« General Election Cattle Call, September 16 | Main | Rosh Hashanah Break & Open Thread »
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Jackpot!
Posted by Chris BowersAmerican Research Group is coming out with polls for all 50 states plus DC. So far, there are only twenty states out, but that is still a lot of good info. Everything looks like it would be expected to look:
Kerry's up big in CA, HI, MD, MA, RI, VT and, to a slightly lesser extent, WA
Kerry's is up slightly in ME, MN and OR
Bush is up very slightly in CO
Bush is up huge in AK, ID, KY, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT and WY
The states I am most looking forward to are AZ, DE, MO, NJ, PA, OH, VA, WI and WV. It could help to clear up a lot of the weirdness in those states right now.
Posted at 04:49 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
I looked at the numbers. Fairly encouraging. I hope ARG isn't a little too optimistic, however.
I can't wait to see their numbers on FL, MO, OH, WV, NV, TN, AR, WI, IA, and PA.
By the way, Bush's landslide lead of last week seems to be evaporating. It is now, again, a toss-up. I also have faith that PA, WI, IA, and ME will start looking definitively blue again.
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 16, 2004 08:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
BTW, why don't more pollsters conduct polls of registered voters? I know registered voters are considered a more accurate sample than likely voters.
Kerry/Edwards seems to do better with registered voters than with likely voters. Why?
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 16, 2004 09:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Per drudgereport.com, the new Gallup poll has Bush up by 14 points, 54-40.
www.drudgreport.com
Posted by: David at September 16, 2004 10:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The numbers for the swing states seem very credible here...and encouraging. The Bush states seem a little too red, however...none more so than North Dakota. I would bet my shirt that George Bush does not do better in North Dakota this year than he did in 2000, as the poll suggests he will. If for no other reason, Bush is extremely unpopular in Red River Valley sugar beet country. If Bush's free trade policies proceed unfettered, the domestic sugar industry, one of North Dakota's largest industries, will be destroyed. Considering how much press this is getting locally, sugar beet growers and processing plant workers in ND have to recognize they're willfully walking through the doors of a financial gas chamber if they vote for Bush.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune did a feature on Minnesota's conservative but populist seventh Congressional district, which went for Bush by 15 points in 2000, but where Congressman Collin Peterson predicted just last week would be Kerry country this time due to a number of issues, with agriculture trade policy being at the top of th list. The story had a number of examples of 2000 Bush voters who don't plan to repeat their mistake. This area is a hop over the river from North Dakota, and I don't believe the mood is much different on the west side of the Red River. With that said, I still expect Bush to win ND by double digits, but I have long predicted it will be the state where he sees the highest margin of erosion between 2000 and 2004. I still believe this to be the case, and would be astounded if Bush got 62% there this year.
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2004 11:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The numbers for the swing states seem very credible here...and encouraging. The Bush states seem a little too red, however...none more so than North Dakota. I would bet my shirt that George Bush does not do better in North Dakota this year than he did in 2000, as the poll suggests he will. If for no other reason, Bush is extremely unpopular in Red River Valley sugar beet country. If Bush's free trade policies proceed unfettered, the domestic sugar industry, one of North Dakota's largest industries, will be destroyed. Considering how much press this is getting locally, sugar beet growers and processing plant workers in ND have to recognize they're willfully walking through the doors of a financial gas chamber if they vote for Bush.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune did a feature on Minnesota's conservative but populist seventh Congressional district, which went for Bush by 15 points in 2000, but where Congressman Collin Peterson predicted just last week would be Kerry country this time due to a number of issues, with agriculture trade policy being at the top of th list. The story had a number of examples of 2000 Bush voters who don't plan to repeat their mistake. This area is a hop over the river from North Dakota, and I don't believe the mood is much different on the west side of the Red River. With that said, I still expect Bush to win ND by double digits, but I have long predicted it will be the state where he sees the highest margin of erosion between 2000 and 2004. I still believe this to be the case, and would be astounded if Bush got 62% there this year.
Posted by: Mark at September 16, 2004 11:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The good, the bad, and the ugly:
The good:
American Research Group Poll: Kerry up 4 in ME
Rasmussen: Kerry tied in OH
Strategic Vision: Kerry up 4 in MN. That really means 8 since it is an SV poll.
The Bad:
Rasmussen: Kerry down 1 in IA.
American Research Group Poll: Kerry up only 2 in OR.
Kerry down 1 in CO.
Survey USA: Kerry up only 4 in IL. Gore won IL by 12 points in 2000.
The Ugly:
Quinnipiac: Kerry down 1 in PA. This is a must win for Kerry.
Survey USA: Kerry down 6 in FL.
Posted by: DFuller at September 17, 2004 09:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry is going to win OR. Unemployment is a real problem out there, worst in the nation. I don't see Bush winning OR in this sort of economy. I'm really really surpised at how close CO is??? Is it the gun issue backfiring on Bush or is it environmental concerns? Unemployment? I'm really surprised. I agree Kerry must win PA.
The Republican Convention 9/11 effect seems to be much stronger in the northeastern states that were close to New York than out west. It hardly seems to register out west.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 09:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Right now I'd feel a lot better if PA, NJ, and the Upper Midwestern States were not so undecided. I am truly upset at how Bush is getting stronger and stronger in these states. Even if Kerry manages to win them all, he's going to have to spend a lot of time and money in them.
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 10:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, Kerry wins PA & NJ. These are just post RNC and 9/11 anniversary hickups. I agree it wouldn't be a good thing if Kerry has to spend resources in states that are suppossed to be safe. But, I think these states which are heavily Democratic will vote for Kerry in the end.
Any idea why CO is so close? That's surprising too!
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 10:36 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rock, if I had to bet, I would put my $$$ on Kerry winning both PA and NJ. However, a close outcome in those two states does not bode well for Kerry, nationally.
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 10:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
True, I understand your angst, the election would be a lot more comfortable for Democrats if Kerry had solid leads in states like NJ and PA.
But this is turning out to be quite a strange election. Bush is close in states like NJ, PA, and even winning WI. Kerry is close in states like CO and NV?
I'll tell you what I think is happening. There are, of course, a lot of cross currents in elections. But, I'm definitely seeing a current where states that are close to New York and were affected by 9/11 are making it a lot closer for Bush. While, states that our far removed from 9/11 are apparently concerned with other issues such as jobs, guns, Yucca Mountain or the environment and hurting Bush. I was out in Hawaii shortly after 9/11, hardly anyone cared about it out there.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 11:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When do we expect to see the next batch of state results from ARG?
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 17, 2004 01:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Should be coming soon. The last ones are from the 15th. They should be out today or tomorrow. All in all looking pretty even according to their survey.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 01:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The last ARG results are actually from Sept. 13th, so I wouldn't be surprised to see more polls by the end of today. They're coming soon.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 01:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
What it us with y'all in New Jersey?
Latest Survey USA Poll for NJ:
9/12/04 - 9/14/04.
Bush 49%
Kerry 45%
You are not supposed to be a swing state.
Posted by: DFuller at September 17, 2004 04:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush surging in states like PA and NJ is major cause for concern--even if he doesn't win them. If Bush comes close in those solidly Democratic states, how on earth is he going to win in more GOP-leaning states like OH, FL, MO, WI and so on?
I don't like the direction of the campaign since August with the Swift Boat ads. Since then, the Kerry campaign has seemed dazed and confused. There is no real central message or direction. I heard Senator Biden speak on the Imus Show today, and like Imus, I am pissed off at Biden for not running for president. He was able to articulate very clearly and very passionately why Bush's invasion of Iraq was such a mistake. Why can't Kerry do the same? He seems almost like a doe in the headlights right now. Even Joe Biden acknowledged that Kerry is not getting his message across to the American people very well, though he tried to put a positive spin on it.
Things over the past month or so have been getting increasingly alarming to many Democrats, and there is no pro-Kerry spin that has been able to assuage that. It's been nothing less than witnessing a Kerry free fall in slow motion. Kerry's got to reverse Bush's momentum soon, or the debates may become irrelevant before they even begin.
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 05:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't know, probably a fluke. There was a poll back in March of this year that showed Bush ahead by 4% in NJ. But, later polls showed that one to be erroneous. I think the recent good showing by Bush in NJ is a result of the RNC and 9/11 ceremonies. There does seem to be a much stronger showing for Bush's 9/11 message in northeastern states than in the west or south. Don't worry, NJ is a pretty Democratic state these days, I see Kerry winning by 5% at least. The Dems are probably undercounted in polls. It seemed that way in 2000.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 05:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, I understand your concern, but actually Kerry is starting to regain some of his lost momentum. He was trailing pretty badly after the RNC. Now he's pulling back to even. I agree, that if Kerry can't win states like NJ and PA, he's doomed elsewhere. But, Kerry will win NJ, PA is more conservative in its rural areas. But, NJ is for the most part an urban liberal northeastern state. Kerry wins by at least 5%.
Let's hope Bush implodes before November 2nd. The potential is there with this whole 9/11 thing hanging over his head (did he just let it happen?) and with the Iraq war unraveling.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 05:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You're right, Rock, and I'm venting my frustrations. I just feel that Dubya just might be the luckiest man on the planet to be where he is today. In 2000 he beat out McCain and then defeated Gore in a disputed election. And even now, few would deny that he would probably win if the election were held today. How does he do it?
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 05:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rock, you mention that you expect Kerry to win in NJ by at least 5%. Isn't NJ about as Democratic as say GA is Republican? I would say a Bush "victory" in GA by only 5% would in a sense be a Kerry "win." If Bush couldn't win GA by more than 5%, it would probably signal that Bush was in big trouble elsewhere, no?
That is the center of my concern. If Kerry has to fight like hell to hold onto NJ, a state that should be solidly behind him, how realistic are his chances in the more GOP-friendly states of FL, AZ, CO, NV, MN, MO, WI, IO, and OH?
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 05:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Here's something to chew on. Gallip is polling more Republicans than Democrats by their own admission.
This morning we awoke to the startling news that despite a flurry of different polls this week all showing a tied race, the venerable Gallup Poll, as reported widely in the media (USA Today and CNN) today, showed George W. Bush with a huge 55%-42% lead over John Kerry amongst likely voters. The same Gallup Poll showed an 8-point lead for Bush amongst registered voters (52%-44%). Before you get discouraged by these results, you should be more upset that Gallup gets major media outlets to tout these polls and present a false, disappointing account of the actual state of the race. Why?
Because the Gallup Poll, despite its reputation, assumes that this November 40% of those turning out to vote will be Republicans, and only 33% will be Democrat. You read that correctly. I asked Gallup, who have been very courteous to my requests, to send me this morning their sample breakdowns by party identification for both their likely and registered voter samples they use in these national and I suspect their state polls. This is what I got back this morning:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002806.html
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 07:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, Rock, for passing along that link. I certainly agree, that that definitely skews things towards Bush. However, I wonder if Gallup may be right about fewer Democrats coming out to vote. Namely, I'm referring to the African American vote. My understanding is that blacks are far from inspired and excited by Kerry, who in their eyes is no Bill Clinton. This could translate into fewer African Americans coming to the polls in November. Just curious--have there been any polls specifically asking African Americans if they are likely to vote in November? That said, I still don't defend Gallup's decision to poll far more Republican than Democratic voters. It seems to me like they are pulling these figures out of thin air.
Posted by: Pepe at September 17, 2004 08:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'd think blacks would be motivated by by the Florida debacle in 2000. Perhaps some like Bush's policies. Kerry probably isn't doing a good job getting blacks excited about voting. It's true Clinton had a lot of charisma and would go into black communities and get them excited about voting. Kerry just doesn't have the magic touch.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 17, 2004 09:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment