« We're Making a Play for Colorado | Main | U. Cincy's New Ohio Poll: Whoa! »
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
General Election Cattle Call, October 19
Posted by Chris BowersChris's National Popular Vote Projection
Kerry 50.0
Bush 48.0
Other 2.0
Polls Included: ABC LV, Rasmussen, TIPP 2-Way and Zogby
(Methodology)
Incumbent Rule
Undecideds Remaining: 5.1%
Bush leads 47.0-45.9 without undecideds allocated.
Chris's Electoral Projection
Kerry: 316, 222 solid
Bush: 222, 69 solid
States changing hands from 2000: FL, NV, NH and OH to Kerry
State by State
AZ: Bush +3.4
AR: Bush +5.2
CO: Bush +3.7
FL: Kerry +1.2
IA: Kerry +2.1
ME, State: Kerry +4.9
ME, CD-2: Kerry +2.7
MI: Kerry +7.9
MN: Kerry +3.2
MO: Bush +1.4
NV: Kerry +0.3
NH: Kerry +6.1
NM: Kerry +1.8
NC: Bush +3.1
OH: Kerry +1.2
OR: Kerry +5.2
PA: Kerry +6.5
VA: Bush +4.1
WA: Kerry +7.4
WV: Bush +4.3
WI: Kerry +2.3
Kerry has taken the lead according to every single electoral vote predictor that is updated daily. Bush is being propped up by the ABC tracking poll showing him at 50. It sure is sweet to see Kerry���s solid states pass Bush���s total states.
Posted at 01:12 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Comments
I wish I could believe, but I seem to recall this site some really optimistic predictions about the 2002 midterms. What have you learned since then?
Posted by: Nate at October 19, 2004 02:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Heheh, Nate... this site only began a year ago, in October 2003. The site which you might be referring to is Chris's other site, MyDD.com (though Chris wasn't blogging there in 2002). Back then, my opinion was that Jerome (MyDD's creator) was just a little bit wrong about a lot of races - sort of a death by a thousand cuts.
But you should really ask Jerome for his take on why his predictions were off then.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 19, 2004 02:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm not sure how you get Bush with only 69 safe EVs -- I've got him with double digit leads in 18 states with 147 EVs. Which brings me to an observation based on some number crunching that I did yesterday. The INTENSITY of Bush's support in the deep-red states tends to skew national poll numbers in favor of Bush by about 3%. Given that the Rove strategy depends greatly on creating the appearance of a Shrub lead in the polls (since a lot of voters apparently decide at the last minute based on their desire to back the presumptive winner), I think it's important to spread the word on this. The simplest example is: you may recall that final pre-election polls in 2000 showed Bush with a 30-point lead in Texas, which (since that state has 7% of the US population), accounted for a full 2.1% of his national poll numbers (in other words, if his poll numbers on the day before the election were 50% with Texas included, then his poll numbers would have been 47.9% in the remainder of the US, excluding Texas).
Bush again leads by REALLY wide margins in some red states, while Kerry's states tend to be closer (many red states are dark red, and most blue states are "light blue"). To test this intuition that the intensity of Bush's support in the deep-red states tends to skew national poll numbers in favor of Bush, I tallied the latest poll numbers at Slate.com's election scorecard -- ignoring states where one candidate leads by less than 10%. I found that Bush has huge leads, of between 19% and 37% in 15 states and double-digit leads in 3 more. The (population-weighted) average lead that Bush has in those states is 22.2%, and those 18 states represent 25.75% of the population of the US. If you do the math (.222 x .2575), that means that fully 5.72% of Bush's support in national polls comes from "useless extra votes" -- ie votes in excess of the 50%+1 that he needs to take these states' electoral votes. If you then subtract that 5.72% from Bush's national poll number, it should approximate his number in the remaining 32 states (+DC).
Kerry -- on the other hand -- only has double-digit leads in 7 states plus DC, representing 16.3% of the US population. The population-weighted average of those leads is much smaller -- 16.75%, so his countervailing "useless bump" in the polls is a mere 2.73%. Thus (with the caveat that the polls all have margins of error that can't be accounted for in this simplistic calculation), If you look only at the 25 states that are neither deep red nor deep blue (representing approx. 57.5% of the US population), Bush's average numbers in those states should tend to be less than his national poll numbers, by approximately 3%. (5.72% - 2.73%). And, indeed, that analysis is supported by the average of swing state polls, which tend to show Kerry with slight leads.
Bottom line: if Bush's margin on Nov. 1 is
for reference, my raw numbers on the polls are from http://slate.com/id/2108322/
Posted by: matt at October 19, 2004 02:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If I'm understanding the drift of the above comments, it might be possible for Kerry to lose the popular vote and still win in the electoral college! After all the complaining I've done about the EC, that might make me do a flip...
However, some grim news that recent polls have revealed: THE GENDER GAP IS GONE. That was a big shock to me, since I always took for granted that Dems could count on a big boost from women. This time, however, the fear factor seems to be overriding other issues for swing-voter women. The Bush campaign is masterfully capitalizing on this trend. Have you seen the ad in the NY TIMES: "He's the most powerful man in the world....And all he cares about is keeping me safe." This ad shows a picture of a child hugging an adult, and then it pans up to show a sensitive looking W. hugging this kid. Is this on TV too?
This is deep and powerful psychological politics (Brocca Brain sp?). I hope the Kerry campaign can fight this. How? By showing ads with clips of Bush saying "This is a crowd of the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." That replaces the good protective daddy image with the greedy bad daddy image. At the same time, the Dems should try to do image-wise for Kerry what they're doing to Bush. Make him into a strong Alpha papa who will protect his children.
Posted by: Ben at October 19, 2004 03:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree that Kerry is more likely to win without winning the popular vote than Bush.
NJ and NY were extremely strong for Gore in 2000. They will be tighter in 2004.
Bush is up very strong in radical right wing southern states.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 03:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I want Kerry to kick Bush's ass. But I'm worried, because when Bush is desperate he resorts to some nasty, vicious last minute ads. Or at least others step in to do his dirty work. I also think Kerry should stick to telling seniors about Bush's nasty plan to privitize the system. That will guarantee Florida in his column.
Posted by: Selena at October 19, 2004 03:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Matt Fox News has a poll showing Bush up by 7 in the horse race. Go figure. It seems like they're piggy backing off of bias Gallup. We are up in Ohio. How I love the MO!!
Posted by: godfrey at October 19, 2004 03:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The scary thing about the Fox News Poll is that their polls are traditionally quite reasonable even though the network is cartoonishly pro-Bush. I don't remember seeing a Bush lead this strong in a Fox Poll even in September. I sure hope it's just a bad sample.
Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 03:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
After looking at this site and getting more optimistic, I checked out the LA TIMES electoral vote map with polls and got more pessimistic. The guy who hates pepe is likely to switch hit wrath to me, but...
The LA Times shows Bush leading in NM, CO, OH, and FL. If that holds true for the election, it's game, set, match. What a bummer. I'm part of the volunteers for Kerry in my hopelessly pro-Bush state, KY, and I'll be calling a list of Dems who didn't vote in the last election. If the Dems are angry enough to get out and vote in higher numbers than last time, it could reverse the trends that seem to be quite worrying right now.
Posted by: Ben at October 19, 2004 03:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
i believe that back in the summer fox had bush up 47-40. they alway have kerry at 42 or 43. my theory is they were going to show the election a dead heat and at the end show bush pulling away. but that`s probably my sick mind. anyway the only
polls that will really matter will be nov 1.seems to me bush will try to pull something because he still isn`t over 50% in the fox poll. one bizarre
stat in their poll is they had bush up 18 with independents and everyone else shows kerry up with indy`s pretty strange. someone is wrong!
Posted by: jeremy at October 19, 2004 04:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NM - No new polls since 10/3. Also, Gallup tends to overstate GOP.
CO - I doubt that Kerry will win here. He is tied or down slightly in all the polls for CO.
FL - About half the polls show Kerry up a point or two. About half show him down a point or two. This is a toss up state.
OH - See FL.
Please note: LATimes has a lot of Strategic Vision polls. Strategic Vision is a GOP outfit. Their polls should be ignored.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 04:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well, you can hate Pepe all you want, but if Kerry loses, don't blame ME. I did my part today and voted for Kerry/Edwards here in NC. I was the 875th person to vote in my town (population about 15,000). There were many people behind me, so I'm sure over a thousand people will vote here today. Early voting just started for my town yesterday and runs through the rest of the week. The turn out looks like it's going to be high this election, which should help Kerry. Still, I don't think this election is anywhere near as rosy as what Chris paints with his most recent cattle call. With gas prices at all-time highs, Ohio's economy in the tank, the outrage in Florida from the 2000 election, the mess in Iraq, the shortage of flu shots--you name it--the country at large is far from buying into Kerry's message of "hope is on the way." Most voters believe Kerry won the debates and yet he's not exactly a shoe-in in normally safe states like NJ and PA, and meanwhile the Gore states of WI, IA and MN may abandon him. I think what is becoming clear is that American's fear of terrorist attacks is surfacing. And I'm afraid that if fear of terrorism becomes the over-riding factor as Election Day draws nearer, Bush will win because more Americans feel he will do a better job keeping the homeland safe than Kerry. Go ahead and continue to be sick of me or hate me, but that's a fact. It's also why more women are switching to Bush.
Posted by: pepe at October 19, 2004 04:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
I agree that Kerry has done a poor job explaining to the American people of why he provides "Homeland Security" better than Bush. I agree with you that the wildcard in this election is will the American people sell their vote to the scare tactics of Bush / Cheney. The problem is that too many people are uninformed, like Marge, and will vote for Bush again. The other thing that worries me is people are assuming the undecided voters will break Kerry. Four years ago the undecided voters broke for Gore. Gore was basically the incumbent as Vice President. There is still two weeks to go. It is a long time between debate three and the actual vote. Unfortunately for Kerry, the media has a lot of control the last two weeks. What they chose to and not to cover will have a major impact on the race.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 04:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When will the American people get tired of the Radical Right fear tactics?
���The biggest threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever before been used against us -- biological agents or a nuclear weapon or a chemical weapon of some kind to be able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans,"
"That's the ultimate threat. For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that threat, you've got to get your mind around that concept," Dick Cheney
What would Bush do? Read "he Pet Goat" for 7 minutes and stand frozen.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 05:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
What I would take away from this is that the knife edge is very sharp. It doesn't take much for a whole bunch of battleground states to switch. I'm not sure I will agree on the battleground state numbers, and I have some suspicions about the general numbers as well. Yes, Kerry could win the election and lose the popular vote. I'm not believing anything in the press from now until after the election. Too many people with an agenda. My gut instinct, not born out by polls, is Kerry wins NH,PA,OH, and Bush wins FL, WI, IA, CO, NV, WV. We'll see.
Posted by: MarkOlsen at October 19, 2004 05:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
these polls are making me crazy, the wash post still has bush up 5, fox 5-7, but zogby, tipp, rasmussen have it a dead heat. who are you to believe.it looks like kerry may take ohio and pa. i would think that would elect him. looks like the economy is just going to get worse every day until the election.well hopefully we`ll know in 2 weeks.
Posted by: joel at October 19, 2004 06:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
After canvassing in PA and OH, I am guardedly optimistic.
Support for Kerry seems pretty energized; support for Bush seems thin. Obviously, going around canvassing for Kerry will get skewed reactions, but I really do think that A LOT of Bitch supporters are almost embarassed about it. I would characterize that there are three classes of Bitch supporters: small business folks, who will always vote for whoever they think will reduce regulation and cut taxes; single issue voters, such as gun nuts and anti-abortion people/messianists; and then loyal Republicans. The first two groups are pretty solid, and I also think that there is a very big group of messianists -- see for example Ron Suskind's article in the NYT.
The loyal Republicans, on the other hand, are not a happy group of people. President Bitch is an idiot and an ideologue; they know this. Some of them have had enough are are openly supporting Kerry or just not voting, but not a few of the rest (I think) are ripe for any reason not to vote for Bitch.
What I am going on in having this impression is that, while the small business Bitch supporters and the gun nuts are happy to say that they're voting for Bitch and why, an awful lot of Bitch supporters will say quietly and quickly (if at all) that they are voting for Bitch, and then cut off conversation. I have wanted to get an explanation from generic Bitch supporters (I can't see why anyone would think that he's good for America) of why they support him, but it just hasn't been forthcoming. And I think most of them know that if they were to try to mount a defense of him, they would pretty quickly find themselves routed.
It may be -- for once -- that the Democratic Party will have better turnout than the Republicans.
Posted by: Marsden at October 19, 2004 06:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Gore was an incumbent in one sense that he was the Vice President. The reason people assume that undecideds break for the challenger is that they already know what kind of president the president is, and if they are undecided, they are generally not happy with the president and are therefore predisposed to the challenger. This does not apply to a vice president. The historical trends bear this out. The only incumbent to get a higher percentage of the vote than his poll number was Reagan in 1984, and it was less than a percentage point. Every other incumbent either scored his poll number, or slightly lower. So you can pretty much assume undecideds will break for Kerry. And the Bush campaign knows this. That is why they did not want to have undecideds ask questions at the St. Louis debate. Instead, they wanted lean Bush and lean Kerry voters, because undecideds were essentially lean Kerry voters. So it is a pretty safe assumption to assume that Bush is in trouble if he is not over 50% in polls in both states and nationally. Any state where he can't break 50, like Ohio and Florida thus far, Kerry has an excellent chance at winning. I think Kerry is in very good shape.
Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 07:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
well bill o`reilly announced on his show that kerry would lose unless he appeared on his show, he also spouted the fox poll as gospel and said that bush would win the popular vote with out question.never mind nbc shows it 48-48 and zogby and tipp and rasmussen show a dead heat.boy that guy really pissed me off, i hope that woman nails him good.by the way the fox poll shows bush approval only 49%, i guess o`relly forgot to mention that.
Posted by: james at October 19, 2004 08:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am disappointed to see a poor polling for Kerry Monday in Zogby, but he had a good day on TIPP. He didn't gain any ground on Zogby which means he didn't do good Monday. Friday dropped off and it was a 4 point loss for Kerry.
The horse race:
Three day tracking polls Today (Yesterday)
Zogby
Bush 45 (45)
Kerry 45 (45)
Unsure 7 (7)
ABC
Bush 51 (50)
Kerry 46 (47)
TIPP
Bush 45 (47)
Kerry 45 (44)
Unsure 10 (10)
Rasmussen
Bush 48 (47)
Kerry 47 (47)
Unsure 3 (3)
Average
Bush 47.3 (47.3)
Kerry 45.8 (45.8)
Bush +1.5 (+1.5)
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 08:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would feel more secure with Bush and Cheney. The summer of 2001 was all abuzz with terrorist warnings, a memo was circulating about hijacked planes crashing into buildings, and what did Bush do? He took a one month August vacation. Tragically, the 9-11 events, the worst in U.S. history, unfolded a month later, during Bush and Cheney's watch.
Following 9-11, Bush and Cheney stonewalled all investigations into the attacks and used these tragic events as a political rallying cry not only to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, but as a means of enlistment into the armed forces.
The Republicans can play the terror card all that they want, but the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history happened while they were in charge.
Posted by: Shar at October 19, 2004 08:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Guys someone please be straight up with me about Florida. Lets cut to the chase... Enough of the B.S I'm serious. What the hell is going to happen in the sunshine state. Two points. Does Jeb Bush really have that much pull? And secondly, does THe large african american community; specifically Duval county where 11,000- people were disenfrachised; will they come out in the massess? P.s the new Miami Herald/Mason Dixon Poll fustrates the hell out of me. They have Bush up by 3%. What should we read into that. They cant measure intensity!!!!!!!!
Posted by: godfrey at October 19, 2004 09:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am in Florida. I have no idea what is going to happen here. Sorry I can't be more clear. Mason-Dixon is no good as far as polling, as they have shown Bush up consistently. If it is close in the polls, I like Kerry's chances because Democrats are fired up because of the 2000 election. If the election were held today, I would put my money on Kerry. If Bush cannot open up a sizable lead, he is in deep trouble. Jeb Bush has no affect on the race. People here don't even associate him with his brother, since they are completely different as far as attitude and intelligence are concerned. Those pundits claiming JEB is going to give his brother the boost he needs don't know Florida politics. JEB has relatively little pull in this state. On the other hand, Bob Graham, who is popular among Republicans, Democrats and Independents in Florida recently starting doing commercials for Kerry here, and I am hoping that might help legitimize him to the undecideds who are unsure about Kerry. It is a dead heat, but I like Kerry's chances.
Posted by: John at October 19, 2004 10:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
What I'm noticing is that as the election draws nearer, the polls are increasingly more useless. Let's face it, people here and everywhere are cherry picking like there's no tomorrow. A Bush supporter and a Kerry supporter can both cherry pick selected polls in the swing states to delude themselves that their candidate is indeed ahead. Any polls that contradict this belief are simply discounted as unreliable! I realize that polls are all we have at this point, but does anyone here really put that much faith in any of them at this point in time? The only poll that counts now is the one on Election Day.
Posted by: pepe at October 19, 2004 10:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm beginning to think Bush will win the popular vote but Kerry will win the electoral vote. He consistently has small leads in OH and NH, and according to some polls in FL and NV.
As Matt said, Bush energized his base after the RNC and that has helped him popular vote wise, but then again, only in states like SC, GA, TX, UT, WY, and ID, which were going to go red anyway. Kerry has made inroads into OH, NH, FL, NV, and perhaps CO and AR, though.
Rove, I know you aren't stupid. Why do you keep trying to energize the base when you already have them? You're losing in the electoral map, dude! Why are you going to NJ when you should be trying to keep states that are slipping away from you like OH and NH?
By the way, I think they will steal FL. They got Nader on the ballot there, there is no paper trail with the machines, and they're visiting in a lot...perhaps so that when they steal it, it can look like it's because they went there a lot and not because they kept blacks away from the precincts. However, maybe their cheating won't work.
But, I'm trying to get Rove's strategy here. Don't they realize that if they lose OH and NH, they will need to pick up IA and WI to win? Note that Kerry is consistently ahead in IA and WI now by small margins, so they don't stand much of a chance if they lose OH. Come on Bush, stop flirting with NJ - you've got OH to defend.
On the other hand, let's keep them deluded that they're going to win NJ. While they're busy kidding themselves, we'll secure wins in OH, NH, and maybe NV, AR, and/or CO.
Posted by: Nathaniel at October 19, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The election probably boils down to turnout in FL and OH. I was one of the first voters in downtown Orlando where 20 people were in line at 1:30pm today.
The following story was on Orlando TV station WESH's web site today. They also had a state poll showing Bush 48 Kerry 45 Nader 1 and undecided 6.
If Recount Occurs, Touch-Screen Machines Will Produce Paper Trail
Florida's secretary of state is agreeing to a new policy that provides a paper trail for touch-screen voting machines in the event of a recount.
The court-ordered emergency rule sets out how the 15 counties that use touch screens are to audit their systems if the numbers don't add up.
"They will print the ballot images of the undervotes and then compare the number of undervotes to the machine tabulations just to ensure what they're doing is actually reconciling those two numbers and making sure that they match," said secretary of state spokeswoman Jenny Nash.
State law requires a manual recount if the vote totals for candidates are within 0.25 percent of the vote.
Posted by: DavidOrlando at October 19, 2004 11:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It will be difficult for W to steal the election in Florida using the touch screen machines. They are deployed in 15 counties, but the 3 largest ones, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties are run by Democrats. They are in charge of the machinery and the vote counting, which they then report to the Secretary of State's office. I am not too worried about that type of cheating. The things that concern me are disenfranchisement of minority voters, which is something they can get away with.
I do agree the polls are pretty much worthless at this point. When you see wild swings in the polls, with no logical reason for these shifts, then you can assume the polls are worthless at this juncture. I am confident, despite what any poll says, that Kerry will win.
Posted by: John at October 20, 2004 12:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
On a side note, I think it's ironic that the presidential race could be represented in the World Series...Red Sox vs. Houston. As we all know, Boston is cursed, but after their amazing comeback last night, you never know. As for Kerry...
Posted by: Anthony at October 20, 2004 12:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John, thanks for the reply. Pepe I agree with you. That was a HILARIOUS post bro!!! I guess I'll keep Cherry picking.
Posted by: godfrey at October 20, 2004 01:08 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bottom line: if Bush's margin on Nov. 1 is
*scoff*
Your analysis was interesting but I really don't buy this conclusion.
What you should really be looking at is the electoral college value of those "deep red" and "deep blue" states, rather than the population per se. Small states are after all overrepresented in the electoral college.
Posted by: anon at October 20, 2004 01:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hi guys, Adam in Toronto, Canada here. I love your blog Chris - YOU ROCK! I was getting so worried for Kerry until I saw your site. Thank god, your stats make sense, and you give us all hope.
Anyway, I just want all of you number-crunching poll-watching Kerry supporters to know that - although I am Canadian and can not vote - I am with you guys in spirit. I want the world to be a much better place, and that means a win for Kerry in two weeks. You see guys, this election is EVEN bigger than saving America. The guy you elect on November 2nd, will be the MOST powerful man on earth. We've seen what abusing that power can do to the world these last 4 years. Bush is leading this planet to self-destruction, but you already know that. Anyway, remember when you vote for John in two weeks, you're not just saving yourselves, you're saving us all. Good luck and if you're in a battleground, give it 100% to GET out the vote!
We're with you!
- Adam, your supporting neighbour in the North!
Posted by: Adam in Toronto at October 20, 2004 03:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Can someone tell me why people are still including West Virginia, Arizona, and Tennesee in their analyses and stats? They're gone, people.
Not that they ought to keep including Michigan, Washington, Oregon, or Minnesota, since we know where those are going.
Posted by: willt at October 20, 2004 05:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
msnbc is in the pocket of bush,last night on scarborough the subject was is kerry done for, the premise being bush had an insurmountable lead. of course all the conservatives say bush can`t possibly lose.frank luntz did say if bush does not have at least a 3 point lead on election day he can`t win.so i guess there is hope but this election has just gotten to the point where both candidates are just trying to scare the hell out of everyone.kerry needs to say why he needs to be elected. one thing is unless kerry improves with blacks he may be in trouble!
Posted by: joel at October 20, 2004 06:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'd thought MSNBC had become rather pro-Bush, too. It's pretty sad.
Posted by: Marsden at October 20, 2004 09:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Don't look now, but Clinton may end up on the campaign trail soon.
"Democratic official: Clinton likely to campaign for Kerry"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/20/clinton.campaigning.ap/index.html
This article has him possibly being in Phily early next week. I wonder how MSNBC and Fox will cover this one... You think Sinclair stations will be allowed to broadcast this news???
Posted by: Dan at October 20, 2004 09:42 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
you guys have been drinking that koolaid...Kerry can't be doing too well if Clinton has to campaign in Pa., a state that Kerry should be up by double digits in. The Democratic internals are Not good! The African American support is down to 75% for Kerry, and up to 19% for Bush. The Jewish vote is on a similar course, women are not breaking for Kerry...trouble looms for Mr. Kerry. All of the whipping up of political rhetoric has energized the Bush base and the Christians will vote as never before...and now Arnold is to campaign in Ohio. Got some star power there, and it will get national coverage. Remember...KALLIFORNIA!
Posted by: Scott at October 20, 2004 06:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Scott, keep dreaming about Bush getting 19% of the black vote. Richard Nixon only managed 18% in 1972 when he destroyed George McGovern. It would take a similar 20-point nationwide margin for Bush to take 19% of the black vote...and nobody expects that to happen. The poll is an aberration. Keep in mind, Gore was polling about 73% of the black vote in 2000...until Election Day when he got 90%. As for sending Clinton up to Philly, I agree that was a mistake. Why not Little Rock? Some of Kerry's strategic decisions of late have not been the best.
Posted by: Mark at October 20, 2004 07:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Scott
I think you're the one drinking the Kool-Aid. No Democrat has won Pennsylvania by double digits since LBJ. Clinton won by around 9 twice, but that was with what Perot taking around 19% once and 9% the other time.
Mark
Remember Clinton's health. A trip to Philly is probably a lot easier for him to take from New York than a trip to Arkansas. Also, the Kerry camp probably has a host of internal polls in Arkansas as well, which may indicate the state is further away than the public polls say.
If I were Kerry, I would use Bill C. to drive up African American turnout in Philly, Cleveland etc. Maybe even in Florida. These 3 states are closer than Arkansas and are arguably more attainable, and are much bigger prizes of course.
Scott's bloviating aside, I don't think Kerry will get the sort of African American turnout that CLinton got. But I think he will get the 90%or so vote.
Arnold's campaigning in Ohio will probably get media attention, but will it get votes ? I doubt it.
Posted by: erg at October 20, 2004 07:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yeah, I think PA is far more in play than many of us either realize or care to admit. Obviously, Kerry's internal polls must show that Bush has a very real chance of winning in the Keystone State. I thought for sure that if Clinton did any campaigning at all, it would be in AR and maybe OH or FL. PA? This tells me we should not feel like PA is a "safe" Kerry state. And Arnold is going to campaign in OH? I missed that, but that's troubling. I imagine if Arnold is campaigning in OH, he'll be going to other swing states on Bush's behalf as well. Oy!
Posted by: pepe at October 20, 2004 07:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yeah, that really does illustrate the level to which American democracy has sunk doesn't it Pepe: the idea of a Hollywood icon-turned politician campaigning with idiot Bush somehow intimidating Democrats. Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm fuckin' sick of it all. Jerk!!
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 20, 2004 07:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe -- PA is far from being a safe state. Its not Illinois or Michigan. However, except at the height of the Bush bounce, post Repub-convention, there were hardly any polls showing Bush ahead, and even then it was by a point or two.
Kerry is ahead in the last several polls in PA by a small margin. The Rendell machine in PA is strong, and there's the union vote as well. So the state is technically in play, but is still very likely to go Kerry. Bush seems to have reduced some of his effort in PA as well (there were rumors that he was pulling out some ads etc.).
Re: Clinton, there is the matter of his health, as I said. Far easier to travel to Philly from NYC than Ohio.
There was a news item suggesting that Arnold may go to OH on October 29th to campaign for Bush. Howver, Arnold has also refused to do a lot of swing state campaigning for Bush (probably because Bush is unpopular in his state), so this will probably be his only major trip. I dont really think this would have any more impact than the Boss's concerts for Kerry.
Posted by: erg at October 20, 2004 07:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
More Survey USA polls today:
TN Bush-Kerry 60-38
AZ Bush-Kerry 54-43
Maine Kerry-BUsh 51-45
This is good news overall for Kerry. SUSA may overestimate TN and AZ margins a little, but I never thought either was likely to be competitive this cycle. If TN wouldn't vote for native Gore, its not goint to vote for Kerry. And AZ may have been closer than expected last cycle because McCain Repubs stayed home.
The good news is Maine. The state has been closer than I would like before, but it now looks reasonable for Kerry. Kerry gets all seats too, whereas he may have split it before.
Posted by: erg at October 20, 2004 08:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
That's true, regarding Clinton's health. Maybe going to AR would be too much of a strain. It's obvious to me that the Kerry campaign is far from convinced that they have PA in the bag. If they did, I'm sure a convalescing Clinton would not be asked to go there.
Yeah, I think Arnold in OH is a big deal because Americans are mesmerised by really big Hollywood stars, and Arnold remains one of the biggest. I don't know how anyone can think otherwise. He will draw huge crowds wherever he goes. I don't know how many votes that might translate into, but in OH it will be close where every vote will be important.
Posted by: pepe at October 20, 2004 09:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I dispute the idea that Arnold is one of the biggest Hollywood stars around. He hasn't had a big hit ... since .. since .. heck, since T2, come to think of it (Maybe Last Action Hero, but even that was 10 years back). He's produced such flops as Batman and Robin and T3 in recent years.
In any case, my comment was based on this -- the Dems have lots of music and movie stars who support them. I dont think that has really translated to greater votes for them, and that holds for Arnold as well on the other side of the aisle. Of course, Arnold is a little differnt from Ben Affleck, Bruce Springsteen et al., in that he is also a politician, and a successful one so far, but I still doubt it will translate into a lot of votes.
Posted by: erg at October 20, 2004 09:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The thing is, erg, Arnold is an icon, which is even bigger than a "mere" Hollywood star. I'm sure people will come out in large numbers to see him for that very reason, and he just might sway some of those who hear him. I have little doubt that at least half of the American voters have little to no idea what the issues are, let alone what the candidates feel on the various issues. There is much ignorance out there, and people often vote for one candidate or another for illogical reasons.
Posted by: pepe at October 20, 2004 09:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Pessimist or realist? It's like those poor deluded Boston Red Sox fans. Some of them have convinced themselves that they're bound to beat the Yankees this year. Their reasoning? Since no team has ever come back from being down 0 and 3 in a League Championship Series, they figure they're due to be the first team to do it. Yeah. Right. I'm not making this up, either. I heard them saying this on an interview this morning."
Pepe:
Do these words sound familiar??
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 20, 2004 10:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The BoSox are ahead 8-1 in the seventh inning. Maybe there's hope for Kerry yet. If the Sox lose with this kind of margin, they are cursed!
Posted by: Mark at October 20, 2004 10:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's official. Survey USA is whack. There's no way Bush is leading by 22 points in Tennessee. Bush by 11 in Arizona seems a little supersized as well. However, I do think they may have a good sample for Maine....where they show Kerry up by 6. Not that I cherry pick or anything :)
Posted by: Mark at October 20, 2004 10:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I simply flatly do not believe that poll on TN. I do think Bush will carry this state, but Kerry clearly has more support here than Gore did in 2000. And as I recall Bush only won by 3% or so. Pro-Kerry sentiment is more in evidence here and there is a very high turnout projected. Bush may well win this state, but not by that margin. It's ridiculous.
Posted by: oddofme at October 20, 2004 11:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
WAY TO GO, SOX!!!!
Just because one is a realist does not mean one is always right. Believe me, there are times when I'm THRILLED to be wrong! :-)
Posted by: pepe at October 21, 2004 12:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
TN has about as much chance of going for Kerry as NJ does of going for Bush. It won't be a blow out in either state, but to think that either of this states will flip is to predict a very big upset.
DavidNYC, that might make an interesting thread topic--what state do you think might pull off the biggest, most unexpected surprise of the evening on Nov. 2?
Posted by: pepe at October 21, 2004 12:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John Zogby paints a very rosy picture for Kerry in an interview on SimonWorld posted on Real Clear Politics. I'm not quite so optimistic, but reading it sure will help sleep tonight.
I think Bush will win Tennessee by about 7 points and Kerry will win New Jersey by about 7 points. Honestly, it's easier for me to envision a Bush win in NJ than a Kerry win in TN, but neither appear likely without one candidate getting some major momentum. As for the biggest shocker, alot of people will be stunned if Minnesota goes Bush, and right now I think that's a very real possibility. Even though I live here, I can't put a finger on the state of the race given that the Mpls-St. Paul suburbs are an alternate dimension for me out on the farm, but I'm grateful Kerry's visiting here tomorrow because I think it's necessary.
Posted by: Mark at October 21, 2004 12:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Like I said, Bush will likely win here, but by a couple of points. Certainly not 10%+, but Virginia and Arkansas just might go for Kerry narrowly.
Posted by: oddofme at October 21, 2004 02:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There is indeed something going on in PA. First I learn that Clinton will campaign for Kerry there. Then I learn this mornign that Bush will be campaigning in PA today and tomorrow. Forget the polls. The Kerry and Bush campaigns are indicating that they believe that PA is truly up for grabs. Obviously, Bush thinks he can win the Keystone State. The fact that both campaigns are so active in PA with so little time left before November 2nd indicates that it's a dead heat there.
Posted by: pepe at October 21, 2004 06:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe said this on Monday:
"Pessimist or realist? It's like those poor deluded Boston Red Sox fans. Some of them have convinced themselves that they're bound to beat the Yankees this year. Their reasoning? Since no team has ever come back from being down 0 and 3 in a League Championship Series, they figure they're due to be the first team to do it. Yeah. Right. I'm not making this up, either. I heard them saying this on an interview this morning."
Man, you just never let up. Clinton is appearing in Philly with JFK to fire up the NATIONAL black vote. Sorry to shatter your illusions. Bush is appearing in PA. only to force Kerry to play defence there, keepig him out of Ohio and Fla. Jeez, c'mon!!
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 21, 2004 08:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ummm, if all they are doing is firing up the NATIONAL black vote, why would they send a convalescing Clinton to PA? Couldn't this be accomplished just as easily from NYC? That would certainly make things easier for Clinton. Obviously, something is going on in PA. Of course for those wearing rose-colored glasses, well, everything looks blue, doesn't it?
Posted by: Pepe at October 21, 2004 08:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
anyone who would vote for bush because arnold said to is really an idiot.shouldn`t it be based on issues and whta`s good for your family and the country.my git feeling is the election won`t be over until thanksgiving, kerry won`t concede unless it`s an obvious loss.
Posted by: joel at October 21, 2004 08:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
I understand your thought process, but Chappaqua really isn't that far from Philly and if you're going to do some campaigning, and the man is ready to do some traveling, and you have the choice between NYC (Overwhelming D) or Philly (Suburbs are swingy.) Which would you choose?
Posted by: Jason - Charlotte at October 21, 2004 09:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My wife did her share yesterday. She talked to her friend in FL who is an undecided voter leaning towards Kerry. She asked my wife who she was voting for and why. Hopefully, my wife did a good enough job to convince her friend to vote Kerry.
Tomorrow, I will vote for the fourth time with Bush in the top race on the ballot. I have voted for Richards, Mauro, and Gore. Richards and Mauro both lost and the Supreme Court decided in 2000 that it was more important to declare a winner than figure out who the winner was. There has been a time or two that I have thought about voting for Bush to jinx him, but that would trivialize my vote.
Posted by: DFuller at October 21, 2004 10:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe -- lets be clear here. PA is not in the bag for Kerry by any means. But I frankly think you're being too negative to refer to it as a tossup. Even at the height of the Bush bounce, he never got more than a point or 2 ahead of Kerry in a non-partisan poll.
In the last 3 weeks, no poll has shown Bush ahead. I don't know what internal polls say, but it seems to me that if PA was truly a tossup, we would see more Bush leads in the state. There are also other factors in PA favopring Dems: strong unions, Rendell machine etc. And good recent polls have shown Kerry up 2-7 pts.
So its falsely optimistic to assume PA is in the bag. It is equally falsely pessimistic to assume that the state is a true tossup.
Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 11:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush keeps campaigning in
Pennsylvania because he has
few other places to go.
seriously, if he only goes to Ohio
and Florida, he's only defending
his 2000 states.
it will get to be old news -- or BAD
news -- if he publicly gives up on trying
to take a Gore state.
but when Bush goes to Pa., then
the Dems have to match his move,
almost every time. if they let his
campaign stops go without making
a response, then Bush's visits to Pa.
might begin to have an effect.
sending Clinton to Philly is easy.
a two-hour limo ride from Westchester
County to that huge media market.
Clinton's Philly appearance makes
national news to crowd out reports
of Bush's latest ranting.
Philly's local TV newscasts spill over
into N J where the Repubs are
pretending to be making a move.
Democratic candidates for suburban
Congressional seats can try to hitch
onto Clinton.
and poor ole Joe Hoeffel (who?), the
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate,
gets his best shot ever at name-
recognition-by-association.
yes, a stop in Philly energizes one of
the nation's largest black communities.
and Pepe, black folks talk to each other
all the time. almost all their relatives
and friends are also black, even if
they still live down home in Virginia,
N.C., S.C., Ga, or Florida. word gets
around. long distance is free on
cell phones, you know.
and then, after Philly? another week
before the election, with time for
another campaign stop or two,
at places to be determined. maybe
even Arkansas.
Posted by: Woody at October 21, 2004 03:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush keeps campaigning in
Pennsylvania because he has
few other places to go.
seriously, if he only goes to Ohio
and Florida, he's only defending
his 2000 states.
it will get to be old news -- or BAD
news -- if he publicly gives up on
trying to take a big Gore state.
but when Bush goes to Pa., then
the Dems have to match his move,
almost every time. if they let his
campaign stops go without making
a response, then Bush's visits to Pa.
might begin to have an effect.
sending Clinton to Philly is easy.
a two-hour limo ride from Westchester
County to that huge media market.
Clinton's Philly appearance makes
national news to crowd out reports
of Bush's latest ranting.
Philly's local TV newscasts spill over
into N J where the Repubs are
pretending to be making a move.
Democratic candidates for suburban
Congressional seats can try to hitch
onto Clinton.
and poor ole Joe Hoeffel (who?), the
Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate,
gets his best shot ever at name-
recognition-by-association.
yes, a stop in Philly energizes one of
the nation's largest black communities.
and Pepe, black folks talk to each other
all the time. almost all their relatives
and friends are also black, even if
they still live down home in Virginia,
N.C., S.C., Ga, or Florida. word gets
around. long distance is free on
cell phones, you know.
and then, after Philly? another week
before the election, with time for
another campaign stop or two,
at places to be determined. maybe
even Arkansas.
Posted by: Woody at October 21, 2004 03:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"Ummm, if all they are doing is firing up the NATIONAL black vote, why would they send a convalescing Clinton to PA? Couldn't this be accomplished just as easily from NYC? That would certainly make things easier for Clinton. Obviously, something is going on in PA. Of course for those wearing rose-colored glasses, well, everything looks blue, doesn't it?"
All right, c'mon dude. Time to come out of the closet. I think you have been fairly clever all along here. But seriously, this close to the election, 'fess up. You can give up the devil's advocate charade. Just admit that you are a Bush supporter trying to cleverly discourage JFK supporters in the guise of a overly skeptical but genuinely concerned democrat. I'll be the first to admit that it was a fiendish and worthy, but alas, futile attempt. Then we can all have a big chuckle, wish each other luck on Nov. 2, and move on. Time to come clean, Pepe...:)
Posted by: sick_of_pepe at October 21, 2004 03:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I would have preferred to see Clinton's second coming take place in Little Rock instead of Philadelphia, but I agree it's a pretty decent move considering the headlines will be splattered throughout the Philly suburbs, Delaware and southern New Jersey as well....all places where Clinton is still viewed favorably. It would take some strong political winds for Bush to win PA at this point, but this still serves as a way for Kerry to counter Bush's punches in PA and NJ. I do hope Kerry doesn't have to make another trip to PA between now and the election, however. He's needed badly in Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida...and until I'm convinced others, Arkansas and now West Virginia.
Posted by: Mark at October 21, 2004 03:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Why Bush is always in PA is simple. PA has 21 electoral votes. The other Gore states that are extremely tight:
IA 7 evs.
WI 10 evs.
MN 10 evs.
NM 5 evs.
If he wins PA, he can lose OH & NH and still win.
If he wins PA, he can lose FL & NH and pick up WI, NM, 1 ME or IA and still win.
Posted by: DFuller at October 21, 2004 04:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For your information, I have already voted here and NC, and I voted for Kerry/Edwards. I also voted for all Democrats on the judiciary. I could not, however, vote for Bowles (D) or Burr (R) due to their similar feelings on gay marriage and unions.
I guess being balanced means you cannot belong to a party, per se. My mother is a Democrat and my father is a Republican. I am registered Democrat, but I'm not blindly loyal enough to be unquestioningly Democratic and I rarely vote a straight ticket. Nor do my parents. To me, it's ridiculous to believe that one party has not only the right ideas, but the only ideas to make the country better. Think about this: if there was no opposition party, both the GOP and the Democratic party would ultimately splinter off into different parties, for not all of their members think the same way or have the exact same priorities. Rabid Democrats and Republicans irritate and even scare me, because they can't see nuances nor make compromises. Didn't we go through this prior to 1861? And what did it lead to? The Civil War! Any time a society views issues as either red or blue, with no shades of purple, it's not a good thing and it leads to exactly what we have now--division, animosity, and intolerance of other viewpoints. Extremely rabid Democrats and Repubicans act more like people who have been brainwashed, as they are incapable of thinking outside their little box. They can't even listen to each other. And they cherry pick their facts and statistics, just the way they cherry pick the polls that put their party or candidate in the best light. If this is what one must do to be a "true" Democrat or Republican, it's not for me. For anyone who believes you're either with us or against us, take a look at Cuba or North Korea. And then be grateful we still live in a country that doesn't shove its politics and ideology down everyone's throat.
Posted by: pepe at October 21, 2004 04:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I've warned against using fake names to attack other users before. No more warnings.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 21, 2004 04:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, DavidNYC. Honestly, I think using a fake name to attack me is rather cowardly. Just my 2��.
Posted by: pepe at October 21, 2004 05:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There's some ugly new polls from Mason-Dixon showing Kerry barely hanging onto MI, PA and OR, while losing IA by six points. Mason-Dixon has never impressed me as a pollster and their numbers stand in dramatic contrast with the battleground polls by Marist and other major pollsters. I certainly hope they're wrong here as well.
Posted by: Mark at October 21, 2004 07:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark
Mason Dixon does tend to favor Republicans (just as ARG seems to favor Dems outside of NH). That is not to say that they are deliberately biased, its just their model assumptions.
OR: Almost all other polls have Kerry up by 5-7. The exception is Riley Research, which was also off earlier this year. I think MD is definitely wrong in OR (they have Kerry by 1), Kerry is probably going to be up by 5-6.
Michigan: 3 dozen polls have shown Kerry up in this state, the only exception was a poll by Mitchell Research recently. I think Michigan is closer than I would like, but its not a 1 point lead as Mason-Dixon claims. 3-4 points is what I would guess. Kerry should maybe a visit to Michigan (skip CO). We know that other factors (union strength, Arab American population) etc. will give Kerry a boost. Bush isn't even campaigning here.
PA: Mason Dixon has Kerry by 1. I think the real margin is probably 2-3 points or so. Again, most recent polls show Kerry up, albeit marginably. PA is tougher than Michigan, but I expect the Rendell machine and union strength to carry the state for Kerry.
Wisconin: MD has it dead even at 45-45. I figured earlier that Wisconsin was tilting Bush, but it seems to have slipped back into tossup. MD verifies that.
Iowa, NM: Mason Dixon has Bush up in both and thats probably accurate, although their margin 5-6 points, is probably a bit high.
Ultimately, its going to boil down to turnout. Mason Dixon has a turnout model that favors Republicans, so if Republicans match that, they win. If Democrats can do better, as they did in 2000, they win.
I think Kerry will take MI, Oregon, PA. Wisconsin, Iowa, NM remain true toss-ups as do NH and Ohio.
Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 07:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I doubt Mason-Dixon is right on this. A six point lead in a fairly moderate state like Iowa makes no sense at all. And if Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Oregon are considered "in play", then we're in seriously trouble. It's kinda like saying that George Bush is barely leading in Georgia; your gut just tells you that assertion is wrong. Same with this poll.
Posted by: Dale at October 21, 2004 07:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I went to Surveu USA's site to check and here is what I see:
SUSA has Kerry by 7 in Michigan and 6 in Iowa.
Michigan is what I expect.
As far as Iowa goes well, if anyone wanted to be told that polling was not a science but an art.
Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 08:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry is a fraud. It is embarrassing how the democrats are propping him up when more than half the democrats are voting for Kerry just because they do like like Bush. That's real progress!
Posted by: tom at October 21, 2004 08:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
John Kerry a fraud? I think you have him confused with John O'Neill.
Posted by: Dale at October 21, 2004 08:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
To add to my previous comment a little.
Mason Dixon polled from 10/15 to 10/18 in Iowa and have Bush by 6
SUSA polled from 10/18 to 10/20 in Iowa and has Kerry by 6.
Which confirms that polling is as inexact as ever.
Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 08:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The SUSA numbers sound better...but I don't have much more faith in their methods than I do in Mason-Dixon's. From the beginning of the campaign, I thought Kerry would win Iowa in a breeze. It is truly too hard to predict at this point, but it would seem that virtually every issue favors Kerry in this populist, anti-war state. I still give Kerry the odds in IA, but not by much. By the way erg, where'd you see that SUSA Iowa poll? I don't recall seeing it.
Posted by: Mark at October 21, 2004 08:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark -- SUSA poll is just out on their web site.
Actually, I take back my statement. SUSA's web site says Kerry by 6 in Iowa, but the detailed write up of the poll says Bush by 6. Its a typo on their web site.
So IA may have fallen into Bush territory. If Kerry can get OH and NH though, he can survive the loss of IA and NM (but not WI and IA).
Posted by: erg at October 21, 2004 08:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
There. I think that fixed the italics. Sorry, people. I'm no good with HTML.
Posted by: Dale at October 22, 2004 07:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment