are the same as the above list, minus TN but plus AZ and WV, so no surprises there.
One of his leaners is a bit of a shocker, though: Illinois. (The others are Washington & Michigan, which favor Kerry, and Colorado, Tennessee, Louisiana & Arkansas, which favor Bush.) Gersh doesn't exactly explain why. He does argue that, even in the space of four short years, demographic trends can have an effect. So presumably, the trends which favor Republicans (the growth in exurban areas) are present in IL. But the fact still remains that IL had a bigger Bush-Gore margin than non-swing states Vermont, California & Georgia. He also leaves out Virgina as a leaner, even though it had a tighter margin than Colorado.
In any event, I seriously pray Gersh is wrong about Illinois. This sort of thing gives me the night sweats. I'd like to see a fuller explanation as to why he thinks IL is winnable for Republicans. I consider Illinois a "Jack Daniel's state" (even though technically, that oughta be TN): If you see IL turning red on election night, break out the Jack. Cuz he's gonna be the only friend you'll want to talk to.
(Thanks to Luke for the Gersh link. More comments on the subject are here.)
(Grammar correction on the Whiskey courtesy of Naomi in the comments!)
Posted at 06:39 PM in General, Safe States | Comments (5) | Technorati
It Don't Mean a Thing If You Ain't Got That Swing (Voter)
Posted by DavidNYCI'm overdue in mentioning a new blog that is very much worth checking out. Rick Heller runs the Swing Voter Weblog, where, as you might expect, he disects and discusses the mercurial minds of the eternally sought-after swing voter. Rick himself is a Kerry supporter but also considers himself a swing voter - so he ought to know what he's talking about. Hopefully a few million more people like Rick will make the same choice he has.
As Rick observes, "To elect Kerry, we don't need to convert swing voter into Democrats. We just convince them to vote Democratic in 2004." While I'd prefer to do the former, I'd certainly be happy with the latter, no question about it.
Posted at 05:09 PM in Site News | Technorati
Is Colorado In Play?
Posted by DavidNYCThe Prospect takes a look at whether Colorado is in play. As I've said before, I don't really think we can win there, but I like the idea of taking the fight there. Interesting tidbit: John Kerry was born in Colorado, in an Army hospital. Over to you on this one, Luis.
Posted at 04:27 PM in Colorado | Comments (1) | Technorati
Ipsos: Bush Ahead In WV
Posted by DavidNYCIpsos has a new poll out in West Virginia:
Bush: 49
Kerry: 45
Nader: 3
Undecided: 3
(MOE: ��3.1%)
This poll was conducted at the end of last month - before Kerry's huge new ad buy. Other recent polls (scroll down) have been equally close. I am a little skeptical of the tiny number of undecideds in this poll, though.
By the way, is anyone else sick of Larry Sabato? For a so-called expert, I find his analysis to be severely lacking:
"This poll confirms again that most Americans have made up their minds already and that there's remarkably little change since 2000," said Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia."It's like we had a time warp."
Bullshit. There was a lot of change after 2000, in Bush's favor. Then there was a lot of change back, against Bush. Maybe this concept is too complicated for the media - and it certainly doesn't help when self-proclaimed gurus like Sabato proclaim otherwise.
One thing I will say: The continued existence of this notion - that we're still a 50/50 nation - redounds to Bush's favor. It obscures the fact that he gained a whole lot of new support after his election (and especially after9/11), but then squandered it all. We need to spread the meme that we've returned to the 50/50 nation - and that this is a bad portent for Bush.
Posted at 04:03 PM in West Virginia | Comments (7) | Technorati
May 8th is National Election Action Day
Posted by DavidNYCAmerica Votes, a huge coalition of left-wing groups, is devoted to voter registration, communication and GOTV. (The site says they're non-partisan, but just take a look at the membership rolls.) Tomorrow (Saturday, May 8th) is their inaugural Election Action Day. Voter registration events will be held in 17 swing states across the nation. If you don't live in a swing state or can't travel to one, there will even be some events in non-swing states.
So if you have free time this Saturday, go on over to the America Votes website and click on whichever state you're interested in. Also note that some safe states are organizing trips to swing states. For example, Music For America is arranging a bus trip from the Bay Area to Reno, NV (leaving tonight - Friday night). Wow - MFA is picking up the entire tab, for both the bus AND for hotel rooms in Reno. So go check it all out - and register some new voters.
