Battleground poll gives Bush's 2004 odds a boost

Washington Times ^ | 9/26/03 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[crv16]

The poll also shows that Mr. Bush enjoys the support of the majority of voters in every income level except for those earning less than $30,000

Bush has majority support of all taxpayers in the US!

[HitmanLV]

I agree, nd I know my stats aren't perfect or accurate, but it does show how deep a hole several states are. I think about 10 states (and maybe more) are out of reach for the GOP in 2004, regardless of any other circumstances.

I hope I'm wrong.

[HitmanLV]

I agree, but it's not 1984.

Bush lost NY 2-1. The margin in Cali was enourmous too.

These states are just out of reach. The Northeast won't vote for a Republican, and neither will Cali. Sorry, it isn't going to happen. How anyone can mistake the 1984 reality for the 2004 reality is amazing to me.

We will win, but don't set your heart on NY-NJ-CT, Cali & Washington, Illionois & Michigan, and some other pockets of democrat voters.

I lived in NYC for 34+ years and I can tell you, Bush won't carry the city and that will be enough for him to lose the state. They are not supporting the war, though they were hurt the worst by 9-11 attacks. Their initial support was born more from self centerdness and self pity, rather than any clear thinking change in policy.

They will re-elect Schumer with a smile. Who are we kidding?

Stay realistic. A 50 or 49 state victory? You can't look at the map and come to that conclusion in 2004, sorry.

[HitmanLV]

Nah, but I do know that Bush has to win by a significant margin to carry states like NY and Cali, something he is unlikely to do.

[NYC Republican]

Nah, but I do know that Bush has to win by a significant margin to carry states like NY and Cali, something he is unlikely to do.

I was joking about the construction thing... I assume you're in finance or something related, based in your stats (actuary?). Later

[HitmanLV]

Haha! Nah, I'm a lawyer by training, though have a strong background in probablity & stats, as well as computers and databases and such.

The model is inexact, and nobody can predict the future, I admit, but it was just intended to show the actual impact of the famous 'county-by-county' map we are all familiar with. In other words, for Bush to be in a 48%-48% tie nationally, and still win most states (31-19 I think), and overwhelmingly win most counties, he had to have lost the states and counties he lost very big. That's a tough mountain to climb, I say, and some states (NY especially) are just out of reach.

But I'm a realistic pessimist! Haha! I have no hopes of a 40+ state sweep, though 35 states is doable, and those 35 states should get us about 325-350 EVs. "Good enough for me!"

[gitmo]

GHWB was hurt by the Perot factor and that was the only reason why Bill Clinton won in 1992. GWB will not have to deal with a Ross Perot and I think GWB will win in a landslide in 2004.

I wish I could agree with you, but the stats indicated that Perot pulled equally from the democRats. I think it was a classic Tortoise and Hare race. GHWB waited until the last minute to begin campaigning and Clinton had already gained a sizeable lead.

[Coop]

Stay realistic. A 50 or 49 state victory? You can't look at the map and come to that conclusion in 2004, sorry.

I never made such a statement. You need to read a little more carefully.