Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Swing State Roundup Redux
Posted by DavidNYCTAP had a new Purple People Watch column out last week. It's almost entirely about the Senate races shaping up in the various battleground states.
Meanwhile, Slate has slowly continued its state-by-state series. I should say very slowly: In a month, they've only done two states. Gotta pick up the pace, fellas. Unfortunately, they've changed authors for the latest installment. The tolerable Chris Suellentrop wrote the first piece (on Missouri), but now they have the odious Lord Saletan penning the current piece on West Virginia. Maybe I'll wade through it (it's a three-part "diary" format) at some point. Or maybe I won't.
One really frustrating thing is the Economist's swing state series. All of the articles seem to wind up behind their subscription wall eventually. But for a brief period of time, they sometimes provide a link to the story for free - and that link seems to never expire. I was able to dig up working links for their entries on Pennsylvania and New Mexico. If you can extract links to any other stories in this series, please post `em here.
UPDATE: Okay, so I decided to read Saletan's WV diary, and it's not half-bad. It's pretty striking how conservative West Virginia is - striking because the state has so often voted Democrat in the past, and there's a good chance it'll do so again this year. The trick, says Saletan, is to appeal to protectionist sentiments and to demonstrate appropriate fealty to the military, something war veteran Kerry can actually do.
But Saletan does make one (pretty glaring) error. He says that West Virginians respect authority and have switched to the GOP when a Republican incumbent was running for re-election. (WV went red in `56, `72 and `84). The big problem with this thesis is `92, when incumbent Bush p��re lost. And back then, I'm willing to bet that economic issues did old number 41 in - just like they might once again.
UPDATE: Carl in the comments provides a link for the Economist's Arizona piece. I had also previously posted a link to the inaugural Ohio article.
Posted at 04:28 PM in Arizona, General, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, West Virginia | Comments (4) | Technorati
AZ: Bush Lead Widens in ASU Poll
Posted by DavidNYCFrom Arizona State University/KAET-TV (May in parens):
Kerry: 35 (38)
Bush: 47 (43)
Nader: 2 (2)
Undecided: 16 (17)
(MoE: ��4.9%)
Bush's approval numbers improved across the board: Job, economy, terrorism, Iraq. His handling of the economy saw a very big jump, from 41-51 negative to 50-44 positive. I don't know how one month can account for a 16-point swing like that - I mean, it's not as though Arizona added 100,000 new jobs in that time - though perhaps there's something of a Reagan effect here.
As for the top-line horserace numbers, it's pretty striking to see Bush with a 12-point lead, when barely two weeks ago, a rival poll (in the Arizona Republic) showed him with a tiny three-point lead. Go figure.
Posted at 11:20 AM in Arizona | Comments (6) | Technorati
ActBlue Relaunches
Posted by DavidNYCActBlue, a website that helps you keep track of Senate and House races, has relaunched and is now, in a word, amazing. You can now create an account and keep personal lists of the races you are interested in. I went ahead and created a list of my favorite swing state Senate candidates - you can take a look here. You can also modify the default text that ActBlue provides for each candidate and write a personal appeal.
What's also especially cool is that you can ask people to donate directly to your candidates through your lists, and ActBlue will keep track of your donation totals. It's a little bit like the DKos 8, only a LOT easier to administer. In fact, there's a replica of the DKos 8 list already on ActBlue. (Just an FYI: I am not asking people to donate to my list or any other. I just created it to explore the site. Though feel free to donate if you like!)
Ben (my friend who runs ActBlue) tells me that they'll be adding state and local races soon, too. So, as I always say, go check it out! Create your own list and have fun with it.
Posted at 01:09 AM in Activism | Comments (3) | Technorati
Buncha Polls (FL, CO & Zogby)
Posted by DavidNYCI've been behind on posting about a few recent polls, so here's an all-at-once glance:
Colorado - Mason-Dixon (no trendlines):
Kerry: 43
Bush: 48
Nader: 3
Undecided: 6
(MoE: ��3.5%)
Bush's favorability at 47-39; job approval at exactly 50-50. Don't forget that Colorado might wind up splitting its EVs this year. If so, polls like this are great news for us.
Florida - Quinnipiac (no trendlines):
Kerry: 43
Bush: 43
Nader: 5
Undecided: 9
(MoE: ��2.8%)
Kerry has a slight lead (46-44) without Nader in the mix. Job approval is 46-52. Favorability is 42-42-15 (the last number is "mixed"). Kerry's split is 30-33-23.
Also, Zogby posted an update to his bi-weekly battleground poll last week. Florida, Nevada, Michigan and West Virginia all moved into Bush's column, while Arkansas and New Mexico came over to Kerry.
And lastly, if you haven't already, you should go read Chris's post over at MyDD about Ralph Nader's failure to get the Green Party nomination. Chris says it's the end of the line for Ralph, because now he's got no ballot lines and virtually no money. I still think a late infusion of GOP cash could turn the tide for Nader, but this is nonetheless a very good development for Kerry.
Posted at 12:34 AM in Colorado, Florida, General | Comments (5) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 29
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Numbers in Parenthesis)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.94 (50.24)
Bush: 49.06 (49.76)
Status: Too close to call
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 274 (284)
Kerry: 264 (254)
States Changing Hands from 2000: NH to Kerry
While I am projecting a razor thin race, this projection actually includes several polls that are not very close. The Fox trial heat and job approval show comfortable Bush leads, as does the Annenberg job approval. On the other hand, the ABC trial heat, CBS job approval and not unfavorables, along with the Gallup not unfavorbles show comfortable Kerry leads.
One of the problems with averaging polls is that it assumes that the truth is in the middle of divergent polls. However, this is not always the case. In 2000, the outlying polls showed either Gore with a very small lead, or Bush with a fairly comfortable lead. The truth was not to be found in the middle, but in the pro-Gore outliers. Where does the truth rest right now? It is hard to know for certain, but I will continue to try and figure it out.
Posted at 01:55 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, June 28, 2004
Moms to Bush: Watch Out!
Posted by DavidNYCThere's another swing-state focused grassroots group I'd like to bring to your attention: Mothers Opposing Bush. (Not to be confused with Mainstreet Moms Opposing Bush.) MOB is doing voter outreach and get-out-the-vote (aka "GOTV") efforts, on the strength of the moral authority we all know that moms can have. They have chapters in a number of swing states. Go check `em out.
Posted at 07:11 PM in Activism | Comments (3) | Technorati
Friday, June 25, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 25
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous numbers in Parenthesis)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.24 (50.14)
Bush: 49.76 (49.86)
Status: Too close to call
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 284 (284)
Kerry: 254 (254)
States Changing Hands from 2000: NH to Kerry, WI to Bush
As often happens when there is a slew of new polls, very little changes in the cattle call standings. Fox had great state and national favorables news for Bush, Gallup had terrible favorbale news for Bush and a variety of state polls also had bad news for him.
On a more important note, there will definately be a change to methodology if David Cobb is nominated for President at the Green Party Convention tomorrow. Without the endorsement of several state Green parties, Nader will not be able to have any significant impact on the election. Thus, I would only include two-way trial heats in my calculations.
For more information on the Green party convention, check out MyDD.
Posted at 03:30 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (3) | Technorati
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Kerry Lead Widens in Latest Joisy Q-Poll
Posted by DavidNYCQuinnipiac sent some of us into conniptions with their prior New Jersey poll, which showed a narrow race. Things are looking better now (May in parens):
Kerry: 49 (47)
Bush: 41 (44)
Undecided: 6 (6)Kerry: 46 (46)
Bush: 40 (43)
Nader: 7 (5)
Undecided: 7 (6)
(MoE: ��2.9%)
Kerry's lead looks pretty strong here, considering the very low MoE. (The sample size was an impressive 1,167.) Furthermore, Bush's job approval rating stands at an abysmal 42-54. Without fail, every single poll since March 2003 (ie, the start of the Iraq war), the approval number has gone down and the disapproval has gone up. I just don't see how you can win a state when people hate you this much. Indeed, Quinnipiac says that this is an "all-time low" for Bush here.
Also, the general approval numbers for Bush don't look very good either: They stand at 35-40, with 23% saying they have a "mixed" view. Bush's favorables have dropped 2 points since May. Kerry, meanwhile, has improved to 30-28-28, from 27-28-33. Bush simply doesn't have enough money to drive Kerry's negatives up in New Jersey - in fact, he's failed at that task miserably.
NJ might wind up being a bit like the New York Mets. On the rare occasions that the Mets put together a good team, they nonetheless always make you sweat. New Jersey will be closer than neighboring New York this year, just as it was in 2000. But, as I've continually said in the past, it's still ours.
UPDATE: Billmon spends a good deal of time ripping apart a maddeningly biased AP piece on this particular poll - a bias which he says is par for the course for much of the reporting on this race. I agree.
Posted at 05:54 AM in Safe States | Comments (10) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 22
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 51.04
Bush: 48.96
Status: To close to call
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 274 (237)
Kerry: 264 (301)
State changing hands from 2000: New Hampshire
Yikes, talk about a replay of 2000! It is disturbing to think that Kerry could win the popular vote by 2% and still lose, but it is not impossible. Right now, I have Bush up by 0.04% in Florida, and 1.6% in Ohio. If he can squeak out both states, even a 2% national win (arond 4 times what Gore won by) will not be enough to put Kerry over the top. Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania--three states for the three Elven kings. The Electoral College to rule them all.
Man, I hate the friggin' electoral college. Time to throw it into Mount Doom. I, for one, would much rather have the national popular vote determine the winner.
Posted at 06:59 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (10) | Technorati
Nader's Ballot Access in the Southwest
Posted by DavidNYCAccording to this post on Kos, Nader's spot on the ballot in Arizona is looking more and more precarious - at least in part because convicted felons carried petitions for him, which is a no-no in AZ.
And reader Stan writes in to tell me that Nevada for Nader - a group which had collected 7,000 signatures to place Nader on the ballot as an independent, but had not yet submitted them - has withdrawn its support of Nader now that he's tapped Peter Camejo to be his VP. (Camejo apparently was the Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1976, something which didn't sit well with at least some of NV's independents.) It's not clear to me how Nader will get on the ballot in NV now - whether he'll rely on the state Green Party, or whether he'll go out and collect a new batch of signatures.
Posted at 06:38 PM in Arizona, Nevada | Comments (2) | Technorati
Monday, June 21, 2004
Jeb Bush Goes After Drug Re-Importers in Florida
Posted by DavidNYCFlorida Governor Jeb Bush is cracking down on drug re-importers in Florida. As you probably know, most prescription drugs are much cheaper in Canada. Lots of firms (especially on the Internet) have sprung up to re-import these drugs back to the US at a cost that is much lower than what you'll find at your local pharmacy. Obviously, Big Pharma hates drug re-importers. Hilariously, the industry's defenders claim that American consumers might be endangered by re-importation - because, you know, all those Canadians taking Lipitor and Prozac are just dying by droves.
Anyhow, whether or not the practice of drug re-importation is legal according to Florida law, this strikes me as a major political loser for the state GOP. I know that in my mind, Jeb Bush is permanently wedded to George - and I'd imagine most people automatically link the two as well. So it would seem that Florida's considerable senior citizen population would get mighty pissed both at Jeb and, by extension, at Dubya, whose administration also opposes drug re-importation.
John Kerry - who supports re-importation - should use this opportunity to take to the airwaves on this specific issue & blast away at the Bush boys. I think this topic works in other states with large senior populations, too. Florida, of course, has the highest percentage of residents over 65 - 17.6% as of the 2000 census. But important swing states PA, WV and IA are second through fourth, and several other bigs (like Ohio and Missouri) are in the top twenty. (The Palm Beach Post article linked above mentions that there have been crackdowns in other states as well.)
Like Yucca Mountain, I think this issue is solid gold for Kerry. I also think any ad on this subject could be structured very nicely: Start out hammering Bush for not supporting re-importation, then put Kerry on-screen talking about how he's in favor of it. So you get to work in an attack, but you don't leave viewers with a bad taste in their mouths because the ad ends on a positive note: "I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message because I want to make sure our seniors have affordable access to prescription drugs." You get the idea.
I think this is also a pretty good issue because it's a promise that Kerry can actually carry through on (at least partially), even without a Democratic Congress. That's because much of the law governing re-importation involves FDA rule-making, which essentially lies in the hands of the executive branch. If Kerry can loosen the restrictions on re-importation via the FDA when he takes office, it'll be a concrete success he can point to, to help ward off the inevitable media whore stories about the "failed Kerry presidency." (And yes, those will appear almost immediately after Kerry takes office.)
(Thanks to torch.)
UPDATE: I should have done a little more research before penning this piece. It turns out that the Media Fund is already running an ad on this topic - I think it's rather good. I'd still like to see an ad modeled the way I suggest, which illustrates Kerry's positive plan.
(Thanks to Luke, of course.)
Posted at 12:46 AM in Florida | Comments (6) | Technorati
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Narrow Bush Lead in AZ
Posted by DavidNYCNew poll from the Arizona Republic (no trendlines):
Kerry: 41
Bush: 44
Nader: 2
Other: 2
Undecided: 11
(MoE: ��4%)
Republicans outnumber Democrats in voter registration in AZ (PDF) 40.5% to 35.5%, so these are good numbers for Kerry. What's more, JFK leads Dubya by a pretty impressive 45-28 among independents, who appear to comprise about 23% of the electorate. (I'm assuming that's what the "Other" category means.) The percentage of Democrats and independents in AZ is growing, while the percentage of Republicans is shrinking, so I like these numbers.
Arizona itself is also incredibly fast-growing - the state gained two EVs (in other words, two seats in Congress) since the last election, giving it 10 now. While I'd consider this pretty unlikely, the Gore states plus AZ would give us exactly 270.
(Thanks to Coldblue Steele.)
Posted at 08:35 PM in Arizona | Comments (5) | Technorati
The Last Frontier
Posted by DavidNYCAlaska, aka "The Last Frontier," is about as far from a swing state as you can get, but I've always found it intriguing. It's only ever gone Dem once (in `64, for LBJ), but looks poised to elect a Democrat, Tony Knowles, to the Senate this year. This last fact has put Alaska on everyone's radar this year, so I'd like to take this opportunity to mention a new blog by an Alaskan and friend of mine, Jarfingle. Jonathan plans to write about travel rather than politics (though he is an experienced political hand), but I think his blog will nonetheless be a great introduction to a state that most of us could probably stand to learn a bit more about. So check it out & enjoy!
Posted at 02:24 AM in Safe States | Technorati
Saturday, June 19, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 19
Posted by Chris Bowers(June 18 Results in Parenthesis)
National Two Party Popular Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.27
Bush: 49.73
Status: Too close to call
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 279 (279)
Kerry: 259 (259)
States Changing Hands from 2000: Nv, NH and WV for Kerry; NM and WI for Bush
The Bush trends continues. The latest Harris trial heat was particularly bad news for Kerry, but it is sitll only one poll and, as such, has limited impact. The real worry will be if a 6-10 point Bush lead is replicated after next week.
Bush's "solid" base is now larger than Kerry's. Also, both Arkansas and Tennessee are on the brink of becoming solid for Bush. Further, Kerry only leads in NH and NV by 0.1. Worrisome stuff.
Posted at 05:43 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (1) | Technorati
Narrow Race in WA According to Moore
Posted by DavidNYCMoore Information, which recently did a poll in Oregon, has a new Washington poll out. (Moore, you'll recall, is a Republican outfit, but one that - at least for now - I'm willing to regard as fair-minded.) No trendlines available:
Kerry: 45
Bush: 44
Nader: 4
Undecided: 7
(MoE: ��4%)
The newspaper article linked above seems to have access to more internals than Polling Report is showing, but there's nothing apparently on favorability. One slightly distressing finding: Bush is leading among independents, 40 to 36. Most state polls tend to show Kerry favored among this group.
One thing I've often heard people say is, "I didn't know Washington was a swing state" or even "Washington is not a swing state." I disagree, and I think poll results like this back me up. In 2000, Gore won the state by less than 6 points. Granted, this was a much wider margin than in neighboring Oregon, but it's too close for comfort. Both campaigns are on the air in WA (well, not Team Bush - they're dark for a couple of weeks), and I think it's a legit battleground.
P.S. The last WA poll had Kerry up four points.
(Thanks to Rimjob.)
Posted at 02:03 AM in Washington | Comments (7) | Technorati
Friday, June 18, 2004
ARG: Kerry Ahead in WV
Posted by DavidNYCThis is now the second poll in a row to show Kerry with a lead in West Virginia. (Mason-Dixon previously showed Kerry with a six-point lead.) ARG's numbers are below (late March in parens):
Kerry: 47 (46)
Bush: 44 (46)
Nader: 3 (2)
Undecided: 6 (6)
(MoE: ��4%)
As Kos points out, Kerry's favorables have gone up despite the millions Bush has spent trying to tear our nominee down. He was at 45-36 in March; now he's at 51-32. Bush, meanwhile, has cratered. He's gone from 61-37 to 43-48. Sucka.
Posted at 04:45 PM in West Virginia | Comments (6) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, June 18
Posted by Chris Bowers(June 14 Results in Parenthesis)
National Two Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 50.41 (50.93)
Bush: 49.59 (49.07)
Status: Too close to call
Electoral Vote Projection
Bush: 279 (237)
Kerry: 259 (301)
States Changing hands from 2000: NV, NH and WV to Kerry; NM and WI to Bush
Gipperporn is beginning to take its toll. At least according to Pew, there clearly was a Reagan bounce for Bush. The change in the national standing has caused Bush to edge ahead in several states, including FL, NM and WI. If the bounce shows up in future polls, Bush might be able to take a decent lead.
It is still a real struggle. However, Bush is going off the air for a week or two, and the VP pick and convention loom. Things should start to turn around for Kerry, but I am not as confident as I once was.
Posted at 12:49 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (3) | Technorati
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Kerry Up in WA
Posted by DavidNYCMason-Dixon just did a poll for a "private public policy client" in Washington state (no trendlines available):
Kerry: 46
Bush: 42
Nader: 2
Undecided: 10
(MoE: ��4%)
No other information (such as favorability ratings) is available.
(Via PollingReport.com).
Posted at 06:21 PM in Washington | Comments (2) | Technorati
Philadelphia Daily News Endorses John Kerry
Posted by DavidNYCThis story has been making the rounds in the blogosphere today: The Philadelphia Daily News has officially endorsed John Kerry for president. They're claiming to be the first newspaper in America to do so, and as such, they're bound to get more attention than had they waited until October.
But it's also important for a couple of other reasons. First, I hardly need to remind anyone around here how crucial a swing state Pennsylvania is - something the editors of Daily News are also keenly aware of. Second, this isn't just a mere endorsement but rather a comprehensive action plan. Indeed, the front-page banner reads, "How You Can Help Elect John Kerry." 
The editors include detailed information about how to get registered, register others, and volunteer for organizations (like ACT) which are helping to oust Bush.
This is a stark difference from the New York Times endorsements I'm used to reading, which typically declare a pox on both houses before grudgingly endorsing one candidate. I'm also told by one e-mailer that the Philly Daily News is normally a very conservative paper. Never having read it before, I won't swear by that description, though if so, this represents an even bigger coup. (Maybe my PA-based guest bloggers can shed some light?)
I also want to make one last related point: A newspaper's ability to support a candidate in this way demonstrates to me the futility and unfairness of campaign finance laws. The argument that supports of campaign finance reform usually make is that we need to keep money out of politics. Yet the dollar value of this endorsement - a full cover picture and headline, a huge editorial - is enormous. Indeed, the Philly Daily News could run a story like this every week if it wanted. Because it's a media organization, the Supreme Court allows the Daily News almost unfettered first amendment freedom to support the candidates of its choosing.
But as an individual, I can't give more than $2000 to the Kerry campaign. Why should the Daily News be able to support John Kerry more extensively than I can? That seems quite unjust to me.
P.S. TAP's latest roundup is now online.
Posted at 05:31 PM in Pennsylvania | Comments (6) | Technorati
This Swing State is Swinging At Me
Posted by SeamusI have been meaning for a while to write on this but I've been noticeably absent from political blogs these past two months. I have been caught up with my life's work which has apparently landed me in the middle of swing state politics. I work for a non-partisan organization so my job is to keep above the partisan fray while doing my job - which just so happens to be working to protect a national forest in a swing state. This is more of a swing state story than an analysis but I thought it would be interesting nonetheless.
It all started on Earth Day. We had no special plans and were just plugging away as usual when we get a call. It seems that President Bush had planned two major events (that I know of) for Earth Day in 2004. Bush was directly involved in one such event in Maine. I don't recall the specifics. For the other, he sent his Secretary of Agriculture to Pennsylvania to promote logging in the state's only national forest.
I cannot tell you fur sure this is by design but its definitely true that the Bush Administration has made frequent trips to Western Pennsylvania - primarily in Pittsburgh. And I know its debatable what kind of influence the environment will have on this years election. And throughout the next few weeks I almost entirely cut myself out of the partisan political scene because I was engaged in my non-partisan work.
First, a co-worker attempted to join the tour of the national forest logging sites being given by the US Forest Service for Veneman's stump speech. The Secretary and company were gathered at a recently logged "Healthy Forests Initiative" site. He pulled in and was greeted by Forest Service Law Enforcement. He was quickly he could not stand on public lands and listen to Veneman's speech and if he tried he would be arrested.
A shit-storm hits. Having effectively ruined our rabid Congressman's visit he promptly follows a week later with a press release - attacking us. Why the delayed attack? Well, it turns out the swing state stump speeches aren't over. Next trip - US Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth. Once again the Chief is pushing "Healthy Forests Initiative" logging in our national forest. And this time they don't threaten arrest but we do learn some salient facts - such as the fact that this will be the second largest logging project in this forest ever (we're in court over the largest right now).
The full force of the Bush Administration's "Healthy Forests Initiative" is now upon us (and no, I can't not put that in quotes). And stepping away from my day job I can't wonder what this means in an important swing state. Most of the logging has not commenced but will be in full force by summer's end. This could very well generate a lot of press.
And there does appear to be broader recognition of the political importance of this part of the state despite our small populations. Governor Rendell has made several trips up here this year and I don't think its a coincidence. He has on one hand praised a local timber company (based in Oregon) and on the other been promoting tourism. No question, there is a political game here. So what will it be?
Posted at 11:01 AM in Pennsylvania | Technorati
John Anderson, Ralph Nader & Ballot Access
Posted by DavidNYCA while back, in the context of discussing Ralph Nader's drive to get on the ballot in all 50 states, I wondered aloud how John Anderson did it in 1980. Anderson ran as an independent, just as Nader is now. In 2000, Nader had the support of the Green Party, which helped get him on the ballot around the country. But without that third-party support, Nader's going to have a much tougher time this year. (Though what's left of the Reform Party did give Nader ballot lines in seven states, and Ralph has been courting the Greens once again.)
Anyhow, at the Kerry fundraiser I attended on Monday, I was fortunate enough to meet a seasoned political veteran who held a top post with the Anderson campaign. I asked him how they got on the ballot, seeing as they had no institutional support. He told me, quite simply, that the Anderson campaign spent almost every penny it had in order to do so - and that they had lawyers willing to work pro bono.
I don't know what kind of money Nader is capable of raising, but I think that his organization will wind up being as taxed as Anderson's was, if not more so. Democrats are determined to play hardball; as an example, the current wrangling going on over ballot access in Arizona suggests to me that Nader will have big legal bills piling up soon. And I do believe Nader's going to have to pay for his attorneys - rather than get them pro bono, as the Anderson campaign did - seeing as he's had to pay for signature gatherers.
As the summer marches on and Ralph tries to qualify for the ballot in other swing states, we'll see if he's got the cash for this battle. But if he wants to spend his money qualifying in places like Texas, then, by all means, he oughta do so.
UPDATE: I realize my thinking was a little bit muddled on this one. Anderson clearly paid for signatures - that's why the fellow I spoke with said they spent all their money on their ballot access effort. And just because Nader has paid for signatures this time around doesn't necessarily mean that he'll also have to pay for legal work. But the key difference is that Nader's ballot access efforts in 2000 went (as far as I know) mostly unopposed. This time, he'll need to find lawyers - whether paid or unpaid - no matter what. And he'll also have to collect more signatures as a buffer against any challenges. The bottom line is that this process will be a lot more costly for him than the last time around.
Posted at 03:54 AM in General | Comments (6) | Technorati
Monday, June 14, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 14
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous projection in parenthesis)
Nation two party popular vote
Kerry: 50.93 (51.49)
Bush: 49.07 (48.51)
Status: Too close to call
Electoral Projection
Kerry: 301 (301)
Bush: 237 (237)
States Changing hands form 2000: FL, NV, NH and WV
Right now, Kerry���s ���lead��� is about as thin as it can possibly be. I project him ahead by one point or less in Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The race has once again become truly too close to call.
Is Reagan to blame for Bush���s comeback? Maayyybe. The Chrsitian Science Monitor poll had a 43-41-7 three way trial heat in a poll conducted 6/1-6/6, and a 43-40-5 trial heat in a poll conducted during Gipperporn week, 6/8-6/13. What actually seems more to blame is a strange confluence of polls from firms that have always been favorable to Bush all being released at roughly the same time. Right now, Fox, Gallup approval and Rasmussen approval take up a significant portion of the survey. Most of the firms that tend to make things look good for Kerry, Zogby, ARG and CBS, do not have recent enough polls to be included in the calculation.
Will Gipperporn have a bigger payoff for Bush? I suppose we will see as new polls are released during the week. If he goes up any higher, quite a few light blue states on my map over at MyDD will start turning pink.
Posted at 11:03 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (1) | Technorati
Why Downticket Races Matter
Posted by DavidNYCI stressed one point tonight in my little talk at the Kerry fundraiser mentioned below: It's not enough for us just to win the White House. If we want to be able to accomplish anything at all - whether we're talking legislation or appointing federal judges - we need to take back Congress as well. Clinton spent six years fighting off a hostile GOP House and Senate every day. To undo the damage Bush has done, we're going to need the Presidency and one if not both branches of Congress.
So what does this have to do with the Swing State Project? Well, in certain cases, we get to kill two birds with one well-aimed stone. By supporting House and Senate candidates in swing states, we increase our chances of winning the state for Kerry and recapturing Congress. On the Senate side, we've got several great candidates: Joe Hoeffel running in PA, Nancy Farmer in MO and Eric Fingerhut in OH. And once Florida, Louisiana, and Colorado sort out their primaries, we should have strong opportunities there as well.
The House side is a little more complicated, with so many more races to keep track of. But to give one example of what I mean, check out Markos' post about Ohio. Though OH is a very large state, political observers thought until recently that every member, D and R, of Ohio's House delegation was safe. Turns out now that three insurgent Democrats - Ben Konop, Jane Mitakides, and Jeff Seemann - have all made things a lot more interesting, simply by putting up a fight.
Now, I'm not saying we'll win all these races - far from it. But each of these candidates - whether a big name like Farmer or a smaller player like Seemann - is making Republicans sweat. As I've written previously, every time we fight for a seat, regardless of our odds of winning, we prevent incumbent GOPers from fundraising for their buddies and force them to defend their home turf.
And when we combine this attitude - that we'll make every election a serious battle - with a focus on swing states, we can really hit one out of the park: taking back the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill.
UPDATE: I'm very pleased to see that Markos has selected Jeff Seemann as one of the "DKos 8" - Congressional candidates to whom the Kos community is pledging their full support. Read the post, though: Jeff's district (Ohio's 16th) is home to one of the most important "swing counties" in Ohio. If we really show up in force for Jeff, we can make things a lot harder for Dubya in the Buckeye State.
Posted at 09:38 PM in General, Ohio | Technorati
Speaking Engagement
Posted by DavidNYCTonight, I'm doing my first bit of public speaking since my Dean campaign days - I'm talking at a Kerry house party-style fundraiser at Cafe St. Bart's here in NYC. Naturally, I'm going to talk about swing state activism. (I'm billed right after former New York City Public Advocate and one-time Senate and Mayoral candidate Mark Green - cool!) I'm off right now, so wish me luck!
Posted at 05:47 PM in General | Comments (4) | Technorati
Friday, June 11, 2004
Swing State Roundup
Posted by DavidNYCTAP's Purple People Watch update is out this week. They have some more details on the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in AZ, and some info on Kerry's attempts to woo the Latino vote, both in Florida and New Mexico.
Sadly (to me, at least), it seems that Bill Richardson won't be our VP nominee. I've heard that he has problems of a... hmm, shall we say, Clintonian variety in his past. Not that that ever stopped the Big Dog, but I can more than understand why Kerry would be reluctant to have someone with "issues" like this on his ticket. Hopefully, though, we'll see many more years of great service out of Richardson.
Posted at 05:17 PM in General | Comments (4) | Technorati
The Empirical Nader Effect
Posted by DavidNYCWhen I see a poll that does a version with and without Nader, I often feel that there's something of a Nader effect - ie, that Ralph is distinctly drawing more votes away from John Kerry than from George Bush. Ed, a frequent commenter here and proprietor of his own blog, Unfutz, has actually crunched the numbers and turned a suspicion into cold, hard fact.
Nationally, says Ed, Nader draws 1.53% from Kerry. It doesn't sound like a lot, but in a very close election, such a margin can mean a great deal. At MyDD, Chris calculates the 2000 Nader effect (based on exit polls) at 0.65%. This means that right now, Nader is hurting Kerry almost a full point worse than he hurt Gore four years ago.
As Chris points out, Nader is likely polling far better now than he actually will on election day. Several polls have shown Nader pulling an implausible 8% in various states. What I'd love to see now is what kind of Nader effect polls in June of 2000 were showing.
Posted at 01:07 PM in General | Comments (6) | Technorati
Thursday, June 10, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, June 10
Posted by Chris Bowers(Yesterday's results in parenthesis)
National Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.10 (52.19)
Bush: 47.90 (47.81)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 301 (321)
Bush: 237 (217)
States Chaing Hands from 2000: FL, NV, NH and WV
I know it doesn't make any sense on the surface, but the first trial heat in a month that shows Kerry ahead of Bush in Ohio actually caused the state to shift from Kerry to Bush. The reason for this is that I use the central mean in my calculations. Adding another poll and a job rating in the state caussed the previous polls showing Bush ahead to take on more value in the Ohio calculation, while the poll showing Kerry ahead was given relatively little value. Also, ARG's Ohio poll (with its extremely high Bush unfavorables) has been removed from the Ohio calculation, giving Bush a very small lead in the state.
I currently calculate that in 15 states Bush and Kerry are separated by less than five points: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The battleground appears to range all over, without any single region being the key.
Posted at 03:41 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
ARG: Dead Heat in NH
Posted by DavidNYCAmerican Research Group's latest poll in the Granite State (3/30 - 4/1 in parens):
Kerry: 46 (43)
Bush: 46 (48)
Nader: 2 (3)
Unsure: 6 (6)
(MoE: ��4%)
That's some pretty good movement for Kerry. Unfortunately, he has a pretty poor favorability numbers: 48-48. Bush isn't much different, clocking in at 49-46. I'm guessing that the long exposure during the primary season (and relentless attack ads by other Democrats) probably has permanently hurt Kerry here. I still think it's very winnable for us, especially when you consider that NH has been trending our way for some time.
Posted at 02:34 PM in New Hampshire | Comments (1) | Technorati
Moore Information Poll in Oregon
Posted by DavidNYCLot of polls around here today. I just came across a poll from Moore Information on Polling Report. Two caveats: I'm not seeing this poll anywhere else (I don't think I even saw it mentioned on DKos - could that be possible?) and Moore is a GOP firm. However, I'm posting this poll because I trust Polling Report and also because I think Moore is serious and fair-minded. Without further ado:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 39
Nader: 4
Unsure: 13
(MoE: ��4%)
These numbers are obviously pleasing for John Forbes Kerry. And as we know, Nader's been having surprising trouble qualifying for the ballot in Oregon. So I wonder where his supporters will go if they can't vote for him on election day.
Posted at 02:49 AM in Oregon | Comments (3) | Technorati
Rasmussen's Electoral College Overview
Posted by DavidNYCI know Rasmussen comes in for a fair amount of abuse in the lefty blogosphere, and some of that criticism may well be deserved. But ya gotta give the guy credit for working overtime: Almost no one (except perhaps Zogby, with those lazy Internet-based polls) releases numbers on so many different states so often.
So take a gander, if you care to, at Rasmussen's overall electoral college projection. Unlike the fearless Chris Bowers, Ras insists on maintaining a "toss-up" category, which includes any state where a candidate's lead is less than 5 points. The numbers (as of June 9) are:
Kerry: 227
Bush: 177
Toss-Up: 134
You can take a look at all of Rasmussen's recent state polls here, if you want to see which states he's considering toss-ups right now.
Posted at 02:34 AM in General | Technorati
LAT Polls Three Swing States: MO, OH, WI
Posted by DavidNYCAs part of a larger national poll, the LA Times also ran polls in three swing states: Missouri, Ohio & Wisconsin.
Missouri:
Kerry: 37
Bush: 48
Nader: 5
Unsure: 10
Kerry: 42
Bush: 48
Unsure: 10
Ohio:
Kerry: 45
Bush: 42
Nader: 4
Unsure: 9
Kerry: 46
Bush: 45
Unsure: 9
Wisconsin:
Kerry: 42
Bush: 44
Nader: 4
Unsure: 10
Kerry: 44
Bush: 44
Unsure: 11
Other (vol.): 1
(MoE for all polls: ��4%)
The MO result is pretty disheartening - but of course, we don't need it to win. On the flipside, we can't afford to concede it, either. If we do that, then the Bushies can pour that money into Ohio instead.
(Thanks to mattb25.)
UPDATE: I added in the polling numbers without Nader. Kerry looks a lot better in MO - indeed, five points better - without Nader in the mix.
Posted at 01:34 AM in Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin | Comments (13) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Narrow Kerry Lead in MI
Posted by DavidNYCEPIC/MRA shows Kerry with a small lead in MI (3/28 - 4/01 results in parens - and yes, they are completely identical):
Kerry: 47 (47)
Bush: 45 (45)
Undecided: 8 (8)
Kerry: 45 (45)
Bush: 43 (43)
Nader: 3 (3)
Undecided: 9 (9)
(MoE: ��4)
I admit I'm a bit nervous to see MI this close. Other polls have shown this race to be a bit wider, but not by much. (One SUSA poll gave Kerry a ten-point lead back in April, but that seems to be an outlier.) Given the lousy state of manufacturing jobs and the fact that Michigan's sizable Arab-American population has turned against Bush, I'd expect Kerry to be doing better here. I wonder if Bush's flip-flop on the steel tariffs has now helped him, though.
One piece of good news: Bush's favorability (46-49) and job approval (45-55) ratings both continued to drop and are now hovering, as you can see, below the Mendoza line.
Posted at 04:04 PM in Michigan | Comments (6) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, June 8: Kerry Back in Front
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.19 (51.42)
Bush: 47.81 (48.58)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 321 (316)
Bush: 217 (222)
States Changing Hands from 2000: FL, NV, NH, OH and WV
With the exception of the not-unfavorable ratings, which still stretch back into May, all of the data points in the national vote projection are from June. Also, West Virginia moves into Kerry���s column for the first time in a month.
Some believe that Bush will receive a Reagan bounce. I am not one of those people. Simply based on personality, Reagan made Bush���s father look weak and undesirable by comparison, especially among conservatives. All the talk about Reagan helping to win the cold war won���t help Bush in his war or terror either, since remembering the Soviet Union will just make Bush���s current war look small and pathetic by comparison. If anything, I believe Reagan���s passing will cause Bush to drop in the polls. When an entire week of news coverage is dedicated to painting a former president as one of the greatest Americans of all time, when Bush���s face once again becomes a regular feature on television screens across the country, the difference will be stark.
Posted at 12:55 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (3) | Technorati
Zogby Battleground Poll Update
Posted by DavidNYCThough it uses a somewhat unusual (some say questionable) methodology, the Zogby Battleground Poll is handy because it gives us a bi-weekly snapshot of pretty much all the swing states all in one place.
This is the second poll in this series. Changes from the first poll: Kerry takes the lead in IA and WV, while Bush picks up MO, NM and OH. Though Kerry's overall lead in this poll has narrowed, Zogby shows him picking up FL, NH & NV (in addition to WV), while Bush only picks up NM. So this still gives us a fairly decent win in the electoral college, 296-242.
Ed at Unfutz has a more detailed breakdown of the poll.
Posted at 11:33 AM in General | Technorati
Monday, June 07, 2004
Latest in the Long Line of SSP Clones: Slate
Posted by DavidNYCLike the Economist and the American Prospect, Slate has launched a series analyzing the swing states. Now that it's summer, these Johnny-come-latelies are finally interested in swing states. Well, welcome aboard, fellas!
Check out the map: They're saying that CO, LA and VA aren't swing, but that NJ and TN are. NJ? Okay, if you say so. Anyhow, Slate's first stop is Missouri. Chris Suellentrop quotes a former Gephardt pollster who says that Kerry has no chance at winning MO - or if he does, it'll only be in a landslide. Then Suellentrop tries to back this up by spending a whole bunch of time arguing that city slicker-types fare poorly statewide in MO.
Fine, this may be a valid point. But the fact is, the last Rasmussen poll was a dead heat, 44-43 Bush. You really can't just ignore polling data - or if you are going to, you have to say why. Suellentrop's piece provides some good color on what politicking in MO is like, and I appreciate the fact that he (unlike me) can do some actualy, on-the-ground reporting. But in the face of polls showing a close race, I don't find his analysis convincing.
(Thanks to Alan.)
Posted at 01:21 PM in General | Comments (15) | Technorati
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Rasmussen Roundup Redux
Posted by DavidNYCSpeaking of Rasmussen, he's got a bunch more polls out this weekend. DemFromCT over at Kos has the roundup once again.
Kerry's up 5 in MN and 6 in MI. He's down 5 in AR. Oh, he's also (still) up 12 in NJ, for those of you who might be fretting over Quinnipiac's last showing. And here's an interesting detail: In the first poll of South Carolina this year, Kerry's back only 10 points. This is a state Bush won by 16 in 2000. We aren't going to win here, but if Bush remains this far back from his 2000 numbers here, SC could be a sort of canary in the coalmine for what's going to happen to Dubya in other closer states.
Posted at 05:46 PM in Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota | Technorati
Kerry Ahead in Maine
Posted by DavidNYCA new poll shows John Kerry with a big lead in Maine (no trendlines):
Kerry: 49
Bush: 39
Undecided/Other: 12
(MoE: 4%)
I'm not familiar with the firm that did this poll, Critical Insights, but Polling Report includes them, so that's at least one seal of approval. I have to believe that Bush is really screwed in Maine, even in the more Republican-leaning second CD. An old Critical Insights poll done back in September of last year showed "Democrat" beating George Bush 45-36. A Strategic Marketing Services poll from a few months back gave Kerry a big 51-38 lead, and Rasmussen's latest (salt as needed) has Kerry up a whopping 19 points, 54-35.
One reassuring detail: According to CI, independents favor Kerry 45-34 over Bush - and there are more independents than Republicans or Democrats in Maine.
Posted at 05:37 PM in Maine | Comments (1) | Technorati
Swing Voters in Swing States Sour on Bush
Posted by DavidNYCPeople complain (rightly) that the electoral college narrows the focus of presidential campaigns to just a handful of states - this year, around 20. But it's even worse than that, because in those states, the only voters that candidates really pay attention to are the undecideds in the middle. Sure, there's always a certain amount of "shoring up your base," but the crucial task, it seems, is to capture the center while still holding on to your flank.
And the number of undecided voters is especially tiny: An Annenberg survey says that just 11% of voters are actually swing voters. The population of the 20 battleground states in this poll is some 106 million, according to the 2002 census figures. (Their list leaves out VA and TN, but includes DE.) That's about 36.6% of the overall US population of 288 million. So already we're down to about a third of all possible Americans.
But multiply that 106 million by 11% and you're down to a mere 11.6 million voters deciding this election. That's just 4% of the entire country. The good news is that these folks have more negative views of Bush than the population at large. They give him lower marks on overall approval, approval of his handling of Iraq and approval of his handling of the economy. We should be able to do well among this group.
This is also a good opportunity to take another look at the issue of electoral college reform (previously discussed here and here).
Now, without the electoral college, candidates from both parties would be forced instead to campaign (and advertise) in the largest population centers. If you look at the list of what the Census Bureau calls "Metropolitan Statistical Areas," almost 130 are in or partially in swing states. (And since I'm going by the Annenberg list, I'm not including VA.)
I'm certain that campaigns don't advertise in every single one of these media markets, but they probably hit most of `em. So I'm going to make the following assumption (feel free to disagree): If we had a national popular election instead of the electoral college, campaigns would likely focus their attention on the top 75 to 100 population centers. Yes, this list is more expensive to advertise in because now you're including New York & LA - but you're also hitting a lot more people on this list.
How many, exactly? Using 1997 numbers (the most recent I could find, broken down this way), the 75 largest metro areas (ranging from NYC down to Witchita, KS) had a population of 170 million. That's already a major improvement - that number was 64% of the overall 1997 population of 266 million. Even if you only hit the MSAs with a population over one million (that takes you as far as Palm Beach - sigh), you'd still cover 150 million people, or 56% of the country.
Eleven percent of that most conservative number (150 million) gives you 16.5 million, or 6.2% of the 1997 population. Now, this still isn't a very big number, and of course all elections will actually be decided by a small subset of voters. But it's more than 50% better than the present 4% that Annenberg says matter right now. And of course, a national popular vote is a fairer, more democratic way to vote for president. We can always dream.
UPDATE: Reader Dennis writes in to point out a very obvious error I made: The population figures I used were for the population at large, not just the number of registered voters. So the actual number of undecided voters is far smaller, though I believe overall my argument - that more voters would be targeted in a national election - still holds.
Posted at 05:24 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Mason-Dixon: Sizable Kerry Lead in WV
Posted by DavidNYCThe last few polls in West Virginia have either given Bush the lead or shown the race to be neck-and-neck. Mason-Dixon offers up a new poll which shows Kerry with a pretty sizable lead:
Kerry: 47
Bush: 41
Undecided: 12
(MoE: ��4%)
There are no trendlines here. And unfortunately, this poll is only available on Polling Report's subscribers-only section. In fact, this poll is described as having been performed for a "private client." I don't know how big a force independent voters are in WV, but they are leaning toward Kerry 45-35 in this poll.
As I recall, the Democratic candidate for governor in WV was reluctant to even mention John Kerry's name when saying he supported his party's nominee for President. Hopefully, polls results like this will convince the WV Democratic establishment that supporting Kerry is not an electoral death-sentence. To the contrary: It would seem that supporting Bush is now the riskier move.
P.S. The Prospect has a new Purple People Watch column up. I wish, though, that they'd be a bit more blog-like about it, and post links to polls, news stories, etc. On second thought, nah, I don't really want the competition.
Posted at 02:10 PM in West Virginia | Comments (7) | Technorati
Assessing the Accuracy of Polls
Posted by DavidNYCGary in the comments of a post below points us to a short but useful article from a few years back by the National Council on Public Polls. The NCPP examined the accurary of all the major polling organizations based on their predictions for the 2000 election. The best was Harris. The worst was Rasmussen, which used a very strange method of collecting answers.
Anyhow, as they say on Wall Street, past performance is no guarantee of future results. But this list is handy inasmuch as it provides a brief track-record for the big polling outfits. I'd love to see a more comprehensive analysis done over a longer time-period. When I get back from my college reunion (five years, wow) later this weekend, I'll poke around for something along those lines.
Posted at 01:50 PM in General | Technorati
Friday, June 04, 2004
Kerry Narrows Bush Lead in LA
Posted by DavidNYCLouisiana's a mystery to me: One poll shows Bush with a whopping 19-point lead, the next shows Kerry just six points behind, 48-42 (MoE: ��4%). Now, I know that different polls have different methodologies, but still, this seems like a remarkably wide difference to me.
As for the headline of this post, the prior poll by this outfit gave Bush a 10-point lead. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the actual trendlines for the earlier March poll. (There seems to be nothing on Polling Report or Lexis.)
(Thanks to Hoffmania.)
UPDATE: Ed in the comments does the due diligence about this polling outfit - Marketing Research Institute - that I should have done, and warns us that MRI may very well be a GOP operation. Now, I think partisan polling has its place - it just has to be identified as such. The odd thing, though, is that this poll is one of the closest we've ever seen for LA, despite its possible partisan bias.
Posted at 09:42 PM in Louisiana | Comments (6) | Technorati
Rasmussen Poll Roundup
Posted by DavidNYCKos has a big Rasmussen poll roundup, including swing states MO, OH, OR, PA and VA. And how do ya like this: We're back one point in MO, two in OH, one in OR, one in PA and (this is somewhat amazing to me) just two in VA. No trendlines on VA, but that's still mighty close. (MoE's for each of these polls are different, ranging from 3% to 5%.)
Posted at 09:33 PM in General | Comments (5) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, June 4 Revised
Posted by Chris BowersNational Two-Party Popular Vote
Kerry: 51.42
Bush: 48.58
Status: Too Close to Call
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 316
Bush: 222
States Changing Hands form 2000: FL, NV, NH and OH
Today, after publishing an admittedly thin GECC, I came across new Annenberg job approval and favorable numbers (Warning: PDF File). This wiped away almost all the May data, and significantly reduced the size of the dataset. With what was left, Bush had gained enough on Kerry to make the calculation ���too close to call.���
This is the first time the race has not been ���lean Kerry��� in almost four weeks. If the election were tomorrow, I would guess that Kerry would win. However, that is all it would be: a guess. Kerry holds paper-thin leads in Ohio and Florida, and if he lost both Bush would win in the House of Representatives after a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. I suppose that would be fitting for Bush: winning re-election in an even less democratic way than he won the Presidency the first time.
I was hoping that the race would swing to ���solid Kerry��� before it went back to ���too close to call��� again, and that Kerry would soon hold a lead of seven points or greater in more than 269 electoral votes worth of states. However, it was not to be, and the race has returned to the toss-up it was for ten straight weeks after Super Tuesday. Perhaps it is a good thing, as always seeing things go your way can lead to complacency.
Posted at 09:14 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (3) | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, June 4
Posted by Chris Bowers(Previous Numbers in Parenthesis)
National Two Party Vote Projection
Kerry: 52.2 (52.3)
Bush: 47.8 (47.7)
Status: Lean Kerry
Electoral Vote Projection
Kerry: 327 (327)
Bush: 211 (211)
States Changing Hands: AL, MO, NV, NH and OH
Finally, a new poll! ARG has come out with a national trial heat and a new job approval rating.
Still, this one poll has not dislodged the glut of polls released from 5/18-5/24 (CBS, ABC, Gallup, Fox and Q-poll all released numbers then), so there is little change in the overall calculation. At least one more national poll will be needed to shake things up a bit.
The Swing State Project is now the exclusive location for my commentary on General Election Cattle Call updates. Check out the President 2004 Outlook page at MyDD for more info. Hopefully, this will allow me to better differentiate between my two blogging gigs, and increase traffic for both sites.
Posted at 03:44 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (4) | Technorati
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
The State of the States
Posted by Chris BowersThere hasn���t been much in the way of new national polling over the past week, leaving the General Election Cattle Call without much new to report. So, I���ll go ahead and give updates on how I currently project the campaign in all twenty-seven states that analysts even remotely consider "swing" (I���m the analyst who feels that way about Georgia):
Illinois: Kerry +17.4
Delaware: Kerry +17.2
California: Kerry +13.0
New Jersey: Kerry +11.2
Maine: Kerry +9.2
Washington: Kerry +8.4
Minnesota: Kerry +8.0
Pennsylvania: Kerry +7.8
Wisconsin: Kerry +6.4
New Hampshire: Kerry +6.2
Michigan: Kerry +5.8
New Mexico: Kerry +4.6
Oregon: Kerry +4.4
Iowa: Kerry +2.6
Ohio: Kerry +2.6
Florida: Kerry +2.2
Nevada: Kerry +2.2
Missouri: Kerry +2.0
Tennessee: Bush +1.2
West Virginia: Bush +2.3
Arizona: Bush +2.6
Arkansas: Bush +3.1
Virginia: Bush + 3.9
Colorado: Bush +4.3
North Carolina: Bush +6.2
Georgia: Bush +7.6
Louisiana: Bush +13.6
Not bad for June. Not bad at all.
My methodology behind these posts is explained here.
[Addendum: Looks like Swami Chris has 5 states changing hands: NH, OH, FL, NV, MO. By my count, those states total 67 EVs, giving Kerry a 327 to 211 win. - David]
Posted at 09:05 PM in General | Comments (7) | Technorati
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Yes, Virginia, There is a John Kerry
Posted by DavidNYCI'm surprised I missed this one last week: John Kerry, who boldly put up ads in CO & LA, is going on the airwaves in Virginia to the tune of $750 grand. So far, Team Bush isn't up in VA... and how do ya like this: Bush has gone off the air in LA! So Kerry is advertising in 20 states, while Bush is only running ads in 18. Now that's a headline I'd like to see. (This, by the way, is part of a new $17 million June ad blitz, now that the $25+ million May extravaganza has wrapped up.)
VA is winnable this year - if we have our Bowers-projected landslide. But more realistically, I think VA is headed in our direction for good, due to demographic shifts and the growth of the more liberal northern VA suburbs around DC. Chris's chart shows a consistent narrowing of VA's pro-GOP partisan index over the last four elections (with just a slight uptick in 2000). In a few more elections (say, one or two), I think the Republicans will have decidedly lost their lock on Virginia. Seeing as the state is fast-growing enough to add two EVs over the last half-century, this would be an especially good development for us.
On a related note (though this is more Luke's area of expertise than mine), I'm very pleased that Kerry is going to be unveiling ads targeted toward black and Latino voters. Though the NDN has already begun airing ads aimed toward Hispanics, it's important for Kerry to make his own outreach efforts. I think the minority vote will be crucial in certain swing states, such as PA and FL.
One topic I'd like to see in such an ad: the draft. I think the odds of the draft being brought back are still quite low, just because it's such a political poison pill. But it's still possible - and more importantly, the idea is being talked about and written about in the press. As we know, poor, young minority men were vastly over-represented in the ranks of Vietnam draftees. Let's make sure this never happens again.
A friend tells me that KRS-ONE recently spoke about the draft at a hip-hop/political event - in short, the idea has currency. John Kerry ought to run with it, and considering he served so honorably it Vietnam, he's got the cred to do so.
P.S. The "Larry Sabato is clueless" watch continues:
"I find it odd," Sabato said. "I can think of a half-dozen states that Bush won [in 2000] where this would make more sense than in Virginia."
So can I, dimwit - and John Kerry is already up on the air in each of those states. In fact, he's on the air in 10 of them. Does he mean that Kerry should spend his $750K in Ohio instead of VA? That's hardly worth it. First off, Kerry gets tons of free media simply for going up in Virginia. Second, it's a "gesture of strength," as Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill explains. And third, it shows that Kerry isn't "writing off the South," which is important in keeping local political machines interested in supporting Kerry and in helping the downticket races.
Larry Sabato, get a clue.
Posted at 03:32 AM in Virginia | Comments (8) | Technorati
Electoral College Reform Revisited
Posted by DavidNYCBack in the very early days of this blog (aka last October), I wrote a post about electoral college reform. It produced a great set of comments which, if you're a numbers geek, I highly recommend checking out. Anyhow, I was primarily discussing what would happen if every state adopted a system like ME and NE's - where EVs are awarded for the winner of each Congressional District, and the overall popular vote winner gets the final two EVs.
At the end, I asked what I thought was a throwaway question, though it wound up sparking most of the comments:
Could a state pass a law appointing electors simply in proportion to the total popular vote won? I don't see why not. Article II �� 1 of the US Constitution says: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." Seems like the states have free reign here.
The consensus was that, nationally, such a move would likely be bad for the Dems. But in particular states, it might help. And indeed, in Colorado, one group is apparently attempting to establish such a regime via ballot measure.
While this would help Dems in Colorado (had this system been in place in 2000, Gore would have gotten 2 of CO's EVs, rather than zero), it would hurt the Dems if it were adopted nationwide. And if such a system passes in CO, you can bet that Republicans in big Dem states (like CA, where getting an initiative on the ballot is easy, or NY, where both the Governor and State Senate are Republican) will try to push for similar measures there. In short, this is a war we don't want to start, as this right-wing columnist correctly observes.
Interestingly, while poking around for more information on the CO ballot measure, I discovered that a similar effort is underway in Missouri. Brad Ketcher, former chief of staff to the late Mel Carnahan, is apparently circulating petitions for two different electoral reform plans: One just like that in CO and one identical to the ME/NE system. Neither seem to have been given a spot on the ballot yet.
I couldn't find out any more info on this topic - most of the news about MO ballot measures concerns an attempt to ban gay marriage. (Sigh.) If any locals know any more about this (especially if you've been asked to sign this petition), I'd be grateful if you could let me know.
And again, while this system would have helped Gore in MO in 2000 - indeed, the straight-proportional plan would have split the state's EVs 6-5 and tipped the entire election to Gore - we really don't want to go down this path. If you want empirical confirmation of that, I once again suggest that you check out the comments to my old post mentioned above. And if we can win MO this year - which I think we can - then this system would hurt us.
My personal feeling is that the only appropriate voting reform is to abolish the electoral college and go to a national popular vote. This would, however, require a constitutional amendment. And since such a move would draw down the power of small states (and hence, Republicans), this is just never gonna happen.
(RMN column thanks to John Smith.)
Posted at 01:08 AM in Colorado, General, Missouri | Comments (8) | Technorati