Posted at 12:59 AM in Activism | Comments (3) | Technorati
Thursday, May 06, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 6
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two party Vote Projection:
Bush: 50.7
Kerry: 49.3
Status: Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Kerry: 231
Bush: 227
Despite all the new info (Gallup, Fox and NBC national polls, new approval and favorable numbers, new state polls), there is not a huge change from yesterday. Fox���s approval / disapproval and favorable / unfavorable numbers are almost entirely responsible for Bush���s rise.
Posted at 05:52 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (1) | Technorati
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Could Kerry Win Big?
Posted by DavidNYCRecently, I observed that in the 20th century, elected incumbents who won a second term have always done better the second time around. Similarly, Chuck Todd, Editor-in-Chief of The Hotline, writes in the Washington Monthly that incumbents who have lost their re-election bids have tended to lose pretty badly. Of the four elected incumbents to lose (Bush I, Carter, Hoover and Taft), the best performance was a measly 168 EVs by Bush p��re. (Ford got 240 EVs when he got the boot, but he wasn't elected in the first place, of course.)
To Todd, this is evidence that Kerry might win in a landslide. He points to some further numbers (like the percentage of people who say they are paying "quite a lot" of attention to the presidential race, and the high turnout in the early Democratic primaries) to bolster his point. I'm a little wary of reading too much into history, though: Just because an incumbent hasn't won a narrow re-election (ever, I think) doesn't mean it won't happen this year.
Though you have to go back pretty far, there are at least two incumbents who lost very narrowly. In 1884, Democrat Grover Cleveland beat Republican James Blaine by fewer than 30,000 votes - barely a quarter of a percentage point (though 219-182 in EVs). Then, in 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison beat Cleveland despite pulling in 90,000 fewer votes than Cleveland did. The vagaries of the electoral college gave Harrison a 233-168 win - much like George Bush's minority win in 2000. Cleveland then came back in 1892 to beat Harrison by just 3% in the popular vote (277-145 in EVs).
So in two consecutive elections in the 19th century, two incumbents both managed to lose narrowly, after both had won very narrowly. I think that could easily happen again - and in fact, that's what I still expect.
Posted at 09:22 PM in General | Comments (4) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, May 5: Kerry's First Lead
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.0
Bush: 50.0
Status: Too Close to Call
Kerry has made up nearly two points as a result of Bushs recent dip in job approval. In particular, the new Q-poll was worse for Bush than the now old Pew poll. Rasmussen is also showing a lower job approval
Electoral Vote Projection:
Kerry: 231
Bush: 227
To Close to Call: 80 (FL, IA, NM, OH, PA)
Kerry is only up two in the latest Oregon poll, but he is nine ahead of Bush on favorable / unfavorable ratings in the state, and Bushs approval ratings are, um, not good (5% rate his performance as excellent). Thus, Oregon is now lean Kerry. Combine this with the latest NH poll, Kerry has taken his first, very slim lead in the two weeks I have been calculating the GECC.
Posted at 02:57 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
New Guest Poster for Arkansas, LiberalAce
Posted by DavidNYCLiberalAce, a denizen of Arkansas and frequent commenter around these parts, is joining the SSP team. Naturally, he'll be reporting on what's happening in the home state of my favorite living president, William Jefferson "Big Dog" Clinton. So give him a warm welcome, and also check out his blog, Political Bytes.
Posted at 02:36 PM in Arkansas, Site News | Comments (6) | Technorati
But Who's Counting?
Posted by DavidNYCDifferent organizations count up their lists of swing states differently. Luke Francl tells us who's counting what:
Swing states are those states that people believe the 2004 election will turn on. They are states that were close in the last election. But which states are those? And which states are each campaign and the outside groups focusing on? The following is a list of swing states organized by group, based on their websites and TV advertising. For a brief introduction to the swing states, read this Washington Post story.Key Findings: There are 17 states (ignoring grassroots efforts) that all groups agree will be key battlegrounds in the 2004 election. Kerry and liberal 527 coalition America Votes are focusing on the same core states, but Kerry just moved into Colorado and Louisiana, which are thought to be safe Republican states. Bush is advertising in Tennessee, where neither Kerry nor America Votes are focused.
Kerry (17 states, plus 2): Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Added recently: Colorado, Louisiana.
Bush (18 states, plus 2): Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Added recently: Colorado, Louisiana. [Added in response to Kerry. - David]
America Votes 527 (17 states): Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Driving Votes (16 states): Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Note: Driving Votes is ignoring Washington and Maine while adding Tennessee. I am not counting them as a major group as it is a completely grassroots effort not affiliated with America Votes.
Swing State Project (21 states ��� see methodology): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine (2nd CD), Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The Bush campaign's list comes closest to mine. My only true outlier state is Virginia. As I've said before, I think this state is heading our way, and if the GOP isn't careful (let's hope they're not), they're going to have a big problem the day VA turns blue. Interestingly, by the way, there are several states that had wider margins than VA but that are still considered "battlegrounds." (Such as WA, MI and LA.)
[Crossposted from BushOut.tv.]
Posted at 01:51 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
ReDefeat Bush
Posted by DavidNYCMaybe you don't have a car and a spare weekend. Maybe you've forgotten how to hand-write a letter after all those years sitting in front of your computer. Don't worry, I still have a way for you to get involved with voter registration efforts in swing states.
It's called ReDefeat Bush, and they organize events where volunteers register voters in battleground states by phone. Go ahead & check `em out.
Posted at 12:59 AM in Site News | Comments (2) | Technorati
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Is Arkansas a Legit Swing State?
Posted by DavidNYCThough lately I've been more sanguine about AR, I've still been a bit hesitant to consider it in the top tier of tossup swing states. But reader Arkansas native LiberalAce makes an eloquent argument for Arkansas in the comments which I think merits promotion to the main page:
I think you may be selling Arkansas short. The latest Rasmussen poll has Bush and Kerry tied. [At 45-45. - David] I think Arkansas is a true swing state.I also believe you're wrong in that if Kerry picks up Arkansas then he'll already have Ohio or Florida. I think Kerry could win Arkansas and not pick up either of the other two.
A few things to remember:
1. Arkansas is the home state of Clinton, who spent 12 years as the Governor. I doubt you've forgotten that, but it deserves mentioning.
2. Our senators and congressmen are all Democrats; except for one congressman. Arkansas has always been a Democrat state; albeit it leans toward the conservative side.
3. I think John Edwards would make a good difference in Arkansas. Edwards has the perfect southern charm to appeal to all Arkies, but what makes him stand out is his appeal to Republicans in the state. Edwards' self-made financial success will probably entice Republicans in the state more than you may think. This is a state where the "haves" all vote Republican for fiscal/business reasons and there are a lot more "haves" in the state than most people realize. Although Edwards is very supportive of the "have-nots", I don't think many of the "haves" see him that way, because of his financial success. Instead, they see him like themselves.
4. I think Arkansas went to Bush by four points in 2000. [It was 51-46, Nader at 1.5. - David] However, I think some probably voted Republican because they were embarrassed by the Monica L. bit and will be over that by now: especially with the new Clinton Library opening soon in Little Rock, which will bring new pride to the state.
5. Republicans have taken a beating in the state as of late. Our Republican Governor has greatly upset his party several times.
6. Finally, Arkies hate everything Texas; save the Dallas Cowboys, which is owned by an Arkie and viewed as a slap on Texas.
I truly believe that Arkansas is a tossup. What worries me most is that Bush will do some campaign maneuvering to provide some sort of incentive to bring jobs to the state, shortly before the election. Arkansas has lost a lot of jobs and it's a critical issue here.
I agree with much of the above, though I'm not an especially big believer in the power of VP picks to bring votes. What still concerns me most, however, was the size of the margin in 2000. AR was (depending on how you slice it) either the 12th- or 14th-closest state, which isn't all that close. Put another way, that's the second-biggest margin (after WV) of all the red states we're seriously targeting. So I still have a hard time seeing us pick up 5 points in AR but not getting 2 points in Ohio. That said, if we can sneak in and snag AR while the GOP has its back turned, more power to us!
LiberalAce also suggests that Clinton-related wounds have healed in the past four years. I had previously wondered how the Big Dog would be received in his home state - in other words, should we send him out on the stump? LiberalAce, back to you for that question.
P.S. Kossaks are a-chatterin' about the AR polls numbers, as well as some new Oregon numbers which show us ahead narrowly at 48-46.
Posted at 02:24 PM in Arkansas | Comments (9) | Technorati
Kerry Ad Buy Hits the Usual Suspects, Plus LA & CO
Posted by DavidNYCJohn Kerry is finally going on the offensive and launching a huge ad buy - to the tune of $27.5 million. What I really like about this ad buy is that, in addition to the standard 17 battleground states, Kerry's also hitting Louisiana and Colorado.
LA's margin is easily the reddest on my list, at 7.32%. Of course, we did win two big races there recently (Senate in `02 and Governor in `03), but with candidates who were a lot more conservative than John Kerry. From what I read, it also seemed that local issues - which Kerry may or may not be able to associate himself with - seemed to play a big role as well. LA's a definite longshot for us, and it's probably a state we'll win only if we've won big elsewhere.
CO is a bit different. It had a margin of 3.71%, but that was due to a pretty big Nader factor (5.25% of the total vote). In fact, CO had the biggest Nader vote of any of the states on my list, so I'm hesitant to consider it truly swing. However, with the retirement of Sen. Ben Campbell, Democratic AG Ken Salazar is now favored to pick up that seat for us. Plus, we also have two legit House pickup chances (the 3rd and 7th districts). But even if two-thirds of Nader voters, say, were to come to our side, we'd still be almost 5 points back, so I'll peg CO as a longshot, too.
I did say that I like this ad buy, though - so why? Well, for once, we are taking the fight to the enemy. Bush isn't on the air in either state yet - though apparently he plans to be soon. This means we are acting, and our opponent is reacting. And this is where you want to have the other guy: Responding to your blows, rather than dishing out his own. The GOP copycatting here is also a nice reassurance that you are either doing something right or that they at least think you're doing something right. And it sure is good to see those guys back on their heels for once.
P.S. Luke promises reviews of the new ads themselves shortly. He also points out that this is the biggest single ad buy either candidate has done this cycle.
Posted at 01:40 AM in Colorado, Louisiana | Comments (6) | Technorati
Monday, May 03, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 3
Posted by Chris BowersNational Popular Two-Party Vote Projection
Bush: 50.9
Kerry: 49.1
Status: Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush 227
Kerry: 220
Too close to call: 91 (IA, FL, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA)
Even though all of the details of the new Sacred Heart poll are not out yet, and even though their poll has 0% undecideds (exactly the sort of thing I hate), I���m going to go ahead and post a May 3rd GECC anyway. Why?
Two words: New rule
From now on, each of the three categories will be required to have at least two data points, so that one new poll is unable to wildly change the standings. Thus, in addition to including the new Sacred Heart poll, I���ve added two old favorable / unfavorable polls, and removed the Marist national poll.
Expect changes of this sort to take place once and a while. And hey, please offer suggestions for how else I should tinker with the GECC.
Posted at 11:05 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Exam Crunch Time
Posted by DavidNYCTomorrow, my final week of exam crunch time begins. My last exam (thank heaven) is a week from Monday. So until then, please expect light posting from me. Chris's GECC should be appearing regularly, though, so feel free to use those posts as open threads.
Posted at 06:35 PM in Site News | Comments (3) | Technorati
Saturday, May 01, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, May 1
Posted by Chris BowersNational two-party popular vote projection:
Bush: 50.3
Kerry: 49.7
Too close to call, swing states in play.
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 227
Kerry: 220
Too close to call: 91 (FL, IA, NH, NM, OH, OR, PA)
No new national polls for two days now (I do not use Rasmussen national trial heats because they do not include Nader in their questioning), but the state polls have consistently been in Kerry's favor. The most recent PA poll, from Princeton, showed the race deadlocked. Even the most recent NC poll showed Kerry only down 7, and the NC poll before that showed him only down 8. At this point, it would appear that if Kerry selects Edwards, then North Carolina, which is currently tied with Georgia as the second largest state in Bush's base, would instantly become a swing state.
Right now, DC's Political Report shows WI as solid for Bush. I disagree with that assessment of recent polls from the Badger state, and currently list WI as "lean Kerry."
First, the most recent Bush-Kerry-Nader poll in WI is actually from Rasmussen (conducted only on April 28), not the Badger poll (conducted from April 20-28) as DC Political Report implies. In the Rasmussen poll, Kerry leads 45-41-8, which is a far cry from the Badger poll showing Bush ahead 50-38-6.
Second, if one were to combine all of the recent polls from WI, it would be prudent to use all three recent polls, since the WPR / St. Norbet poll of WI was conducted on two of the same days (April 20-21) as the Badger poll. Like the Rasmussen poll, WPR / St. Norbert shows Kerry with a lead (49-42-7) and Nader with an unjustifiably high result in a state where he only received 3.62% of the vote in 2000.
Third and finally, when combining all three recent WI polls, the highly variable results dictate that the best method for doing so would be to use the central mean rather than the simple mean. In a dataset of three, the central mean would dictate that the central result, the Rasmussen poll, would be included twice while the two outliers would each be included once. This results in three polls showing Kerry ahead in WI, and only one poll showing Kerry behind. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, WI is currently "lean Kerry."
Posted at 04:56 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati