« The Pittsburgh Effect | Main | Quickie Insta-Poll on Edwards »
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
More NC Polling Data
Posted by DavidNYCEven though it falls outside of my strict criteria, I'm going to add NC as a swing state based on Chris's observation that VPs historically provide a roughly five-and-a-half percent boost in their home states. The margin in NC in 2000 was about 13 points (interestingly, Nader was not on the ballot there); with Chris's new cosmological constant in play, that puts NC safely within the SSP's ��10% cut-off. (I'll update the map as soon as I get a chance.)
Rasmussen just released a new, month-long poll that covers the month of June (May in parens):
Kerry: 42 (44)
Bush: 49 (48)
Other: 2 (3)
Undecided: 6 (5)
(MoE: ��5%)
Kerry's gap widened from four to seven points here, but the MoE is fairly hefty. I bet we'll see it close up again when Rasmussen releases his July poll.
Research 2000 also did a poll back in June for a consortium of media outlets (no trendlines):
Kerry: 42
Bush: 47
(MoE: ��4%)
Quite maddeningly, the article linked just above says, "The divide would narrow further if Kerry selects Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, according to the survey," but it doesn't say what those numbers are! If anyone can find those numbers, I'm sure we'd all really love to see them. (By the way, this is the same R2K poll I mentioned below concerning Edwards' popularity numbers.)
I think my earlier throwaway comparison to NJ is at least half-right: Right now, Bush is looking surprisingly weak in NC (just as a few polls have shown Kerry looking surprisingly weak in NJ), but odds are, that'll change by election day. It's half-wrong, of course, because the big difference is that Bush isn't tapping Christie Whitman to be his VP - if he had, then I might be more nervous about Jersey (and the election in general). With Johnny Sunshine on the ticket, NC becomes a whole new ballgame. Someone please insert a clever Bull Durham quote here, willya?
Posted at 05:56 PM in North Carolina | Technorati
Comments
You should know there was a poll in North Carolina taken with Edwards on the ticket and it showed Bush 46- Kerry/Edwards 45. I don't know if this was done by Survey Usa or Mason-Dixon but I remember it well.
Posted by: Alan Snipes at July 6, 2004 06:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mason-Dixon: http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=193
Posted by: Ben Schak at July 6, 2004 07:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yep - that poll is mentioned below. Thanks.
Posted by: DavidNYC at July 6, 2004 07:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Someone please insert a clever Bull Durham quote here, willya?
OK.
"Yeah, and he scrambled the son of a bitch. Look at that, he hit the fuckin' bull. Guy gets a free steak. Hahaha! You havin' fun yet?"
BTW, this is a great blog.
Posted by: joseph at July 6, 2004 08:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's a link to a nice blog with direct link to the June N&O poll data.
http://bushisnuts.com/weblog.html
Posted by: Laura at July 6, 2004 09:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
From Bloomberg:
"North Carolina
North Carolina's electoral votes haven't gone to a Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, when Jimmy Carter, a former Georgia governor, won his bid for the White House.
Bush is leading Kerry among likely voters in the state 46 percent to 40 percent, according to a June 13-16 poll conducted for the News and Observer. Four percent favored Nader. Bush beat Gore in the state in 2000 56 percent to 43 percent.
Twenty-three percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for Kerry if he chose North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 51, as his running mate. Fifty-one percent said Edwards would make no difference on their vote.
The poll surveyed 600 adults 18 and older who told the interviewers that they were likely to vote in the presidential election. It had a margin of error of 4 percentage points."
SOOO, 23% of 600 in NC would be more likely to choose Edwards. That sounds like a DAMN good swing to ME!
Posted by: RNinNC at July 7, 2004 03:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Strikeouts are boring, and besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls ... it's more democratic."
Clearly, Crash Davis never had a fantasy team.
Posted by: Alan at July 7, 2004 03:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
David,
I think your numbers from May are backwards in the poll. I'll be keen to see the bump next month.
Posted by: seamus at July 7, 2004 10:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
A poll on May 18th of North Carolina voters put Bush-Cheney 46, Kerry-Edwards 45, Nader 2, Undecided 7. Margin of error +- 4 points.
In conclusion, North Carolina is anyone's state. Considering the fact that Nader may not be on the ballot in November in NC (I heard this somewhere) Kerry-Edwards CAN win North Carolina.
Source (Kerry-Edwards poll is at bottom of page): http://www.wral.com/news/3319278/detail.html
Posted by: David at July 7, 2004 10:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Choosing Edwards tells us that Kerry isn't just writing off the south. All Kerry has to do is win one or two southern states and its pretty much impossible for Bush to win. I can't see Bush winning even if he loses Florida. He'd have to get awfully lucky elsewhere, like picking up WV, OH, WI, OR to replace all those FL electoral votes. Kerry made the right choice choosing Edwards.
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 7, 2004 10:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Not that it matters now, but i can tell you Nader was not on the ballot in 2000 in NC. I know, because my wife was going to vote for him but couldn't. we both switched to Gore- me on Saturday, her in the booth....
Posted by: steve at July 7, 2004 07:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I can't see Bush winning even if he loses Florida. He'd have to get awfully lucky elsewhere, like picking up WV, OH, WI, OR to replace all those FL electoral votes.
You're right that Florida is important, but, looking at the various scenarios, it's really Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania that'll determine the election. Whoever takes two out those three states wins, with enough margin to withstand the loss of a small state (and sometimes two). (If Kerry takes PA & OH, but loses NM and doesn't pick-up NH, Bush wins, but other combinations of these three states provide hefty margins.)
I think PA will stay Dem in the end, but Florida and Ohio are really too close to call at this point.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 7, 2004 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
(If Kerry takes PA & OH, but loses NM and doesn't pick-up NH, Bush wins, but other combinations of these three states provide hefty margins.)
Strike that, I had one state set wrong when I ran that scenario. The broader point is still true, that under most reasonable combinations, both candidates need 2 out of PA, FL & OH to win. (Bush can win without Florida if he holds on to Ohio and takes PA and holds NH -- but I don't think that's a reasonable outcome to predict at this time.)
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 7, 2004 10:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Bush will prevail in OH, as it has deep Republican roots. But, Kerry will win FL and PA, both states that are trending Democratic in recent elections.
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 8, 2004 08:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree about PA, and would have about Florida until recently -- right now I'm looking for some more Kerry-leading polling results there before I resume my optimism about that state.
OH has me stumped. I'm not ready to write it off yet, and I think Edwards' "Two Americas" appeal might have a strong effect there, given the economic conditions, so, there too, I'm waiting for some trend in the polling to appear.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at July 8, 2004 02:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Election night. Kerry wins FL and PA, both states are trending Democratic and Kerry is opening slight leads. Bush probably wins OH. It's a Republican state. Just about every office holder of any significance is a Republican in Ohio. If Kerry wins OH, it's going to be an ugly night for the Bush clan.
Posted by: Rock_nj at July 8, 2004 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why would a state that wouldnt re-elect a guy senator elect him VP?
Posted by: mark buehner at August 5, 2004 11:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As a Tar Heel resident of nearly 20 years, I will consider it a major "victory" of sorts for Kerry and Edwards to not lose NC by more than 5% on Election Day. Seriously, folks, George Bush has North Carolina comfortably in his pocket, and it's time to focus more attention on Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, and maybe even Wisconsin.
Posted by: Pepe at August 5, 2004 12:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why would a state that wouldnt re-elect a guy senator elect him VP?
Sigh. First off, polling showed Edwards with a good chance at re-election. In any event, in the absence of any actual election results, no one can speak on this with final authority. Second, as I never tire of pointing out, his popularity has gone up since he dropped out of the presidential race. NC voters are allowed to change their minds.
But unless the situation changes in NC, I'm not going to beat this dead horse any further.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 5, 2004 04:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wrong track, everyone! My interpretation: any Edwards bounce in North Carolina was dwarfed by the response in South Carolina and Tennessee! See the polling data.
North Carolina swing: 1 point, from Bush +6 to Bush +5. (though note odd Gallup outlier)
South Carolina swing: 10 points, from Bush +17 to Bush +7.
Tennessee swing: 12 points, from Bush +12.1 to Kerry +0.5.
Posted by: Sam Wang at August 5, 2004 09:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment