« State-by-State Odds of Kerry Victory | Main | Colorado EV-Splitting Initiative is on the Ballot »
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Four New Swing States
Posted by Chris BowersZogby has declared that four new states--Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia--are now swing states and will be included in future Zogby Interactive Battleground polls.
Sweet! Not only does this show weakness in Bush's base, we will all be treated to regular polls from these four states. This will also help to reinforce the emerging conventional wisdom that Bush is in a lot of trouble in this campaign.
As a testament to David's determination, he had never given up on these states, listing them as swing all along. It is forward thinking people like that who will be the backbone of a more aggressive Democratic Party in the years to come.
Georgia and Louisiana remain the final frontiers.
Posted at 04:29 PM in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia | Technorati
Comments
NC, AZ, VA, and CO are swing states? Really? I fear this is a late summer mirage that in the much cooler month of November will reveal a harsh reality. The Zogby poll sounds great, but I don't buy it. I thought "swing state" meant the outcome is in complete doubt, and that state could "flip" from one side to the next. I don't see that happening in any of those four states. I remember this same over-confidence four years ago. I got burned myself, as I bought into the belief that Gore couldn't possibly lose, and we all know how that one ended--controversy and all. Since then, I've become much more circumspect, and I will not count my chickens before they've hatched. The election is not today, but rather in November--we still have the Republican convention, the debates, and unknown events here and abroad that could impact things greatly before we start celebrating in August!
Posted by: Pepe at August 17, 2004 05:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, Chris, for the props & for keeping this site moving while I've been, well, moving. You've been the biggest Georgia evangelist around here, so when that state starts to head in our direction, you will win the title of Swing State Prophet.
It's kind of funny: I included states like VA, CO, etc. because my simple methodology told me to. I'll be very pleasantly surprised if my list winds up making more sense than even I thought it would!
And to Pepe: While I don't think there is a good chance that all the states on this list could flip in this election, I definitely think several (like the aforementioned CO & VA, plus AZ) are decidedly heading in our direction. Definitely don't get your hopes up this time around. But I see many more blue states in our future.
Posted by: DavidNYC at August 17, 2004 05:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is great news for Kerry and Dems. All of these states are Republican strongholds. If Kerry can pick up just one of these states, probably can't, but if he can, then Bush is toast. :-) Definitely a good sign though, it means that Bush is weak.
Remember Bush will bounce next month and the election will be decided by the debates.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 17, 2004 06:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Arizona is changing at the speed of light, and if Kerry ends up winning by even a modest margin, I could see him winning AZ's 10 electoral votes. The other three seem highly unlikely. In fact, I think the sugar import issue puts Louisiana more in play for Kerry than any of the three new battlegrounds. As stated, however, demographic changes are making VA, CO, and NC increasingly Dem-friendly.
In regards to Virginia in particular, if Bush gets re-elected and follows through with his plans to replace half the federal workforce with low-wage, non-union, no-benefit part-timers, it would be the equivalent of a neutron bomb to the entire Washington, DC, metro economy, including Northern Virginia. Should this scenario play out, God forbid, I could easily see VA's transformation to a blue state accelerate.
Posted by: Mark at August 17, 2004 06:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the Kerry Campaign is correct to probe these states and see where there is weakness in the Bush line of defense. I haven't seen a poll out of Colorado since June 18. It could be interesting because Clinton carried Colorado in 1992, and barely lost it in 1996.
Posted by: Alan Snipes at August 17, 2004 08:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the Kerry Campaign is correct to probe these states and see where there is weakness in the Bush line of defense.
Perhaps. But will we all agree with this statement should for example Iowa, WI and/or MN flip, while NC, AZ, CO, and VA don't?
Posted by: Pepe at August 17, 2004 08:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
States drift in different directions. Some of the upper MidWest is growing more conservative like WI and MN. They were traditionally liberal states that are now moving right, probably because they aren't seeing a whole lot of migration, and the population is growing older and more conservative over the years. Wheras states like NC, CO and AZ are seeing quite a bit of immigration and have generally younger populations who might be more interested in the Democratic message of inclusion.
I agree that AZ seems like the most likely to make the switch to the Dem column this year. But, VA and NC are also in play with Edwards on the ticket. CO seems pretty conservative, I don't see it changing this year.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 17, 2004 10:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
In 2000, Bush got between 50 and 51 percent of the vote in both Colorado and Arizona. Nader was a significant factor in Colorado and gave political pundits a fairly false sense of Bush strength in the state given Gore's weak 42 percent showing. The fact that Bush's poll leads in CO are only in the 4-5 point range is fairly consistent with we should be expecting minus another significant Nader factor. Furthermore, I see Colorado as having a decent-sized soccer mom presence....affluent middle-aged women who send their kids to places like Columbine High School and typically vote Republican, but have reservations about the war in Iraq. This demographic would have to go almost entirely Kerry for him to have a shot in CO, but we can dare to dream I guess.
As for the Upper Midwest growing more conservative, I can address that personally since I've lived here my whole life. Rural regions of the area have grown less Democratic for a variety of reasons. Democratic family farmers have been swallowed up by Republican corporations. Socially conservative blue-collar populists see the Dems being no bigger friends to them on trade and job security issues than the Republicans are, so they've decided to vote for the "pro-life" candidates who they believe are less likely to take away their shotgun. The biggest problem in Minnesota in particular though is the exact opposite of what rock_nj guessed....our population is bursting at the seams with young Republicans in affluent suburbs. Minnesota is the fastest growing of the 18 "northern" states, and the Democratic tendencies of the older Hubert Humphrey generation are being overwhelmed by new money living in "exurbs" that were farm towns just 10 years ago. The suburban sprawl is so extreme in Minnesota that I'm betting we're a safe Republican state in the not-too-distant future. To a smaller extent, the same thing is going on in Wisconsin, although Milwaukee's suburbs were intensely Republican to begin with and have always made the state fairly competitive. I bet nobody would have imagined 20 years ago that Iowa would become the most Democratic state of the Upper Midwest, but it looks like it well may be if current trends continue.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 12:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NC, AZ, VA, and CO are swing states? Really? I fear this is a late summer mirage that in the much cooler month of November will reveal a harsh reality.
Except for NC (which I added when Edwards was selected), I included all of these states in my list of swing states, using the simple criteria of including every state in which the winner in 2000 won by less than 10%. (AZ - Bush by 6.28%, CO - Bush by 8.36%, VA - Bush by 8.04%). Not only that, but in Zogby's 2/26 analysis of states, both AZ & CO were said to be "in play", and Charlie Cook said on 3/30 the CO was a "toss-up". Add to that Chris Bowers analysis of voter trends on 5/7, in which AZ was "leaning GOP, sliding DEM", and VA was "lean GOP, slow slide DEM".
I don't think that "swing state" means anything but "the outcome is in serious doubt here", and I believe that's justified in all four of these cases (look at Bush's shrinking margin in NC!).
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at August 18, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
New poll out of Colorado by Survey USA: 47-47.
Posted by: Alan Snipes at August 18, 2004 04:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wow CO tied! That's surprising. One factor that many pundits are overlooking is the fact that some disaffected conservatives are going to vote for Badnarick the Libertarian. The Republicans haven't lived up to their smaller government rhetoric, so true conservatives are looking elsewhere. I bet between conservatives staying home out of frustration and those voting Libertarian, it might be the one factor that really affects the outcome of this election.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 18, 2004 06:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wow CO tied! Watch the Libertarian factor this year, as disaffected conservatives look elsewhere.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 18, 2004 06:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"NC, AZ, VA, and CO are swing states? Really? I fear this is a late summer mirage that in the much cooler month of November will reveal a harsh reality"
The other important thing about something being a swing state is this...Even if the chances of us winning are slim, if a lock state for Bush is close, it stretches his resources as now he has to campaign there. Win or lose NC or VA, the more Bush has to campaign and spend there, the less he can do in Ohio and Florida. Sometimes a lost battle can bring a victory in the total war.
Posted by: Michael at August 18, 2004 10:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree that those four states being counted as swing states is more or less a mirage. No doubt, Bush will rebound after the convention. But, it does indicate a profound weakness in Bush's support, when states that should be solidly in his column are showing polling that's within 5%, some even tied, it means Bush is in trouble. Perhaps Kerry won't win any of those 4 states, but it does mean that he's in a great position to hold his own states and win real swing states like OH, WV, and FL.
If Kerry wins any of those 4 states, it will be devastating for Republicans. Their electoral math will be screwed going forward.
Posted by: Rock_nj at August 18, 2004 10:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Put another way, I think Bush has a better chance of winning Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa than Kerry does of winning NC, AZ, VA and CO. Now that said, I fully expect Kerry to keep those former Gore states blue, but man, they are a lot tighter--and I see in the latest poll Wisconsin, like Colorado, is supposedly tied. I also notice that Kerry's big lead is evaporating in Michigan. What's up with that?
Posted by: Pepe at August 18, 2004 02:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, what's up with that? Strategic Vision polls are what's up with that. They almost always lean to the right of other pollsters. Whenever I see a Strategic Vision poll, I automically add two more points for the Dems. Of course, the Dems have their own pet pollsters. If you ever see a Minneapolis Star Tribune poll from Minnesota, subtract points from the Dems inevitable landslide margins. On November 5, 2000, a Strib Poll showed Gore up by 10 in Minnesota. Two days later, Gore won by 2.4%. In 2002, they showed Walter Mondale beating Norm Coleman by five points the Sunday before the election. Coleman ended up winning by two points. The Strib even projected a victory for gubernatorial candidate Skip Humphrey in 1998. He ended up with 28% and came in third place.
Anyway, I digress. The quick lesson is too take a deep breath whenever you look at the right-skewing numbers from a Strategic Vision poll. They're not likely to be right.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 03:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, what's up with that? Strategic Vision polls are what's up with that. They almost always lean to the right of other pollsters. Whenever I see a Strategic Vision poll, I automically add two more points for the Dems. Of course, the Dems have their own pet pollsters. If you ever see a Minneapolis Star Tribune poll from Minnesota, subtract points from the Dems inevitable landslide margins. On November 5, 2000, a Strib Poll showed Gore up by 10 in Minnesota. Two days later, Gore won by 2.4%. In 2002, they showed Walter Mondale beating Norm Coleman by five points the Sunday before the election. Coleman ended up winning by two points. The Strib even projected a victory for gubernatorial candidate Skip Humphrey in 1998. He ended up with 28% and came in third place.
Anyway, I digress. The quick lesson is too take a deep breath whenever you look at the right-skewing numbers from a Strategic Vision poll. They're not likely to be right.
Posted by: Mark at August 18, 2004 03:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Chris, I'm on the ground in Virginia politics, and I'm telling you, we have a chance to carry the Old Dominion--and grassroots activists here are also working like hell to make it happen. Anyone who doubts Virginia's status as a swing state need only look back to Democratic Governor Mark Warner's election victory in 2001 to see exactly how it can be done.
If you are looking for a good Virginia political blog to add to your swing state blogroll, I warmly recommend Bob Griendling's Commonwealth Commonsense. Bob is one of the top political minds in Virginia, and blog is consistently excellent.
Posted by: Shaula Evans at August 21, 2004 09:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Shaula, you have every reason to be optimistic. I just hope the Dems use John Edwards a lot more than I've been noticing lately in the media. If I was a Dem strategist, I'd put Edwards everywhere!
I am so sick and disgusted of the "not too swift boats" news coverage. That's all you see, especially on faux news. That, and negative Kerry ads. Where's John Edwards?
Posted by: Shar at August 21, 2004 09:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am so sick and disgusted of the "not too swift boats" news coverage. That's all you see, especially on faux news.
I hear you--I guess it's a slow news month, as that's all I'm hearing and reading the past few days. My understanding is they only played a couple of times in three states: Wisconsin, Ohio and WV, and yet over half the country has seen them on TV news or on the internet. I fear that this is all they'll be talking about on the Sunday news programs. I don't know about OH or WI, but I have read that they seem to be helping Bush within the state of WV as well as with people in the military. I understand why Kerry at first chose to ignore them, but he's right in now deciding to go on the attack. He probably should have gone on the offensive a little sooner, but hindsight is 20/20.
Posted by: Pepe at August 21, 2004 10:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Strategic Vision polls are what's up with that. They almost always lean to the right of other pollsters.
They're a Republican polling firm, and personally I find their "non-partisan" polling suspect. I have to wonder who is footing the bill for a *lot* of polls, issued in bunches of 2 or 3 a day, all supposedly involving 801 people. I don't quite buy the idea that they're swallowing the costs of these polls in a campaign to pump up the public visibility of the firm, and harbor suspicions that they're issuing their results (their carefully tailored results) in order to spin conditions in important states.
I have, unfortunately, absolutely no proof of that whatsoever, just my suspicions, and I admit that they're a bit of a bete noir for me. The CEO of the campany (who's been the spokesperson for a far right-wing Senatorial candidate) denies that their polls are anything other than what they're presented as being.
Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at August 21, 2004 11:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I just hope the Dems use John Edwards a lot more than I've been noticing lately in the media.
Kos has some links to good small-scale media outlets that are favorably reporting about Edwards visits in swing states - for people in the middle of Ohio or New Mexico or Missouri, what it says in their hometown paper has more an effect than what it says in the NYT or WSJ. Edwards is being put to good use, just under the big-media radar.
Posted by: seth at August 26, 2004 10:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment