« Predictions, Part 1 | Main | General Election Cattle Call, October 19 »
Monday, October 18, 2004
We're Making a Play for Colorado
Posted by DavidNYCMany of you probably just got the same e-mail from Michael Whouley at the DNC that I did. Here's the important bit:
You deserve some specifics: At one point during the meeting talk turned to Colorado. Many pundits thought this state was in the win column for George Bush. But polls show this is not the case -- we can win Colorado. We decided that we should be aggressive here and once again the answer was "go for it." On the night of November 2, when Colorado is called for John Kerry, know it was because of you.
Interesting. So, assuming that "go for it" really does mean "go for it," this tells us a few things. First, obviously, is that the DNC thinks the state can turn blue. Second, that they don't expect the EV-splitting initiative to pass. If it does, fighting for a majority of CO's popular vote would only net us on additional EV, which would be a waste of time. And third, the DNC wants to make a real effort for CO's Senate seat & the various competitive Congressional races. Now, the DNC's job is to get Kerry elected president - winning the Senate and House is the responsibility of the DSCC and the DCCC, respectively. But obviously these guys all talk to each other, and I have to imagine that our Congressional prospects had something to do with this decision.
So we'll see how this shakes out. We are in fact still running ads in Colorado, so it's not clear to me exactly how this changes our game plan - but perhaps now the state will see a stronger last-minute push.
By the way, the AP article linked just above indicates that the battleground - at least as it's being fought over the airwaves - has shrunk to just fourteen states: FL, OH, PA, WV, IA, ME, MI, MN, NV, NH, NM, OR, WI and, of course, CO. If you ask me, we have no business wasting time in West Virginia anymore, but why on earth is Bushco blowing bucks in NH, MI, OR and, to a certain extent, ME? Sorry, what I mean is, it sure is great to see the GOP spending money in all those states!
Posted at 03:10 PM in Colorado | Technorati
Comments
Colorado sure is in play! In the last couple of days there has
been a marked increase in Ads for Kerry, Bush, and the Senate
candidates.
I live in the second largest Republican county in the state,
which Bush has to win big in order to carry the state. I see
as many Kerry signs as Bush signs. The latest new
registration numbers show the Dems are keeping pace with the
Repubs in this county and are substantially higher in the Dem
counties.
If we increase Dem turn-out by 3% and the Repub rate stays the
same as 2000 Colorado will turn blue.
I'm pretty sure the EV splitting initiative will go down. Both
Repubs and Dems think they can win the state and neither wants
to loose the EV's.
Posted by: pollwatcher at October 18, 2004 04:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't blame Bush for running ads in Maine, particularly the Bangor area where he has very good odds of getting the one electoral vote from the northern congressional district. I would like to think that MI, OR and NH are sure things for Kerry, but I certainly don't blame the Bush campaign for keeping hope alive there given their bottomless warchest. Kerry's warchest still must be in pretty good shape as well, so I'm not inclined to agree with the idea of pulling ads out of most states. I can see why Kerry would get out of Louisiana, Virginia and North Carolina at this point, but I certainly don't agree with pulling out of West Virginia considering how cheap ad rates must be there. It'll take some serious momentum for Kerry to win WV at this point (but then again we haven't seen any polls for about a month now outside of Zogby Interactive, so who knows) but I still can't see how Kerry would have much to lose pumping out ads in low-rent Charleston and Huntington (I'm sure the Pittsburgh markets reach northern WV).
Lastly, and this'll come as a surprise to nobody, but I think Kerry should, if possible, make another effort in Missouri and Arkansas, as Bill Clinton has suggested. I suspect that if Kerry loses this election by less than six electoral votes, the Big Dog will issue an "I told you so" statement. That's something we shouldn't risk given the cheapness of the Little Rock market.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2004 04:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As for Colorado, I try not to get too excited. A new poll today showed Bush up by 5. The state always seems to disappoint for the Dems (just ask Strickland). I'm glad we're competitive there, but I wish other states were getting half the attention CO is, and I believe the Dems are poised to regret their decision to put their election prospects so strongly into CO's basket.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2004 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Colorado ... might turn blue this election, but probably we have another 4 years to go to be really competitive. I think Salazar will wind, and with hispanic turnout and a decidedly democratic bent among college-age and twenty-somethings we have a chance. Bush got 51.5% in 2000. I'm probably voting to split the EC votes with the hope of giving Kerry 4 -- and hope the Big Dog and Wes Clark can work their magic in Arkansas.
Posted by: Marc Cittone at October 18, 2004 04:33 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First, the poll was done by Public Opinion Strategies, which is a GOP outfit. (Yeah, yeah, it was done for the Rocky Mountain news, supposedly part of our "independent" media. But a zebra can't change its stripes.) Second, the poll shows Bush at just 47% - well below the 50% he needs for this thing to be in the bag, well below the 49% he need for this state to even be competitive for him.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 18, 2004 05:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
rasmussen today: kerry 47, bush 47!
If you re-weight the rasmussen poll (to what zogby uses 39-35-26) you'll have to subtract 1pt from bush. Also, their minority sample is too low, it should be 20% or so, as opposed to 11-12% so subtract another point from bush (or add one to kerry)
given that, the rasmussen poll becomes:
kerry 48
bush 46
this is consistent with zogby (45-45) the only difference is rasmussen pushes leaners, zogby doesn't.... yet
Posted by: ed at October 18, 2004 05:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The good news is that Kerry seems to be building up a little momentum in the polls today. Zogby has them tied and Kerry up 47.2 ��� 46.6 if you include leaners. The other three all have Kerry improved over yesterday. It seems like the Cheney comment is basically a two day distraction.
Zogby will probably have Kerry up about 2 points in tomorrow���s poll. Friday was a strong Bush day, Saturday had Kerry up 2 points in Zogby, and Sunday was good day for Kerry according to John Zogby.
The horse race:
Three day tracking polls Today (Yesterday)
Zogby
Bush 45 (46)
Kerry 45 (44)
Unsure 7 (7)
ABC
Bush 50 (50)
Kerry 47 (46)
TIPP
Bush 47 (47)
Kerry 44 (43)
Unsure 9 (10)
Rasmussen
Bush 47 (48)
Kerry 47 (46)
Unsure 3 (3)
Average
Bush 47.3 (47.8)
Kerry 45.8 (44.8)
Bush +1.5 (+3.0)
Posted by: DFuller at October 18, 2004 05:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ed,
I would suspect that Zogby should come in at Kerry +2 tomorrow. From Zogby.com:
Friday Bush +4
Saturday Kerry +2
Sunday Zogby didn't say, but it had to be +2 to get a three day average of 0.
Posted by: DFuller at October 18, 2004 05:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think this election is begining to tip toward Kerry. For OH to be this undecided at this point, is not a good sign for Bush. I think OH will go for Kerry. WI and IA are harder for me because I am not from there, but I wouldn't be suprised if either state went either way.
Posted by: MarkOlsen at October 18, 2004 05:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Colorado will likely be close. I come from Colorado (currently in Illinois) but my family is still in Colorado. I consider my Mom to be usually a pretty good indicator of the general trend in National sentiment. Last election she was pretty anti-Bush although she waivered continually and I don't know if she ended up voting for President Bush or not. This election however, despite my pleadings, has completely gone over to the Bush camp. She has completley bought into the Republican mantra of "we will fight them over there so we need not fight them over here".
So, based on her reaction I would say that the increase in voter turnout due to Salazar might balance out the states more conservative tendancies, so it will end up being very close. My prediction is that the state will end up going to Bush by
Posted by: SC at October 18, 2004 06:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Rasmussen shows Kerry is currently behind in Minnesota. If Kerry can't win here, it's over. Luckily, he's visiting the state again on Wednesday. Let's hope it's not too late.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2004 06:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CO is sexy for the Democrats, but she constantly disappoints. It would be better to spend the time & money in trying to hold onto MN, IA, WI, NM, and ME, while trying to get AR, OH, FL, and NV to flip.
Posted by: pepe at October 18, 2004 06:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
THere haven't been that many MN polls, but I only saw one, even at the height of the Bush bounce, that showed him ahead (by 2 pts) and that was Mason-Dixon, whose results tend to favor repubs.
All of this leads me to believe that Kerry will take MN, even if by a small margin.
Mark -- in some states, the growth of a college-educated professionals has lead to states becoming less conservative (NC, for instance), because these people tend to be socially more liberal. In other states (such as MN), its the reverse. Why do you think thats the case ?
FWIW, I believe the right Dem. candidate, like a Bill Clinton can get a lot of the suburban and exurban vote, outside of the Southn anyway.
Posted by: erg at October 18, 2004 06:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
erg, the latest Rasmussen poll shows a dead heat in Minnesota, with Bush leading 49-48 with leaners included. Even as Kerry's fortunes have improved in Iowa and Wisconsin polls in the past month, they appear to have trended downward in Minnesota. I figured it was trouble when the Minneapolis Star Tribune poll showed Kerry's leading shrinking to only five points (in 2002, Walter Mondale was shown to be leading by five points over Norm Coleman in the Senate race two days before the election...we all know how that turned out). Perhaps this is a blip, but it's a very troubling one. I know extremely few Bush supporters in this state, but his base is in fast-growing outer-tier suburbs and exurbs which I am far removed from. It's abundantly clear that even if Kerry does pull the state out, this is the last blue hurrah for Minnesota in at least a generation.
I don't have a good answer about why educated professionals are trending states like North Carolina more Democratic and states like Minnesota less Democratic. My best guess is that it has to do with the current political environment of the state. In North Carolina, educated professionals are likely to be repelled by the Jesse Helms brand of conservatism prevalent in the state's past, and to a lesser extent, the redneck shtick of the NASCAR dad crowd. In Minnesota, the political establishment is the exact opposite. It's staunchly liberal. A Minnesota liberal could fit right in on the west side of Manhattan or in Berkeley, CA. The educated professionals moving here seem as likely to rebel against that establishment, and the comparatively high level of taxation that goes with it, as the North Carolina professional is to rebel against the Old Confederacy culture. If North Carolina professionals were to move to Minnesota, they'd probably become Republicans...and if Minnesota professionals moved to North Carolina, they'd probably become Democrats.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2004 07:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with Mark's analysis of NC, and would add that a huge influx of Northerners have moved to NC in the last 10-15 years. For example, I remember seeing a statistic that of all the people who moved to the Raleigh-Durham area during the 90's, more were from the NY/NJ area than anywhere else.
Both young Southern professionals and these newcomers, of either party, are generally going to be less conservative on social issues than the North Carolina Republican establishment - which, for example, still opposes the idea of a state lottery on moral/religious grounds.
Posted by: Thad at October 18, 2004 07:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Regarding other red states turning blue, see the new Survey USA poll, showing Bush's lead in NC at 3 points.
Posted by: PAVoter at October 18, 2004 07:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Help Republicans abandon Bush - give them Badnarik as an alternative.
���Big-Brother��� government too controlling for professor. For students who feel that neither George W. Bush nor Sen. John Kerry deserves a punch on their ballot, Bob Eckhardt says he feels the same.
That���s why Eckhardt, a professor in the kinesiology department, says he will not be voting for the Democrats or Republicans in this year���s election. He���s voting for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian presidential candidate.
Eckhardt said that after being a registered Republican for 38 years, he switched his party choice to Libertarian about three years ago. He made the decision after realizing that both the Democratic and Republican parties were moving in the direction to support more government control.
Read more
Posted by: VoteBadnarik at October 18, 2004 08:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
i just finished watching hardball and chris matthews was basically pushing the fact that bush had a good size lead and what was kerry doing wrong.seems that the woman are going for bush on terror.the media just ignores every pro kerry poll and highlights polls like gallup.it`s going to be pretty hard for kerry to win when the media keeps trying to convince everyone bush has it in the bag.
Posted by: jeremy at October 18, 2004 08:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NC is definitely moving closer to the Democratic party, and we just might be a blue state in 2008. Well, I personally know a conservative family who recently left NC for. . .Minneapolis! So you've got three more Republicans up there, and we have three fewer. It's also true that people from NY, NJ, PA, OH, and MI are moving to NC in droves. They are especially attracted to the Triangle. I should know. I'm one of them, born and raised in OH, but living in the Triangle for over 11 years and in NC for over nearly two decades overall.
Posted by: pepe at October 18, 2004 08:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
A couple places today, I read a hypothetical that I regret to say will make everyone toss and turn with anxiety tonight. So if you want to get a good night's sleep tonight, please wait until morning to read this....
With that disclaimer out the way, the headlines about potential legal battles ensuing after a closely-divided election could hurt Kerry. If last-minute undecideds hear two weeks worth of horror stories about divisive legal battles following the November 2 election, they could decide to vote for Bush hoping he'll win by a sizeable enough margin that the boat doesn't get rocked. Most of these voters may be skeptical about the President, but would generally not be political enough to consider a repeat of 2000 as tolerable and decide four more years of Bush is better than four more weeks of election fever. If the media keeps hyping these post-November 2 doomsday scenarios, I could easily see the undecideds rallying behind the President.
Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2004 11:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually all the polls are showing kerry leading, even in the gallup poll after it's re-weighted. Kerry is up two in both the gallup poll, and rasmussen. what's even better he's consistently up in the battleground states in every single poll I've seen!
here's two links:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/18/115815/77
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/
Posted by: ed at October 19, 2004 12:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ed Jeremy makes a good point. It's like Gallup gets all the play. And why is it that none of the major networks are mentioning that Washington-Post poll has kerry up 53-43% in the battleground states? I'm sick of the horse race margin of error polls. Kerry is making huge enrodes just look at the Survey Usa poll. Kerry is up 1 in Florida and only down 3 in North carolina. I'm sick of Fox News deceiving the fools into believing that Kerry is down. They have the guts to blame it on the "Mary" comment.
Posted by: godfrey at October 19, 2004 12:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
jeremy,
I wanted to jump through my television at Chris Matthews after pitching that Kerry is behind bull.
1) The Gallup poll is slanted towards Republicans.
2) The Gallup poll in now old. There are newer polls which show Kerry on an upswing the last couple days. My guess is that on the 14th and 15th some female voters were mad at Kerry for calling Cheney's daughter a lesbian. By the time Saturday rolled around, they came back into their senses. The Cheney commit was basically a blimp on the polling screen.
3) What is the deal with the Gallup likely voter model anyway? They have Kerry losing 20% of his voters and Bush only losing 11%. One again, I think it was temporary backlash from the Cheney commit. Female Kerry voters became less enthused for a couple of days.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 12:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thank you DFuller. To make it worst FOX and Friends brings this Strategic Vision guy out to talk about the polls like he's credible. I tell you what ever happened to the liberal slant in the media? It seems like all of these idiots on cable news are writing him off. Kerry wins Ohio and Florida for two solid reasons.
1.) New voter registration and turnout.
2.) Passsion; in Ohio look they've lost 240,000 manufacturing jobs. In Florida people haven't forgotten about 537 vote; also the new population boom not to mention double registration 46,00 to be exact between NY and Fl.
Posted by: godfrey at October 19, 2004 01:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
FL keeps looking more winnable every day. Rasmussen showed a 4 point lead for Bush on October 10th, but in just one week it has dropped to 1 point. I think that Social Security and the shortage of flu vaccinations have helped Kerry in FL.
My guess is that on November 2 FL will be called at about 2 AM. No one will want to call it early this year and it is going to be tight.
The wildcards in FL:
1) Military vote is not polled and should break towards Bush.
2) 40,000 people were disenfranchised in 2000. Who knows what Jeb has in store for 2004.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 01:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Monday's poll numbers weren't bad (except for Minnesota) but Sundays tend to be Democrats best poll days for whatever reason (perhaps us Satan-worshipping lefties are close by our telephones burning bibles on Sundays while pious conservatives are missing the calls from Zogby because they're busy genuflecting in front of the altar). Whatever the case, I don't see cause for celebration just yet, especially with the media spinning things so positively for Bush. Furthermore, the Washington Post battleground poll showing Kerry up by 10 has to be dismisses as an outlier just as Gallup's likely voter model does. The only battleground state where Kerry could credibly be up by 10 points in Washington. Does anyone really believe we're up by 10 points in the aggregate of battleground states?
Sooner or later, I expect I'll be seeing posters with sick_of_mark usernames lambasting my recent negative streak. I don't mean to demoralize anyone, but I also want to warn against irrational exuberance. Things are not going as well as we'd like right now and several things could still sink Kerry. Hopefully, I can wake up tomorrow with news that makes me see the race more positively.
Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 01:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
gallup's internals:
Dem: 85% Kerry, 11% Bush, 0% Nader
Rep: 9% Kerry, 89% Bush, 0% Nader
Ind: 47% Kerry, 42% Bush, 5% Nader
reweighted:
kerry: 48.5%
Bush: 46.4%
Posted by: ed at October 19, 2004 01:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark thanks for the reality check! However, we have to "keep hope alive."
Posted by: godfrey at October 19, 2004 01:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark,
Here in the south the extremely conservative churchgoers go to church both Sunday morning and evening. I do think that has a little to do with getting a nice Sunday for Kerry.
There is no telling what is going to happen on November 2. Two weeks is a long time and it all depends on what that 6 - 8% of people who can't make up their mind decide. According to Zogby only 25% on the undecided voters thinks Bush deserves re-election. That should factor good for Kerry. My big concern is some on the undecided voters might be thinking that we shouldn���t be changing leaders during the middle of a war. Bush / Cheney have done a great job in using fear to win votes.
Frankly, I think it is a better idea to have strong international alliances and cooperation when facing a war situation. Bush has burned too many bridges in his four years. Hopefully, tradition will hold true and we can pick up about 75% of the undecided voters.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 01:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So maybe Colorado has
disappointed in the past.
Like what state has not --
Mass and Rhode Island?
But there's every reason to
"go for it" in Colorado -- and
not for 1 little E.V. Go for all 9.
The Hispanic pop is growing
there. A lot of effort has been
invested in making this part of
the Democratic coalition going
forward. Don't quit now.
The number of newcomers is
HUGE -- bigger than N.C. and
Minn put together -- it's 30%
growth since 1990 IIRC.
Such an influx stirs the pot,
changing all the old voting
patterns, as new alliances
are formed, new influences
develop from the new voters.
The Senate race is vital. Salazar
can help Kerry with reverse coattails.
The Kerry campaign must not
abandon the Salazar campaign
by pulling out.
Two or three Congressioinal seats
are part of the fight.
Salazar's brother is in one.
The Wicked Witch of the Rockies
(the anti-gay bigot) in another.
We don't want to squeak in. We want
REPUDIATE Bush. We want Kerry
to claim to represent the whole
nation, not just a few regions.
Adding big patches of blue on the
map will help give the impression
of a truly national victory and mandate.
Colorado looms large on the map,
and it represents a beachhead in
the Southwest and the Mountain State
regions.
Kerry was born in Denver. Let's not
underestimate the power of home
team pride.
And let's not underestimate the
negative message it would send
to pull out of yet another state.
Let's fight for Colorado and win.
Posted by: Woody at October 19, 2004 02:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
So maybe Colorado has
disappointed in the past.
Like what state has not --
Mass and Rhode Island?
But there's every reason to
"go for it" in Colorado -- and
not for 1 little E.V. Go for all 9.
The Hispanic pop is growing
there. A lot of effort has been
invested in making this part of
the Democratic coalition going
forward. Don't quit now.
The number of newcomers is
HUGE -- bigger than N.C. and
Minn put together -- it's 30%
growth since 1990 IIRC.
Such an influx stirs the pot,
changing all the old voting
patterns, as new alliances
are formed, new influences
develop from the new voters.
The Senate race is vital. Salazar
can help Kerry with reverse coattails.
The Kerry campaign must not
abandon the Salazar campaign
by pulling out.
Two or three Congressional seats
are part of the fight.
Salazar's brother is in one.
The Wicked Witch of the Rockies
(the anti-gay bigot) in another.
We don't want to squeak in. We want
REPUDIATE Bush. We want Kerry
to claim to represent the whole
nation, not just a few regions.
Adding big patches of blue on the
map will help give the impression
of a truly national victory and mandate.
Colorado looms large on the map,
and it represents a beachhead in
the Southwest and the Mountain State
regions.
Kerry was born in Denver. Let's not
underestimate the power of home
team pride.
And let's not underestimate the
negative message it would send
to pull out of yet another state.
Let's fight for Colorado and win.
Posted by: Woody at October 19, 2004 02:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm surprised as to the number of 'battleground' states that were listed.
I'd say that MI, NH, NM, and OR are definitely ours and PA, ME, and MN are probably ours, while WV and probably CO (though I hate to admit it, although we may have a doubtful fighting chance) are theirs.
Therefore:
The election is going to come down to 5 states- FL, OH, IA, NV, and WI.
I believe that NV is most likely though not conclusively Bush's, and WI is most likely though not conclusively Kerry's. OH is leaning Bush according to polls, but nothing conclusive by any means. race2004.net has switched FL from undecided-leaning-bush to close-bush to undecided-leaning-kerry in the space of 7 days or so, so there's no use making predictions there. According to electionprojection.com, IA is Kerry's by a hair, while race2004.net has it Bush by a hair. Personally, I'm not too optimistic about it.
----------------------------
To summarize:
Swing state battlegrounds in terms of airwave time:
Kerry's: MI, NH, NM, OR, MN, PA, ME.
Bush's: WV, CO.
Leaning Kerry: WI.
Leaning Bush: NV.
Totally and Completely up for grabs: IA, FL, OH.
--------------------------------------
And the math:
(IA's EVs) + (OH's EVs) = (FL's EV's)
Therefore:
Florida is THE most conclusive state in the election.
And:
Assuming that my previous analysis on Kerry vs. Bush states and Leaning-Kerry Leaning-Bush is correct (and I'm not saying it is, espeically in terms of WI, NV, and to a lesser extent CO), if the Democrats win one side of the equation (either FL or OH-IA), we've won the election.
Meaning that while we only need to win either OH & IA or FL to win (27 EVs each), while Bush needs to win FL and IA (34 EVs), or FL and OH (47 EVs) to win.
Again, assuming my previous analysis is correct, and I'm not by any means trying to claim it's holy writ.
And apologies for writing a post on my general election predictions in a thread meant for Colorado.
Posted by: willt at October 19, 2004 05:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wilt,
I would call NM as totally up for grabs. I don't understand why no one polls NM. There have only been a couple polls there since the first debate. Zogby has Kerry up, of course. Gallup has Kerry down, of course.
MN is leaning Kerry but is not totally Kerry.
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 08:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the dilema of MN's turning R vs NC's turning D can be attributed to the brand of Republicanism practiced in the state. MN was traditionally a democratic state and therefore for the Republicans to be competitive they have been much more moderate than NC. The more moderate Republican message appeals to the suburban voter but the radical right "Jesse Helms" brand of politics can be down right offensive. Especially to those who have moved from relatively liberal places in the Rust Belt. Having moved from Western NY, I know I felt like this as have many of my friends.
I couldn't agree more with Pepe's analysis of NC more(Its a nice to agree with you for a change). The Charlotte observer listed the six cities that most of the transplants left to come to Charlotte (sorry awkward sentence). They are 1-NYC, 2 Los Angeles, 3 Buffalo/Niagara Falls, 3-Cleveland, 4-Pittsburg, 5-Miami, 6-Atlanta. This was a few years ago so places like Atlanta, Miami, and LA may or may not still be on the list but the others still have REALLY bad economies. Buffalo has been taken over by the state and Pittsburgh is close (if it hasn't been already). There economies took a nose dive 30 years ago and have never come back. A good economy in Buffalo means you haven't lost any jobs. You forget about creating jobs because it doesn't happen. Buffalonians have been moving here (NC) in droves since the early 90's. Buffalo lost half it's population and most moved here. That's only one metro area in NY. These people aren't going to change their politics just because the crossed the Mason-Dixon line.
Posted by: Jason - Charlotte at October 19, 2004 09:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Minnesota's suburban voters tend to be much more moderate than the right-wing ideologues they choose to elect to office. There are plenty of moderates in the Minnesota Republican Party, but those representing the state's growth corridor are as right-wing as any NASCAR dad in the Deep South. When analyzing the party platform and evaluating questionnaires submitted by the Republican Party Chairs of every county in every state, a study last year determined that the Minnesota Republican Party is the second most conservative in the nation. Only the Texas GOP is worse.
Since I read that, I figured it would only be a matter of time until the state's wildly out-of-the-mainstream Republican Party would implode. The fact that George Bush is running neck-and-neck with Kerry in this state has left me to reconsider that assessment in what is becoming one of the most politically fragmented states of the union.
Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 10:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Good news, bad news from Zogby.
Bad news: Still tied at 45 - 45.
Good news: John Zogby:" Over the last four days President Bush���s re-elect numbers have shifted-- from 47% to 45%-- and the time for someone new numbers have shifted-- from 48% to 51%."
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 10:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'd like to think Colorado is winnable, but the urban liberals (particularly those on the Front Range) don't see the whole state. I bet in Boulder and Denver you see an overwhelming forest of Kerry/Edwards signs, just as we do here in Durango. But once you get out into the county - or on the eastern plains or the rest of the West Slope - we've got those Nascar dads and security moms. In Walmart I overheard a conversation between a checker and an older woman about how "heartsick" they are at the idea that Kerry might win. Because then terrorists would kill us all, I guess.
Anyway, while I would love to see Kerry carry CO, and continue to work for that here, I think that the tidal wave of support that we see in the cities is deceptive.
Posted by: Ilana at October 19, 2004 10:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DFuller, do you know when Zogby's next round of state polls comes out?
Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 10:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The fact that we have Wal-Mart clerks lamenting how heartsick they'll be if John Kerry replaces George Bush as President indicates that there is something fundamentally wrong in this country.
Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2004 11:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
From the Washington Post:
"In 13 battleground states the race is also tight, but it is Kerry with the lead, 50 percent to 46 percent."
Posted by: DFuller at October 19, 2004 12:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"I bet in Boulder and Denver you see an overwhelming forest of Kerry/Edwards signs, just as we do here in Durango. But once you get out into the county - or on the eastern plains or the rest of the West Slope - we've got those Nascar dads and security moms."
Very true. But, I think this election will hinge on winning over moderates, wherever they live. Mostly the metro-area suburbs, I guess, and some in Loveland or Fort Collins. More than half the population lives in the metro area, I think. Add to that the growing Hispanic vote. True, in places like Northern Colorado or Littleton, even many well-employed suburnites are fundamentalists, but overall this is changing with all those newcomers, and their kids are pretty liberal, from my experiences at CU and CSU. The east plains just isn't growing in population, and the west slope is just attracting a few retirees, I would guess.
Posted by: Marc Cittone at October 19, 2004 01:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Colorado is important, but Dems should go after MO too. The Repubs think they have it won. In Florida it is crucial to mention global warming. Scientists say it causes more severe weather. Florida is the chief victim of this. Bush should be blamed in part because he is gutting the clean air act and the global warming treaty. Spread the word!
Posted by: Eric Meece at October 23, 2004 11:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment