Posted on 03/31/2004 7:56:05 AM PST by Dales
Edited on 03/31/2004 8:24:09 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
In retrospect, it is pretty obvious that Oregon and New Mexico would eventually become tight contests in 2000 despite April polls showing George W. Bush with double digit leads over Al Gore. In 1996, President Clinton defeated Bob Dole in Oregon 47.15% to 39.06%, with Ross Perot taking in 8.80%. And in New Mexico, Clinton had topped Dole by almost as comfortable of a margin, 49.18% to 41.86%, with Perot scoring 5.80%. What caught my eye, however, was how similar the vote percentage for the Democrat candidate was in each case.
State | Clinton %, 1996 | Gore %, 2000 | Difference |
---|---|---|---|
New Mexico | 49.18% | 47.91% | 1.27% |
Oregon | 47.15% | 46.96% | 0.19% |
In New Mexico and in Oregon, the final 2000 results were as if Gore got the Clinton vote, while Bush got the Dole vote and the Perot vote. These were not the only states where this held true. In Wisconsin, Clinton had topped Dole by 10.33%, but his percentage was 0.02% less than Dole and Perot combined; Gore beat Bush there by 0.22%. In Colorado, Clinton's lost to Dole by 1.37%, and with Perot added he lagged by 7.96%; Bush beat Gore in Colorado by 8.36%. In Missouri, Clinton took the electoral prize by 6.3%, but had Perot's voters chosen Dole, the Republican would have won by 3.76%, which is very similar to the 3.34% win Bush enjoyed over Gore.
As a matter of fact, the gap between Clinton and the sum of Dole and Perot predicted the gap between Bush and Gore within a single percentage point (an average of 1/2 a percent per party) in a dozen states- Nebraska, Wisconsin, Vermont, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona, Virginia, Hawaii, Michigan, Tennessee, and Ohio. Nine more states, Oregon, North Carolina, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Alabama, Washington, and Minnesota, all were within 2%. And within 5%, which is still representing a small change of just 2.5% per "side", gets us up to a whopping 32 states.
It almost is easier to analyze the states where this trend did not hold true. Many of them involve the home states of those who were on the tickets in the two elections. President Clinton was very popular in his home state of Arkansas. He trounced both Dole and Perot by a combined 9.04%, while Gore lost the state by 5.45%, a swing of 14.49%. Dick Cheney's presence on the 2000 Republican ticket seems to have impacted Wyoming to a similar degree. In 1996, Clinton took home 25.22% less than Dole and Perot. In 2000, Gore lagged Bush by 40.06%, a swing of 14.84%. George W. Bush was worth a 9.64% Republican gain in Texas. Joe Lieberman improved the Democrat's Connecticut lot by 9.35%. Without Dole on the ticket, Bush did 6.03% less than the combined Dole/Perot vote in Kansas. Jack Kemp seemed to have the least impact, with New York going to Gore by 4.09% more than Clinton took over Dole and Perot. Since Gore was on the ticket in both elections, it is not surprising that Tennessee was one of the states where the sum of Dole and Perot predicted well the Gore versus Bush race.
It even held true on the national level for the popular vote. Clinton won 49.23% of the vote. Gore won 48.38%, a 0.85% difference. The sum of Dole and Perot's support was 49.12%. Bush took 47.87%, which is just 1.25% less. The 2000 election was indicative of a very evenly divided nation. So was the 1996 election. It was just hidden by a third party candidacy. If it was that Perot took votes from the Republicans, or if George W. Bush was able to capture all of the remaining Perot voters is unclear, as is if those are actually two different things. What is clear is that Clinton versus Dole plus Perot predicted the results of Gore versus Bush as perfectly as anything can, barring the use of a time machine.
This does not imply that Perot cost Dole the election in 1996. We can never know how his involvement altered the debate. But given the fact that Clinton added so much to the Arkansas Democrat tally, enough to move that state to the Democrats, the odds are that he would have won even if everywhere else Dole had captured all of the Perot vote.
The degree by which states were stable between 1996 and 2000 is not common. As a comparison, I looked at the 1876-1880 elections. As mentioned previously, both were extremely close. The 1876 election was decided by a single electoral vote and less than 2% of the national vote. The 1880 election was decided by 0.02% in the popular vote and 51 electoral votes, with many states being by very small margins. Many states were just as close in both elections, but even then not to the degree they were similar in 1996 and 2000 (once Perot is factored out). Where 12 states in 2000 (representing 23.5% of the races) were within a single point of the gap between Clinton and his two main opponents, in 1880 only 2 states (5.4% of the races) did the margin change by less than a point. In 2000, 35 races were within 5% of the 1996 gap (68.6%); in 1880, 23 were (62.1%).
In many ways, all of the drama and intrigue behind the 2000 election was much ado over nothing. All of the debates, all of the advertising, all of partisanship, all of the hubbub over soccer moms and swing voters, all of it mattered little. And since in many ways 2000 was a repeat of 1996, I think it is likely that 2004 is going to continue the trend. The precedent for the status quo remaining has already been set.
Which brings me back to the ECB. I was trying to determine how likely a contested state showing a strong advantage for a candidate as of early April was to end up going to the trailing candidate. The answer I have arrived it is "not very likely if that state was not within a handful of points in 2000". Not likely, that is, unless a Vice Presidential candidate is added from one of those states. John Kerry might decide to go after Louisiana by choosing John Breaux or Mary Landreiu. Other than that, it looks to me like all of the current strong states are going to remain with their leader.
Moving on to the states which were leaning for Bush last time around brings us to Nevada, Missouri, Kentucky, Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Gore managed to pick off the two jewels of the bunch, taking the rust belt states. In the nine states which were leaning towards Gore, Bush picked off Tennessee, but the leads in Minnesota, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Vermont and Maryland held up. All three of the ones that flipped were ones where the gap between Clinton and Dole/Perot was smaller than 5%. Of the leaning states that did not flip, only Minnesota fell into that category, barely; Minnesota was a very close state in 2000.
Of the states currently leaning, Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa for Kerry and Tennessee, Nevada, and Missouri for Bush are the ones where the 2000 gap was less than 5%. The rest of the leaning states are unlikely to change, but these states can be picked off by a well run campaign.
One thing of interest is that the states which were most directly impacted by the murderous attacks of 9/11 are showing more support for the President than one would anticipate. New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are all much closer than their recent history and common perception would indicate. The only poll I have for Virginia is dated but it too showed Bush doing much better than he did in 2000; I left it as a leaner to be conservative, but perhaps that was a mistake.
New York
Background: From 1960 onward, Republicans have carried the Empire State only three times. Nixon beat McGovern, Reagan beat Carter, and Reagan beat Mondale. Even Dukakis won here.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4/03 | Marist | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 32% | Unnamed Democrat | 39% | Dem +7 |
9/23/03 | Marist | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 32% | Unnamed Democrat | 48% | Dem +16 |
10/28/03 | Quinnipiac | NA | RV | 4% | Bush | 42% | Kerry | 50% | Dem +8 |
11/19/03 | Zogby | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 41% | Kerry | 46% | Dem +5 |
1/7/04 | Marist | Link | 617 RV | 4% | Bush | 34% | Unnamed Democrat | 36% | Dem +2 |
Punditry: The Marist poll I am adding now is already very stale, but it is more recent than what I previously had. It also, surprisingly, validated the earlier polls showing New York to be competitive. I would imagine that the state has swung back towards the Democrats since January, and as such I cannot bring myself to drop this all the way down to battleground status, which the last two polls would indicate is where it belongs. I'll put New York as Leaning Towards Kerry, with the caveat that I fully expect the Empire State to move strongly to the left in the next poll for the state.
New Jersey
Background: New Jersey used to be considered a Republican state. Those days have passed, although there are still some signs of life. In the last 10 Presidential elections it has gone 1-6-3 with the Republican wins coming in the middle, the last Clinton win and the Gore win were by such substantial margins that it is hard to avoid the feeling that New Jersey is trending leftward.
If New Jersey remains tight enough to stay in the battleground, it is a case of back to the future. ECB2000 started with it leaning Gore's way. The Democrats have 7 of 13 Representatives and both Senate seats, control both chambers of the state legislature, hold all of the important executive offices, and have a 25%-19% advantage in voter registration.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9/8/03 | Rutgers | Link | 802 Adults | 3.5% | Bush | 43% | Unnamed Democrat | 35% | Bush +8 |
9/15/03 | Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind | Link | 600 RV | 4% | Bush | 36% | Unnamed Democrat | 29% | Bush +7 |
9/25/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | RV | 3.1% | Bush | 48% | Kerry | 43% | Bush +5 |
11/10/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | 1,027 RV | 3.1% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 43% | Bush +3 |
1/11/04 | Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind | Link | 600 RV | 4% | Bush | 40% | Unnamed Democrat | 32% | Bush +8 |
1/13/04 | Rutgers | Link | 823 RV | 4.2% | Bush | 41% | Unnamed Democrat | 38% | Bush +3 |
Punditry: The Jersey saga continues. I find yet another fairly stale poll for the Garden State. And yet again, it confirms a Slight Advantage for Bush.
I have spent more time pondering New Jersey's prospects than any other state. While I still do not have any polls which were taken after Kerry became the nominee and enjoyed his media-driven surge, there are some things which give me some indications of the status of things.
First, as mentioned in the last ECB update for New Jersey, a March poll that measured approval ratings in New Jersey only showed a 3 point drop for the President from November, when Bush had a three point lead here. This is evidence that he is holding tough here.
Second, by mid-January in many states that trend Democrat, Bush had already fallen behind.
State | 2000 Result | Date of closest poll to mid-January | Poll Result | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Massachusetts | Gore +27 | 12/03 | Kerry +18 | 9 |
Rhode Island | Gore +29 | 2/7/04 | Unnamed Democrat +18 | 11 |
Maryland | Gore +17 | 1/12/04 | Unnamed Democrat +10 | 7 |
Connecticut | Gore +18 | 7/31/03 | Unnamed Democrat +14 | 4 |
2/26/04 | Kerry +13 | 5 | ||
Illinois | Gore +13 | 1/9/04 | Unnamed Democrat +8 | 5 |
California | Gore +11 | 1/13/04 | Unnamed Democrat +1 | 10 |
1/18/04 | Unnamed Democrat +5 | 8 | ||
New York | Gore +25 | 1/7/04 | Unnamed Democrat +2 | 23 |
New Jersey | Gore +16 | 1/11/04 | Bush +8 | 24 |
1/13/04 | Bush +3 | 19 |
There is no denying that New Jersey has been hostile territory for Republicans of late. But there is a distinct possibility that something has changed. It isn't hard to imagine what it could be either- 9/11. No states were impacted at a core level the way New York and New Jersey were. The polls across the country are suggesting that electorally, not much has changed since last election, despite 9/11. I am not sure that things are unchanged in New York and New Jersey. That makes them very interesting to watch, at least in the early portions of the campaign.
Alabama
Background: Alabama has been a reliable GOP state, only straying twice since 1960; both times it went for a southerner. Jimmy Carter carried the state, as did George Wallace.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4/27/03 | USA Polling Group | Link | RV | 5% | Bush | 60% | Unnamed Democrat | 30 | Bush +30 |
3/18/04 | USA Polling Group | Link | 405 adults | 5% | Bush | 59% | Kerry | 27% | Bush +32 |
Punditry: Second verse, same as the first. Safe Bush.
Colorado
Background: Colorado is generally considered to be winnable for the Democrats, but historically this has proven to be a solid GOP bastion. Only three times since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President has a Democrat carried this state (Truman, Johnson, and Clinton against Bush- with a big thanks to Perot taking 23% of the tally).
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9/8-10/03 | Colorado Democratic Party | NA | RV | 4% | Bush | 42% | Unnamed Democrat | 35% | Bush +7 |
12/15-16/03 | Public Opinion Strategies | NA | LV | 4.9% | Bush | 46% | Unnamed Democrat | 36% | Bush +10 |
3/16/04 | Public Opinion Strategies | NA | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 42% | Bush +4 |
Punditry: Up until now, I had the following as the comment here: "Colorado may end up being a single digit margin, but the results will likely never be in doubt." This poll does not change that analysis. One thing that always intruiges me is trying to figure out the motivations behind partisan polling companies when they make public their own results. Why does the Republican pollster choose to release these numbers? Why do Democrat pollsters choose to release the numbers they do? What can be gleaned from those decisions?
Technically, a 4 point margin goes into the slight category, but not when the previous polls all had things being less close. I am dropping Colorado down to Leaning Towards Bush.
Missouri
Background: Considered by many to be a bellwether state, Missouri has gone Republican in every election after 1964 except for three. Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford by a small, four point margin. Bill Clinton won the state twice, but both times relied on Perot taking double digits (over 20% in the first). From 1968 on, the only Democrat to break 50% in Missouri was Carter, and the only Republican to fail to get 50% absent a truly strong third party candidate was Ford.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9/9/03 | Research 2000 | Link | 600 LV | 4% | Bush | 49% | Dick Gephardt | 39% | Bush +10 |
1/29/04 | Research 2000 | Link | 804 LV | 4% | Bush | 45% | Unnamed Democrat | 40% | Bush +5 |
2/14/04 | Decision Research (D) | NA | LV | 4% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +3 |
3/2/04 | Suffolk University | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 50% | Kerry | 39% | Bush +11 |
3/19/04 | Decision Research (D) | NA | LV | 4% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +3 |
3/23/04 | Rasmussen | Link | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 49% | Kerry | 42% | Bush +7 |
Punditry: Kerry's improvement in other states has not carried over to the Show Me state. The divergent polls for Missouri and Iowa are very interesting, and indicate to me that the uncountered publicity Kerry got during the intense run-up to the Iowa Caucuses is having a lasting effect there. Here, Missouri still Leans for Bush. Decision Research, a Democrat polling firm, seems to be out of step with other firms.
Minnesota
Background: Nixon (against McGovern) is the only Republican winner since Ike. Reagan (against Carter) and Bush (against Gore) made it close, and it is possible that Dole could have beaten Clinton sans Perot. The Reagan race that was close was notable because it was against the homestate Mondale.
The slight advantage for the Democrats is a step up from the leaning Gore position at the start of ECB 2000. Minnesota's legislative seats are split right down the middle. Half of the Representatives, half of the Senate seats, and one of the state legislative chambers are held by each party. Most of the important executive branch offices are held by Republicans with the exception of Attorney General.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1/26/04 | Mason-Dixon | NA | LV | 4% | Bush | 41% | Kerry | 43% | Kerry +2 |
3/25/04 | Rasmussen | Link | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 44% | Kerry | 47% | Kerry +3 |
Punditry: Kerry maintains a slight lead in Minnesota. It is still somewhat surprising to see Minnesota polling to the right of Iowa, but perhaps it should not be. Slight Advantage for Kerry.
Iowa
Background: Iowa is a state of streaks, going 1-5-4 over the last 10. Clinton would likely have lost his first campaign against Bush had Perot not been a factor. The state is generally close, with the only surprisingly large margin coming when Dukakis beat Bush by 10 points.
Iowa rated a slight advantage to Bush in the first ECB of 2000. This time, it rates a slight advantage to the Democrats. Other positions in Iowa are mixed. The Republicans hold 4 of the 5 House seats, and the Senate seats are split. The Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature, but the Democrats hold all major executive offices except for Auditor. Republicans hold a 32% to 29% advantage in registration.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9/12/03 | Des Moines Register | Link | 803 Adults | 3.5% | Bush | 41% | Unnamed Democrat | 41% | Even |
10/30/03 | Research 2000 | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 46% | Unnamed Democrat | 47% | Dem +1 |
1/5/04 | Research 2000 | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 50% | Unnamed Democrat | 42% | Bush +8 |
2/11/04 | Selzer & Co. | NA | RV | 3.4% | Bush | 42% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +7 |
3/23/04 | Rasmussen | Link | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 41% | Kerry | 51% | Kerry +10 |
Punditry: Considering how well Kerry resonated with Iowa voters as shown by his startling win in the caucuses, his lead in Iowa is not all that surprising. Leans toward Kerry.
West Virginia
Background: It was a huge change from the past when Bush beat Gore here in 2000. Over the last eighteen elections, the Democrats have won 14, and both of Clinton's wins would almost certainly have come even without Ross Perot. This is not a state the Democrats should have lost.
In the first ECB of 2000, West Virginia was rated as a battleground state with a slight advantage to Bush. This time around, it is starting as a complete tossup. Two of West Virginia's three Representatives are Democrats. Democrats control everything else: both Senate seats, both chambers of the state legislature, and the top executive branch offices. It is easy to see why, when 60% of the registered voters are Democrats and just 29% Republican.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/24/04 | American Research Group | Link | 600 LV, Nader not an option | 4% | Bush | 47% | Kerry | 46% | Bush +1 |
3/24/04 | American Research Group | Link | 600 LV, Nader an option | 4% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 46% | Push |
Punditry: It's here! It's here! The second most eagerly anticipated state poll in my eyes (I want a New Jersey poll more)- West Virginia! Finally, there is some indication, to tell us which way the state is leaning this election cycle! It is leaning... in no direction!
Imagine that.Toss-up.
(Nader hurts Bush?)
Ohio
![]() |
F | ![]() |
Ohio |
---|---|---|---|
Electoral Votes: 20 | |||
2000 Result | |||
Bush 50% | |||
Gore 46% |
Background: Since Truman, Ohio has gone Democrat three times. Carter edged Ford by an extremely slim margin, and Clinton won twice, both times relying on Perot heavily.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2/7/03 | Ohio Poll | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 59% | Unnamed Democrat | 36% | Bush +23 |
9/19/03 | Ohio Poll | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 57% | Kerry | 38% | Bush +19 |
3/16/04 | Rasmussen | Link | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 41% | Kerry | 45% | Kerry +4 |
3/24/04 | Ohio Poll | Link | 632 RV | 3.9% | Bush | 44% | Kerry | 46% | Kerry +2 |
Punditry: Another nail biter, which provides no impetus to change the designation from Slight Advantage for Kerry.
While the latest poll shows a nominal lead for Kerry, after looking at the details of the poll it has to be considered to be a favorable poll for the President. For seniors (65 and over), it is an effective tie (Bush 48, Kerry 47, Nader 0). For voters age 46 to 64, Bush leads 51 to 44, with Nader a scant 3%. For ages 30 to 45, Bush again leads by a point, 46 to 45 with Nader getting a mere 2. The entire Kerry lead comes in the under 29 vote, where Bush gets only 22% (compared to Nader's 20%!) while Kerry takes 56%. This age group by far is the least likely to turn out on election day, and this is also the age group that historically is more volitile during a campaign, with their support changing often.
Wisconsin
Background: I got the *BLEEP* kicked out of me in Wisconsin. Oh wait, sorry. Stripes flashback. Reagan won here twice. Nixon won here three times. LBJ and Carter (against Ford) won here, and then the Democrats have taken the last four elections here. The first of Clinton's wins would have been a loss for him without Perot.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5/03 | Badger Poll | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 53% | Unnamed Democrat | 42% | Bush +11 |
10/28/03 | Badger Poll | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 46% | Unnamed Democrat | 45% | Bush +1 |
1/27/04 | Badger Poll | Link | LV | 4% | Bush | 38% | Unnamed Democrat | 54% | Dem +16 |
3/24/04 | American Research Group | Link | 600 LV | 4% | Bush | 43% | Unnamed Democrat | 46% | Kerry +3 |
Punditry: Wisconsin's latest poll returns the state smack dab into the heart of the 2004 battleground. Two of the last three polls show this race to be neck and neck. Since the middle one of the three was in Kerry's favor, and this one has a small margin for him, we'll call Wisconsin a Slight Advantage for Kerry.
One interesting tidbit about the ARG poll. According to American Research, "88% of Democrats say they have an unfavorable opinion of Bush", but Kerry only gets 85% support from the Democrats. Similarly, 85% of Republicans have a favorable opinion of George Bush, but he only gets 82% of them as supporters.
Washington
Background: The Democrats have won the last four, and 6 of the last 10, with all four Republican wins coming consecutively (Nixon, Ford, ReaganX2). It is unclear as to if Clinton would have won the first time here sans Perot; it would likely have been extremely close. The Dukakis/Bush race was very close. The Clinton/Dole race was not.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1/5/04 | SurveyUSA | NA | 975 RV | 3.2% | Bush | 48% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +1 |
2/4/04 | SurveyUSA | Link | 975 RV | 3.2% | Bush | 43% | Kerry | 55% | Kerry +12 |
3/24/04 | SurveyUSA | Link | 698 LV | 3.8% | Bush | 43% | Kerry | 47% | Kerry +4 |
3/25/04 | Rasmussen | Link | 500 LV | 4.5% | Bush | 44% | Kerry | 50% | Kerry +6 |
Punditry: Bush has made a nice little comeback in Washington, and the race is now fairly competitive. It does not fit my definition of a battleground (yet) but could easily move there if the trend continues. Leaning towards Kerry. Bush's biggest problem in Washington is that his disapproval numbers are 11 points higher than Kerry's. If he is going to catch him here, it will need to be by driving Kerry's negatives up.
Connecticut
![]() |
Connecticut |
---|---|
Electoral Votes: 7 | |
2000 Result | |
Gore 56% | |
Bush 38% |
Background: 3-5-3 in the last 11, with Clinton's first being probably due to the Perot factor.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/11/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | RV | 3% | Bush | 37% | Unnamed Democrat | 51% | Dem +14 |
7/31/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | RV | 3% | Bush | 37% | Unnamed Democrat | 51% | Dem +14 |
2/26/04 | University of Connecticut | Link | 448 RV | 4% | Bush | 36% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +13 |
3/28/04 | University of Connecticut | Link | RV | 4% | Bush | 33% | Kerry | 52% | Kerry +19 |
Punditry: In stark contrast to New York and New Jersey, Connecticut has not shown any indications of being closer this time than last. The only bright spot in the UConn poll is that Kerry only gets 47% of independents. But even that is only half good, as Bush gets less than 1/3 (many independents in Connecticut are undecided). Strong Advantage for Democrats.
Utah
Background: You have to go back to Johnson to find a Democrat win here. Clinton came in third in his first election. This is Republican territory.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2/19/04 | American Research Group | Link | 404 residents | 5% | Bush | 64% | Kerry | 31% | Bush +33 |
3/25/04 | Dan Jones | Link | RV | 5% | Bush | 66% | Kerry | 24% | Bush +42 |
Punditry: Two reasons to love Utah: it polls like this, and Snowbird mountain. Safe for Bush.
Oklahoma
Background: Republicans have won every election here since LBJ.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3/1/04 | Wilson Research | NA | 300 RV | 5.7% | Bush | 50% | Kerry | 40% | Bush +10 |
Punditry: The poll is suprisingly tight, which probably has a lot to do with the large margin of error. For prudence, I will downgrade Oklahoma to Strong Advantage for Bush, although I anticipate the margin to open back up within relatively short order.
Pennsylvania
Background: Democrats have won this state 6 of the last 10 elections, with the first of Clinton's wins being attributable to Ross Perot being on the ballot (19%). Typically, the races in the Keystone state have been close. Pennsylvania started as leaning Bush last time, but has drifted to where it has a slight advantage for the Democrats. Republicans hold a 12-7 advantage in the numbers of Representatives, and hold both Senate seats. They also hold both chambers of the state legislature. The Democrats hold the major executive branch positions except for Attorney General, and have a significant registration advantage (48%-42%).
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5/13/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | 952 RV | 3.2% | Bush | 56% | Kerry | 34% | Bush +22 |
10/9/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | 1,116 RV | 3% | Bush | 50% | Kerry | 43% | Bush +7 |
11/23/03 | Muhlenberg College | Link | 430 RV | 4.7% | Bush | 47% | Kerry | 40% | Bush +7 |
12/14/03 | Quinnipiac | Link | 1,092 RV | 3% | Bush | 50% | Kerry | 42% | Bush +8 |
2/18/04 | Quinnipiac | Ling | 1,356 RV | 2.7% | Bush | 45% | Kerry | 50% | Dem +5 |
2/22/04 | Keystone Poll | Link | 392 RV | 4.9% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 47% | Dem +1 |
3/3/04 | Pennsylvania Public Mind | Link | 1750 Adults | 2.4% | Bush | 45% | Kerry | 47% | Kerry +2 |
3/11/04 | Survey USA | Link | 802 RV | 3.5% | Bush | 47% | Kerry | 49% | Kerry +2 |
3/15/04 | Qunnipiac | Link | 1,022 RV (Nader not given as an option) | 3 | Bush | 44% | Kerry | 45% | Kerry +1 |
3/15/04 | Qunnipiac | Link | 1,022 RV (Nader given as an option) | 3% | Bush | 44% | Kerry | 40% | Bush +4 |
3/29/04 | Keystone Poll | Link | 565 RV | 4.1% | Bush | 46% | Kerry | 40% | Bush +6 |
Punditry: The Bush campaign is finding surprising resonance in Pennsylvania- surprising considering the difficulties in Ohio. One bit of caution though: while this poll represents a swing from a one point deficit for the President to a six point lead, this is entirely due to Kerry's support level dropping 7 points. Bush's support level in the Keystone Poll has remained constant. Strictly by the classes, I should be moving Pennsylvania into the "leans" designation, but I want one more poll to verify such a lead before I do. For now, Pennsylvania has a Slight Advantage for Bush.
Maryland
![]() |
F | ![]() |
Maryland |
---|---|---|---|
Electoral Votes: 10 | |||
2000 Result | |||
Gore 57% | |||
Bush 40% |
Background: Since the 1960 election, the only Republicans to carry Maryland were Nixon for his re-elect, Reagan for his re-elect, and George H. W. Bush during his first campaign. Clinton did not need Perot to win here either time. This is a Democrat state.
Polling Data:
Date | Polling Company | Link | Type | MOE | Republican | Democrat | Margin | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1/12/04 | Potomac, Inc | Link | 1,200 LV | 2.8% | Bush | 41% | Unnamed Democrat | 51% | Dem +10 |
2/27/04 | Mason-Dixon | Link | 625 LV | 4% | Bush | 38% | Kerry | 47% | Kerry +9 |
3/24/04 | Gonzales Research and Marketing | Link | 825 LV | 3.5% | Bush | 43% | Kerry | 48% | Kerry +5 |
Punditry: I said last time that the closeness in Maryland surprised me. I said that I suspected it was just an outlier (a poll that is the 1-in-20 that is outside the margin of error). I said that because of that, I would hold off reclassifying Maryland as a leaner until another poll verified the results.
Maryland now Leans for Kerry, and is perilously close to falling into the battleground territory.
Could this be an extension of the same effect I have noticed in New York and New Jersey? Could the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 be causing some normally Democrat voters to consider the President?
Summary Table |
---|
Effective National Popular Results: Bush 45.7%, Kerry 43.3% |
![]() |
Kerry E | F Bush | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Safe | Strong | Lean | Slight | Tossup | Slight | Lean | Strong | Safe |
MA (12) | DE (3) | OR (7) | NM (5) | WV (5) | NJ (15) | GA (15) | SC (8) | ND (3) |
DC (3) | CT (7) | CA (55) | ME (4) | MI (17) | NH (4) | TN (11) | KY (8) | AL (9) |
RI (4) | IL (21) | WA (11) | MN (10) | - | PA (21) | MO (11) | KS (6) | MT (3) |
HI (4) | VT (3) | IA (7) | FL (27) | - | - | VA (13) | MS (6) | WY (3) |
- | - | NY (31) | OH (20) | - | - | IN (11) | SD (3) | UT (5) |
- | - | MD (10) | WI (10) | - | - | AR (6) | LA (9) | ID (4) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | NC (15) | OK (7) | AK (3) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | AZ (10) | - | NE (5) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | NV (5) | - | TX (34) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | CO (9) | - | - |
|
||||||||
Totals | ||||||||
Kerry States | Battleground States | Bush States | ||||||
|
||||||||
23 | 34 | 121 | 76 | 22 | 40 | 106 | 47 | 69 |
|
||||||||
178 | 138 | 222 |
Which President was the first to employ a private polling service to advise him on election strategy and public policy?Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
This week's quiz: According to the Gallup poll, which Presidential race featured the most lead changes from January through election day?
Now, as for the VP choice, I think it is said that statistically the only real help a VP brings is an average of 1% additional popular votes in the VP's own HOME STATE.
So that suggests Kerry would prefer to pick a VP from one of those borderline battleground states that would just put him over the top.
Adding up the columns in the chart in post#1, up to but NOT including the TOSSUP column gives Kerry 254 electorals. (short of the needed 269)
But if he could win the tossup state MICHIGAN, with 17 electorals, he'd be over the top.
Which Michigander Dem is available and would boost the Kerry ticket the most?
Although there isn't much of a Chomsky or "Barney Frank" wing of the dems in Detroit, it's all the union wing, Zogby Wing, and the Jesse Jackson wing there.
And all Without Raising Taxes.
Could be Arnie can deliver CA also....but there needs to be some increased GOP spending on ads.
Don't forget Pennsylvania, where Flight 93 crashed. Dales just shifted Pennsylvania one category towards Bush.
-PJ
But even a 15% swing in NJ and NY (and that's a big swing), won't switch those states.Gore only won Jersey by 16%.
And this time, fellow tri-stater Joe Lieberman won't be on the ticket.
I do think you are right, that this effect is likely to only manifest itself in the popular vote, since most of the involved states are too far gone.
But the more I am looking at things, the more I am starting to think New Jersey could be winnable. Just to pull a number out of my hat, maybe a 15% chance, if they spend the money to advertise and invest in a GOTV organization. That's a big if, and I am not sure where the break-even point is.
PS- any 9/11 effect on Massachusetts would probably be offset by it being Kerry's home state.
I would only point out that Minnesota has a large MAJOIRTY Republican House and a Democratic Senate by only 1 seat, not an even split as suggested in the analysis.Here is what I wrote: "Minnesota's legislative seats are split right down the middle. Half of the Representatives, half of the Senate seats, and one of the state legislative chambers are held by each party."
I suppose it is less clear than I wanted, but when I said it's legislative seats are split down the middle, I am talking about it's US Congress legislative seats, not the state legislature. The only thing I said about the state legislature is that each party controls one chamber.
In the US Senate, there is Coleman and Dayton. In the US House, the Dems have McCollum, Sabo, Peterson and Oberstar to offset the Republican quartet of Gutnecht, Kline, Ramstad, and Kennedy.
Apologies for any lack of clarity.
Electoral Votes: 102000 Result:
Gore 57%In Maryland, the 1988 election doesn't really count. Bush the elder's victory over Michael Dukakis was a fluke. Does anyone remember Willie Horton, the Massachusetts murderer/rapist who was allowed a furlough despite serving a life sentence? The people Horton brutalized while on furlough lived in suburban Baltimore, and lots of normally-'Rat voters swung to Bush because of that.Bush 40%
Since the 1960 election, the only Republicans to carry Maryland were Nixon for his re-elect, Reagan for his re-elect, and George H. W. Bush during his first campaign. Clinton did not need Perot to win here either time. This is a Democrat state.
In other words, a single (if horrific) crime produced such terrible PR for Michael Dukakis in that specific state that the state went against its otherwise reliable party tendency.Which goes to show that what national politics would be like if "objective" journalism were actually objective!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.