Friday, April 30, 2004
ASU Poll: Kerry Slips in AZ, But Still Close
Posted by DavidNYCA new poll out from Arizona State University (Feb. numbers in parens):
Bush: 41 (44)
Kerry: 38 (46)
Nader: 3 (n/a)
Undecided: 18 (10)
(MOE: ��4.8%)
Bush gets a 44-46 approve/disapprove rating on his handling of the economy, but a 60-31 split in his favor on terrorism. Both are improvements over his Feb. numbers, where he got 40-54 on the economy and 54-40 on terrorism.
Interesting that the number of undecideds has shot up - mostly, it seems, at Kerry's expense. Perhaps Bush's negative ads have had an effect here?
(Via Kos.)
UPDATE: Ruy says that these results actually don't look good for Bush:
It's bad for Bush that's it's so close. And it's bad for Bush that he's drawing only 41 percent as the incumbent; undecideds usually break heavily for the challenger.
Posted at 07:23 PM in Arizona | Comments (3) | Technorati
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Today's Yellin Report
Posted by DavidNYCStephen Yellin (aka MrLiberal) is a guest-poster at DKos who seems to know everything about every federal and state race in the country. He has a great Yellin Report up today detailing some developments around the nation, including a number of things going on in various swing states. Here's one you might like: The right-wing Constitution Party is pledging to field a candidate of its own in the PA Senate race. Sorry, Arlen! And while we're at it, if you're in a giving mood, you can go help Atrios help Joe Hoeffel.
Posted at 07:43 PM in General | Technorati
General Election Cattle Call, 4/22-4/29
Posted by Chris Bowers[Note: I shuffled this post around a bit to put the most recent data at top and back data in the "Continue reading..." section. - David]
April 29
Bush: 50.0% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 50.0% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 220
Too close to call: 70 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
In short, the latest polls, CBS in particular, hold good news for Kerry. In fact, today is his high-water mark thus far. However, we are a long way away from the election, and I imagine that some wild fluctuations will take place.
I first started making these calculations around one week ago, so for posterity���s sake here are the complete trends since I began this project. If a date isn���t listed, that is because there was no change from the previous day. From now on, I will update daily, as long as new polls warrant it.
April 28
Bush: 50.0% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 50.0% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 210
Too close to call: 80 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
April 26
Bush: 51.3% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 48.7% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 210
Too close to call: 80 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
April 25
Bush: 51.4% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 48.6% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 210
Too close to call: 80 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
April 24
Bush: 51.3% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 48.7% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 210
Too close to call: 80 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
April 23
Bush: 50.9% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 49.1% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 210
Too close to call: 80 (FL, IA, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
April 22
Bush: 50.6% of the national two-party vote
Kerry: 49.4% of the national two-party vote
Too close to call, swing states in play
Electoral Vote Projection:
Bush: 248
Kerry: 217
Too close to call: 73 (FL, OH, OR, NH, NM, and WI)
Posted at 07:35 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Technorati
Welcome to the General Election Cattle Call
Posted by Chris BowersHi everyone! Around three months ago I promised David that I would put this together. Although it took me a while to get over Dean���s primary season defeat, to figure out what went wrong with my primary season projection, and to come up with what I hope will be a more accurate system for the General Election, I think I am finally on to something. With all of this in mind, I can proudly present to you the General Election Cattle Call. I certainly hope you enjoy it, and that you return to the Swing State Project on a regular basis to check it out (also, make sure you start checking out MyDD as well).
The GECC is broken up into two parts. The first part is the Projection of the National Two-Party Popular Vote, and the second is the current Electoral Vote Standing. The second part does not come into play unless Bush and Kerry are within three points of each other in the national vote projection.
My definition of ���swing state��� is somewhat more narrow than David���s as I only identify eleven swing states (the ten closest states in 2000 plus PA). While I certainly think that its possible for Kerry to win states such as AR, AZ, CO, LA, and WV, or for Bush to win states such as MI and WA, I also believe that the election will be out of reach for one candidate or the other if any of those states change hands in 2004. So, while I am open to suggestions and alterations, at least for now I will only consider eleven states the true ���swingers.���
Here is my complete methodology. The post following this one will include the complete standings and trends over the past week.
Methodology for National Popular Vote Projection
Because we are so far away from the actual election, a lot more people are currently undecided than almost every single poll would have you believe. Thus, at least until October 1st, it is necessary to take other factors into account besides national trial heats.
I have decided to only use information that is regularly updated. Thus, the three, evenly balanced categories in determining each candidate���s share of the national popular vote are Favorability Ratings, Bush���s Job Approval Ratings, and General Election Trial Heats.
Favorability ratings will be defined as the percentage of people surveyed who do not have a negative opinion of the candidate in question.
Approval Ratings is straightforward. However, two points will be subtracted from Bush���s disapproval rating in every survey in order to account for third party voters.
Trial heats, at least for now, all need to include Ralph Nader as a poll option.
Data range: The most recent poll included in any given category is the sole determining factor in what other polls are used. In order for a poll to be included in any given category, the poll must have been conducted on at least one day when the most recent poll was also conducted.
Calculating the mean: All polls will be translated into a percentage of 100 before combined with other polls. When polls are combined, they will be combined using the central mean rather than the simple mean.
All three categories will be equally weighted until at lest October 1st.
Swing states will only be ���in play��� if the candidates are separated by three points or less in the national popular vote projection.
Methodology for Swing States
1. What is a ���Swing State?���
For the purposes of this project, a swing will be defined as a state where the winner in an extremely close election cannot be predicted based on the national popular vote. Because of this, a swing state thus has the ability to throw the Presidency to the candidate who does not receive the most votes nationwide. It is in this sense and in this scenario that swing states are the true measure of who will win the Presidency.
2. Consider the definition of ���Swing State,��� how can someone predict a state based on the national popular vote?
For all such predictions, I will be using the trends described on this page. A significant majority of states that were decided by less than 10% of the vote in the closest election in history, 2000, are currently following fairly stable long-term voting trends. It is my belief that with few exceptions, these trends will continue in 2004. Considering this, it is also my belief that in an extremely close election, the winner of the vast majority of states���including about half of all states currently considered ���swing states�����will be a foregone conclusion.
3. How are you defining an ���extremely close election?���
For the purposes of this project, an extremely close election would be an election where the national popular vote totals are close enough that it becomes possible for the candidate who finishes second in the national popular vote to win the electoral college. It is my belief that any candidate who wins the national popular vote by three points or more has virtually no chance of losing the electoral college.
4. Ok then. which states do you believe are the ���Swing States?���
Based on long-term state voting trends and what, as far as I can tell, are the limitations of GOTV, advertising, and other local, targeted efforts in a national campaign, I believe that if 2004 is an ���extremely close election��� (less than a three point spread), there will be only eleven swing states: Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Kerry���s ���safe��� base in an election decided by 3 points or less: 200 EV���s
CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, NY, WA, VT
Bush���s ���safe��� base in an election decided by 3 points or less: 211 EV���s
AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MT, NC, ND, NE, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY, VA
These states are subject to change as I continue to learn about large-scale voting patterns.
Posted at 07:01 PM in General Election Cattle Call | Comments (5) | Technorati
Say Hello to the General Election Cattle Call!
Posted by DavidNYCI'm very pleased to announce a new recurring feature debuting today on the Swing State Project: The General Election Cattle Call. Using a strictly empirical methodology, Chris Bowers, a longtime regular poster at the DailyKos, will put his finger to the political wind to tell us where he thinks the election stands.
A little background: During the primary season, Chris created the original Empirical Cattle Call in an attempt to use hard numbers to cut through the endless speculative chatter about who the Democratic nominee would be. For this project, he's refined and updated his methodology, and he'll be posting GECC updates whenever new polling data warrants it.
For a sneak preview, check out Chris's DKos diary here. Chris will provide a full introductory post (complete with methdology) here later today. Poll junkies should find the GECC especially rewarding, and I know it will provide a valuable contribution to our understanding of this year's presidential race.
And let me also say "Thank you!" to Chris, and welcome aboard!
Posted at 05:17 PM in General Election Cattle Call, Site News | Comments (2) | Technorati
Flashback to April 2000
Posted by DavidNYCCADem digs up some old polls in a flashback to April 2000. At the time, Gore was down or tied in a number of states we wound up winning, including two that are safe to very safe Dem this time around (MI and IL). On the other hand, he had a pretty substantial lead in NH but wound up losing narrowly (and quite painfully) there.
One thing to note: Most of the polls shown don't have Nader numbers, but a lot do actually have Buchanan numbers. And take a look at how outsize they are! I mean, he was getting 5% in PA - and wound up with an earth-shattering one-third of one percent on election day. The two Nader numbers CADem does have also wound up out-stripping reality by a couple points. So this suggests to me that Seamus may well be right: The Nader effect is likely to be way below his current polling levels.
Posted at 05:00 PM in General | Technorati
The Nader Effect in PA
Posted by SeamusI have contended for some time that folks are over-emphasizing the impact that Nader will have in 2004. And since I'm fresh from getting snippy with some Democrat villifying Nader over at DailyKos, I thought I'd share some information that might help shed some light on the anticipated impact of Nader in this election.
As it turns out, the Green Party in Pennsylvania just held its 2004 Caucus on April 24th. In that caucus delegates were selected to represent Pennsylvania at the Green Party's national convention. Here are the leading results:
Now, I think the implications are obvious. Put aside how Nader himself did and realize that even if Nader got every other vote, the ability of "No Candidate" to siphon off 9 of 37 delegates is impressive! At the very least, this should be a bellwether for where the Green Party stands in 2004. Given the impressive results for Cobb and "No Candidate," I think it's pretty clear that Nader is only going to have marginal success at the election booth in November. (Remember that Nader polled much higher than he performed in the election in 2000 as well. That effect will be more dramatic this time around.) Oh yeah, and Kerry got one vote.
(My post from the Seamus Press and Election Results by County from the PA Green Party.)
Posted at 11:49 AM in Pennsylvania | Comments (2) | Technorati
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
From Red to Blue
Posted by DavidNYCI just came across some cool maps produced by the WaPo which detail the shift in voting patterns between 1960 to 2000. Though the South's nearly wholesale shift from blue to red is a well-known phenomenon, it's interesting to see the two maps laid out side-by-side.
The map I'm most intrigued by, however, is this one:
I've been looking for a map like this for a long time, and I'm glad to have finally found it. When you look at an ordinary map of the 2000 election, red America looks vast and daunting. If I recall correctly, some Bush partisans even tried to shore up questions about the legitimacy of the President's victory by observing that he won a majority of states, even though he won, of course, a minority of votes.
But this map - which indicates each electoral vote with a little square - shows exactly how close in size the red and blue states are. If anything, it understates our total numbers because tiny states (like WY) get 3 EVs no matter how small they are - and most of these vote GOP.
And one last point: After the 2000 election, we heard (and still hear) endless talk about the "50-50" nation. The closeness of all the presidential polls is supposed to be further evidence of this. There's just one problem with this thesis: There's no way in hell this should a 50-50 nation any longer, at least at the presidential level. Given the many advantages of incumbency, a sitting president has every reason to be above 50% - whether in approval ratings, polls, what have you. The fact that things have returned to a 50-50 sort of equilibrium is, I think, a very bad sign for Bush and a very good one for us.
Indeed, though the sample size is small, every president in the 20th century who was elected to their first term and was re-elected to a second term did better the second time around. This was true of Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Ike, FDR and Wilson. Do you have to do better in your second campaign than your first in order to win re-election? No, of course not. But if Bush does even a tiny bit worse this time, he'll lose. And it certainly doesn't look like he's on track to do much better.
(Map link thanks to Lapin.)
Posted at 06:49 PM in General | Comments (10) | Technorati
Monday, April 26, 2004
Bush Losing His Coattails
Posted by FesterI spent most of today listening to sports radio because I am a football freak. Arlen Specter was advertising extremely heavily today with two different ads on the radio. The first was a very positive one in which President Bush speaks for his need to have Arlen Specter in the Senate to win Pennsylvania in November and a generic plea by Specter for his supporters to come out and vote tomorrow. The other ad in rotation was a far more negative one in which Specter does not quite go for his former "Toomey not far right, far out" tag line but it was pretty close.
Now we know that the polls are suggesting either a toss-up or a slight Toomey edge. The weather looks thoroughly mediocre tomorrow, so if only the more dedicated voters go to the polls tomorrow, I think Toomey pulls out a squeaker.
Now I think that Specter will be a very expensive defeat for Bush as it will be the second data point and thus a start of a trend which will diminish his power against Congress. Bush has placed a pretty impressive amount of support behind a vulnerable incumbent in a critical swing state and it looks like he will lose this bet. His candidate Kerr lost in Kentucky and Terrel lost in the Lousiana run-off. So the last two single race elections in which there is a Bush backed candidate have been losses even though the demographics of the electorate should theoretically favor the Bush backed candidate. As DavidNYC points out, this is not a complete summary as the Bush backed candidate won the governorships of Kentucky and Mississippi, but the trend is favorable for the Dems.
Now if Specter loses, it "proves" that Bush can not protect vulnerable Republicans against either hard core conservative primary challengers or from competent moderate to conservative Democratic challengers. The Bush family and its political machine have built their operation on fear of retribution. The effectiveness of management by fear fails miserably when the opposition calls the bluff. This means that no vulnerable Republican will automatically assume that blind obedience to Bush is an electoral winner this summer and during the fall. Congressional Republicans are already behind in the generic Congressional ballot races. This gives vulnerable incumbents a very strong incentive to watch out for their own best interest.
Tomorrow will be interesting because it could give the press the start of a meta-narrative of "Bush losing his base."
Crossposted at Fester's Place
Posted at 08:06 PM in Pennsylvania | Comments (6) | Technorati
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Running to Lose
Posted by DavidNYCJust a quick follow-up to my post some days back where I encouraged people to run for office in long-shot districts just so that we can make the GOP sweat. The New York Times has an interesting article today about politicians running for office - both local and federal - even though they expect to lose. It may seem like some of these folks have slightly cynical motivations (eg, tapping into NYC's generous public financing system), but others - like inserting a new viewpoint into a race or building name recognition for a future run - strike me as worthwhile goals.
Posted at 03:29 PM in General | Comments (2) | Technorati
Saturday, April 24, 2004
"The Multilevel Marketing of the President"
Posted by DavidNYCThe NYT Magazine (in tomorrow's edition) has a mondo cover story on the Bush operation in Ohio. From the title alone, I'm assuming that there's a bit of an Amway-esque quality to what the GOP is doing in the Buckeye State. If I catch a few free minutes on a study break, I'll try to post some thoughts.
P.S. DemFromCT has some comments over at Kos.
Posted at 10:07 PM in Ohio | Comments (2) | Technorati
Friday, April 23, 2004
No Kool-Aid For You!
Posted by DavidNYCRuy tells us what's really happening in the swing states - and his conclusions may pleasantly surprise you.
Posted at 01:21 PM in General | Comments (6) | Technorati
Thursday, April 22, 2004
George Will Looks at Arizona
Posted by DavidNYCGeorge Will has an interesting and very fair-minded take on the situation in Arizona this year. (Free registration required for Washington Post.) Though it's been a reliably Republican state since, well, forever, demographic trends have finally turned AZ into a swing state. One thing Will can do that we here at the SSP can't is pick up the phone to Gov. Janet Napolitano. So go check out what she has to say - and come back here to leave your thoughts.
Posted at 10:55 PM in Arizona | Comments (3) | Technorati
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
PA: Quinnipiac Poll Shows Kerry Behind Bush
Posted by DavidNYCThere has been a TON of discussion over at the DailyKos about a new Quinnipiac poll showing Kerry trailing Bush in PA:
Bush: 45
Kerry: 39
Nader: 8
Kerry also trails in a head-to-head without Nader:
Bush: 46
Kerry: 42
(MOE: ��3.5%)
I'm not buying Nader at 8, and neither is former Green Party organizer Domne. Of course, there's still a four-point spread even without Ralph, but Winger tells us to catch our collective breath. He breaks down the numbers pretty convincingly to demonstrate that this is actually a very positive poll for Kerry.
Now sure, I don't like seeing numbers like this, and if the polls are still the same in August or September, I'll get a lot more panicked. But don't forget that Bush has spent roughly a trillion dollars, give or take, in the past month, while Kerry has spent about zilch. I'd also have to imagine that much of the political oxygen in PA is being sucked up by the GOP Senate primary, which is on Tuesday the 27th. In other words, it's early, and our man is still holding his own despite the huge onslaught.
Posted at 04:24 PM in Pennsylvania | Comments (6) | Technorati
NJ: Now That's More Like It
Posted by DavidNYCLast week, some folks were a bit concerned about an FDU poll which showed NJ to be absurdly close. Today, Rasmussen releases a poll of its own which looks a little bit more like what we'd expect:
Kerry: 51
Bush: 39
Not Sure: 6
Other: 3
(MOE: ��4.5)
Hopefully, a few more polls like this will put to rest any delusions that New Jersey is "in play." However, I don't like the fact that Kerry's favorability rating is just 52% - Dubya's is 48%. This may partly have to do with name recognition, but Rasmussen doesn't give details on those figures. This concerns me, though, because Bushco hasn't been advertising in NJ, so it seems a bit mysterious that Kerry's favorability should be so low. (I wonder how the two candidates' unfavorability ratings compare, though: I'm gonna guess that Bush's is higher than Kerry's.)
A lot of people have a rather jaundiced view of Rasmussen, decrying him as a Republican hack in non-partisan clothing. My understanding is that the esteemed folks at Polling Report don't even include Rasmussen in their polling round-up, and I've read (though haven't seen it confirmed) that this is because of concerns about Rasmussen's quality. And language like this does irk me:
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of New Jersey voters see the President as politically conservative. Twenty-six percent (26%) say moderate.Forty-seven percent (47%) say Kerry is politically liberal while just 41% label the Massachusetts Senator as moderate. (Emphasis added.)
So, 26% say that George Bush is moderate, but "just 41%" say that Kerry is moderate? Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way: You have to put the "just" in front of Bush's number, if you're going to use it at all. (As an aside, I do love the fact that, presumably, some 15% of Americans think Bush is a liberal.)
All this means is treat Rasmussen with a grain of salt. They provide good crack (in the form of frequent polls), but it's not high-quality crack. Once I see a result like this from, say, Quinnipiac, then we can permanently put the nail in Bush's Garden State coffin.
(Thanks to Friar.)
Posted at 03:53 PM in Safe States | Technorati
Monday, April 19, 2004
Six-Month Blog-o-Versary
Posted by DavidNYCI just wanted to mention that today marks the half-year point for the Swing State Project, which I started last October. And just the other day, in fact, this site hit 30,000 total visitors, something I hardly imagined would ever happen all those months ago.
So let me just say a big "Thank You" to all my readers and especially to those of you who have left comments here. You've taught me an amazing amount. Thanks also to everyone who's linked to or otherwise plugged this blog, and also, of course, to my guest-posters.
In a little over six months from now, we're going to hit election day. Let's keep up our hard work, because I plan on seeing you all at the victory party.
P.S. Posting might be a little light the next few weeks as I head into final exams. But I'll do my best to keep the site updated.
Posted at 08:00 AM in Site News | Comments (2) | Technorati
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Letters, They Get Letters
Posted by DavidNYCI'd like to introduce another top-notch new site that's joined the fight: Mainstreet Moms Oppose Bush. Taking a page from one of the Dean campaign's most inspired ideas, the MMOB is sponsoring "Adopt-a-Swing-State" letter-writing parties nationwide. The target of these letters will be unregistered and under-voting women in battleground states, an important group which should, by all rights, really want to see Bush out of the White House.
So if you can't drive down to a swing state yourself, this is a great (and easy) way to get involved. The first parties will be held on May 1st, or if you want to plug into the Democracy for America (aka DFA 2.0) Meetups, on May 5th. Oh, one last thing I should mention: MMOB was started by moms, but it's open to absolutely anybody and everybody. So let's start writing!
Posted at 07:39 PM in Activism | Comments (1) | Technorati
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Welcome, Majority Report Listeners!
Posted by DavidNYCMajority Report, one of the great new programs on the great new radio network Air America, has very graciously linked to this humble blog from their own. I'm a huge fan of AAR so far, and I especially love Janeane & Sam's show (in large part because I'm actually awake when they're on the air). Unfortunately, I missed last night's show, which featured (among others) Bill Scher, proprietor of the must-read liberal mega-site liberaloasis.com. (The interview with Paul Krugman is still one of my favorites.) Bill too-kindly listed my site along with the grand-daddy of left-wing blogs, Jerome Armstrong's MyDD, and Luke Francl's always-excellent BushOut.tv media analysis site.
Newcomers may want to start by clicking on the "Methodology, Map & List of Swing States" link to see what this site is all about. For state-by-state info, check out the "Categories" section toward the bottom of the right-hand column. If you want to get involved in the fight to kick Bush out of the White House and retake Congress, be sure to peruse the "Swing State Activism" links. And thanks for stopping by!
UPDATE: I just found out from Luke that Bill did in fact mention us on the air. We're not worthy! We're not worthy!
Posted at 09:24 PM in Site News | Technorati
Friday, April 16, 2004
SUSA: Kerry Nipping Bush's Heels in Arkansas
Posted by DavidNYCWe haven't talked much about Arkansas yet on this site, but Markos has a nice bit of news: Kerry is just two points back of Bush according to SUSA's latest poll (PDF):
Bush: 47
Kerry: 45
Other: 5
(MOE: 4.2%)
While I've considered Arkansas one of the more marginal swing states (ie, among the least likely to go our way), this is very heartening. Though I haven't heard much about it yet, it seems that the presidential candidates have been hitting the airwaves in AR. So if Kerry's still holding his own here while (presumably) being outspent by Bush, then I like the sound of this poll even more.
After a lot of editing and re-editing, I've decided to turn this post into a more thorough look at Arkansas, so I'll back up a bit and give a little background data on the state:
Electoral Votes: 6 (6 in 2000)
2000 Results:
Bush: 51.31%
Gore: 45.86%
Nader: 1.46%
Buchanan: 0.80%
A poll result like this, of course, once again raises the issue of AR-native Wes Clark and the VP slot. I still don't think he'll get the nod, but this might strengthen the case for him. At least one observer, a poli-sci prof. at Northeastern, thinks that a strong VP candidate can add 3% in his home state. If Clark's our man, that could really be decisive here. (I'm still a fan of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, but that's a topic for another time.)
Results like these might also get some commentators to shut up about the Dems supposedly not being able to compete in the South, especially if you throw in the fact that Rasmussen has Florida neck-and-neck. If a few polls pop up showing Kerry within the MOE in, say, TN, KY, LA and VA (the last is especially likely, I think), then we might even see some articles like, "The South, Once a Sure Thing for Bush, Becomes Uncertain." I'm not saying we'll win those states - just that close polling will cause consternation in the Bush camp and, hopefully, a media pile-on.
But we might actually win Arkansas. I'd love to see it happen. Though I can't find any more recent data, I was quite surprised to see that, at least back in October, Bush was well under the Mendoza line in AR: His approval/disapproval was just 47-46. Of course, this was pre-Saddam capture (that bounce was pretty temporary, though) and also pre-all the other crap that's been going on lately - so I can only imagine Bush's numbers are equal if not worse at this point. I'd also point out that Arkansas's unemployment rate has moved up from 4.7% in Jan. 2001 to 5.5% this past February. (And as always, these numbers don't reflect the number of people who "drop out" of the labor force because they stop looking for work, thus misleadingly depressing the unemployment number.)
Oh, and get this: Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who is up for re-election, is utterly swamping her Republican opponents in the money race. She's got $3.1 million cash-on-hand right now, while the GOoPers vying to take her on literally have chump-change - just a few grand each. I mean, that's walking-around money for a weekend hunting ducks with Cheney and Scalia. Yes, this is one of our safer seats - even the NRO thinks this seat is a lock for us - but once again, it gives lie to the idea that our party can't do well in the South.
Hmm... I'm starting to like the idea of a blue Arkansas more and more, especially since Team Kerry says they plan to contest the state. So what's the next step here? I say have Lincoln and guys like former Sen. Dale Bumpers canvas the state for Kerry. I think we need locals making the case that Kerry is in-step (or at least, not wildly out-of-step) with Arkansas values, because we can be sure that Bush will try to pound the "Massachusetts liberal" meme as hard as he can. And if the polling shows he'd be a net plus, get Bill Clinton out there. Heaven only knows how much I'd like to see the Big Dawg out on the stump once again.
Posted at 10:33 PM in Arkansas | Comments (7) | Technorati
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
New Jersey is NOT a Swing State
Posted by DavidNYCKos has a post up with some new polls for OR, WA and NJ. The first two, being legit swing states, are quite close - but surprisingly, Jersey is close as well. Put simply: This really doesn't make much sense. There's a big discussion going on in the comments about this, where DHinMI says that the sample may skew Republican (can't statisticians correct for that?) and DL reminds us that Gore carried the state by a whopping 16 percentage points (56-40). Several posters also bring up the fact that NJ voters have kicked Republicans out of every statewide office as well.
All of these things add up to the point that NJ is simply not in play. I promise. If Dubya carries the Garden State, I, DavidNYC, the ultimate New York snob, pledge to move to Jersey and do voter registration every day for a year. I've gotta put my money where my blog is, so how's that for a guarantee?
P.S. Great resource: David Wissing (at his blog The Hedgehog Report) tracks head-to-head polls for every state in the nation. BTW, I wonder if there's a way to turn that page of polls into some kind of RSS feed?
Posted at 03:44 PM in Safe States | Comments (38) | Technorati
Driving for Votes
Posted by DavidNYCI want to let you know about a great new site focused on grassroots swing state activism. It's called Driving Votes, and its goal is to help people who live near swing states to register voters who actually do live in swing states. The best thing about this project, I think, is the fact that it harnesses the kind of do-it-yourself spirit that powered, among other things, the Dean campaign. While you are encouraged to plug in with local organizations (such as ACT), all you really need is a car (or bus ticket), some friends, a free weekend and the chock-full "Registration Packets" available on the site.
Another thing I also like is that it gives non-swing staters a straightforward and simple way to get involved in swing state politics. My map tells me that almost every safe state in the nation borders on at least one swing state (except, I think, Montana, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and of course the freak states). Sure, it may be a long drive in some situations, but New Yorkers (and Californians, and Texans, and so on) can't complain anymore that we don't matter in presidential election years.
So hop in your car, get on the bus, catch the train - or, if you're already in a swing state, take a walk downtown - and register some voters. Driving Votes will help direct you to areas which are likely to be Democrat-rich. Let's get to it!
Posted at 02:51 AM in Economy | Comments (4) | Technorati
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
The History of Swing States
Posted by DavidNYCWikipedia, which is a free, collaborative online encyclopedia (and frequently a great resource), has a good article on the origin and history of swing states. It also has links to several other different lists of swing states. One thing I've noticed is that most lists don't include Colorado and Virginia. I say, "good." I think these states are trending our way - and within two or three presidential elections, they'll provide a nasty surprise to Republicans who aren't paying attention. We just have to make sure *we* pay attention.
(I also definitely don't think Delaware is a swing state, even though it's gone with the winner in every race since 1952 - assuming you believe Al Gore won in 2000. But its margin last time was over 15% - greater, in fact, than California's. I think DE's 3 EVs are firmly on our side this time.)
Posted at 02:04 AM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, April 12, 2004
Some New Additions to the Blogroll
Posted by DavidNYCWith some Kossack help, I've added a few new blogs to the roll:
CO: MakesMeRalph (great name, nothing to do with Nader)
MO: The Temple Report
PA: Catalyst
WA: Washington State Political Report
WI: Folkbum's Rambles and Rants
I've also updated the link for SEIU's "2004 in 2004" program (formerly known as the "Push Bush" plan). Apparently, if you are an SEIU member, you can take paid time off to do political work for three to seven months in a swing state. Sounds awesome to me!
Lastly, I've added a search box (powered by Google) to let you easily search the SSP archives. It's right there toward the top of the right-hand column, just under the "subscribe" feature. It should be working fine (I've tested it a bunch), but let me know if you run into any difficulties.
As always, if you know of any good sites (particularly swing state blogs), please let me know.
Posted at 01:54 AM in Site News | Comments (4) | Technorati
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Make Them Sweat
Posted by DavidNYCAs you all undoubtedly know, only a handful (maybe 50 or fewer) of House races are actually competitive every two years. What's not as well known, I think, is that a number of incumbents go without a major-party challenger altogether. Of course, these seats are invariably the safest of the safe, in places like Harlem or rural Kansas, where even a strong major-party candidate wouldn't stand a chance against the current seat-holder.
But that's not a reason not to run in those districts. We need to make them sweat.
Just because we can't win doesn't mean we can't do some damage. Imagine a district where a powerful, ten-term incumbent GOP Congressman (call him Rep. Johnson) is bound to win 80% of the vote. Johnson's going to spend his time, of course, stumping and raising money for his fellow party-members. And if he is running un-opposed, then he can spend all his time doing just that. But if we put someone up against Johnson and force him to spend just one extra weekend in his home district, then we've robbed another, more vulnerable GOoPer (Rep. Smith) of the 20 or 30 grand that he (Smith) would have made at a fundraiser the mighty Johnson would have chaired.
There are plenty of other reasons to run in tough districts as well. We can probe for weaknesses: If, say, we unexpectedly poll over 40% in a race that everyone was sure would be a total landslide, then that'll make the GOP nervous for 2006. It would also be nice to see a headline that says, "For the first time in memory, Democrats are contesting every single Congressional seat in the nation." (We've already missed some filing deadlines this year, but it'd be good to get in the habit for `06 or `08.) And I'm sure there are other reasons that I haven't yet thought of.
With all this in mind, I'd like to point you to DKos poster RBH's list (called "D-435") of races which are as yet unfilled. What can you do about this? Well, if you live in one of these districts, you can go to your local county Democratic Party (which I imagine might be a bit moribund) and say, "Let's put someone up here!" I'm certain you could help with the search for a qualified candidate, and of course you'd also have the chance to get extensively involved with the campaign, should you so desire.
Or you could run for the seat yourself. It's not as improbable as it sounds. You may have heard about the "Democratic Wings" effort: Some 100-plus folks, inspired by the Dean campaign, have decided to run for local office. At least one, Jeff Seeman, is running for Congress in Ohio. Another blogger, Brian Watkins, is running for Congress in Utah.
(By the way, I'm citing the folks above not as examples of people putting up a good fight in hopeless districts - in fact, Brian's opponent netted just 56% in a recent poll - but rather to demonstrate that the hurdles to running for office aren't as great as you might think.)
So again I say, check out RBH's list. Call your local party. Go to some meetings. Go to the DNC meetup in your area. Find someone to run for office - and if you can't find anyone, run yourself. This is a democratic republic - your participation in it isn't limited just to voting. At the very least, you'll always be able to tell your grandkids about the time you ran for Congress.
But above all, make them sweat.
UPDATE: Jerome at the newly-relaunched MyDD has a post on the same topic. He points out three races (in CO, CT and MI) where we actually do have a legit chance to win and really, really ought to be contesting the seats.
Posted at 04:30 PM in General | Comments (8) | Technorati
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Teixeira: Combine New and Old to Win Ohio
Posted by DavidNYCDemocratic uber-guru Ruy Teixeira has a piece in The Gadflyer describing what he calls "Newer Democrats," who, he says, "view th[e] argument between New and Old Democrats as old hat and fundamentally unproductive. Their pragmatic concern is to toughen up the party to beat George Bush and take back Congress; any tool from the Democratic toolbox that works, be it New, Old or in between should be employed toward that end." I couldn't agree more.
Teixeira then uses Ohio as an example of how we can use our various Democratic tools to bring us to victory. I ordinarily shy away from long excerpts (human nature just causes our eyes to gloss over big block quotes), but his analysis is really worth a read:
Take Ohio, perhaps the key swing state for the Democrats in 2004. Al Gore lost Ohio's 21 electoral votes by less than four percentage points in 2000, and the combined Gore-Nader vote ran only two percent behind the combined Bush-Buchanan vote.The economic basis for overtaking the GOP should be there for Democrats in 2004. Heavily unionized Ohio (37 percent of voters are in union households, including 35 percent of white voters) has lost one-sixth of its manufacturing jobs since Bush took office, including a stunning 81,000 since November 2001, the official beginning of the current economic recovery. Can Democrats win this state without a strong populist critique of the Bush administration's economic record? I doubt it.
On the other hand, Ohio, according to a recent Pew Research Center report, is still one of the more traditional states in the country on social issues. And about half of white voters there own a gun and tend to be suspicious of Democrats' views on gun control. That means the kind of "values centrism" advocated by New Democrats also has a place in the campaign toolbox in Ohio. Sure, Democrats have to support bedrock principles like a woman's right to choose, but, in a state like Ohio, that support has to be framed in moral terms these voters can understand ("safe, legal and rare") and combined with moderate stances on issues like gun control (think "gun safety").
This pragmatic, Newer Democrat approach has the best chance of moving Ohio's independent voters ��� a volatile mix of culturally conservative white working class voters and more moderate suburban professionals ��� back into the Democratic column in 2004. Exit poll data show that in 1996 and 2000, Democratic and Republican identifiers were about equally polarized toward their respective presidential candidates. But independents swung from a seven-point advantage for the Democrats in 1996 to a 16-point disadvantage in 2000. Move that margin back toward 1996 territory (heck, even the break-even point) and Democrats have the state.
And here's the good news: The latest Ohio poll has Sen. John Kerry beating Bush by 13 points among independents. If Kerry's campaign stays the Newer Democrat course, his chances of taking that state should be excellent.
Overall, I very much agree with this take. But while I think we can definitely woo independents back to our fold, I think Teixeira may be reading a little too much into those poll numbers. I assume that he's talking about the most recent Ohio Poll (PDF), which indeed gives Kerry a 37-24 lead over Bush. However, the poll (on page 5) specifically notes that there were under 75 respondents in the "Independent" category, and that "additional caution should be taken when interpreting the findings of this subgroup." So until we have better numbers, I'm going to remain, well, cautious on this front.
Posted at 03:15 AM in Ohio | Technorati
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
"Very Little Evidence" That Kerry is Hurting in Swing States
Posted by DavidNYCContrary to some of the polling I'd cited earlier, the Note says:
But at this point, there's very little evidence that Kerry has suffered in the aggregate of national polls or in swing state polls -- assuming that the nation remains stuck at equilibrium 50 to 50, which is where it seems to be. Kerry has a nice lead in some key states, trails a little in others, and ties Bush in yet others.
Go read Kos for more on this.
Posted at 01:43 PM in General | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, April 05, 2004
How Nader Plans to Get on the Ballot
Posted by DavidNYCJust a follow-up to my earlier post about Nader getting on the ballot in Oregon. This AP piece gives a few more details about how Nader plans to get on the ballot elsewhere. Though the article isn't entirely clear on the matter, it seems that Nader might court local third parties in various states in order to use their ballot lines - or these parties might even court him. A Nader campaign spokesman said that they used 13 different methods to gain ballot access in 2000 (netting them 43 states), but I still maintain that without a nationwide party apparatus, Nader will have a tougher time this go-round.
(Thanks to kamosa.)
UPDATE: Nader actually failed to get on the ballot in Oregon tonight using his "nominating convention" method. He needed 1,000 signatures but under 800 people showed up. (Thanks to John Doty, who's running for office in Southern Oregon, by the way.)
UPDATE: Kos poster ohwilleke has a diary breaking down exactly what Nader needs to do in each state. Among the big swing states, he thinks that ballot access will be toughest in Florida, Michigan, PA and, indeed, Oregon.
Posted at 08:04 PM in General | Technorati
Kerry Ahead 50-38 in MN
Posted by DavidNYCI've been fretting a lot about Minnesota, but a new Strib poll shows Kerry with a big lead:
Kerry: 50
Bush: 38
Nader: 2
I realize I haven't been reporting the MOE for most of the polls I've been highlighting, but the Strib article unfortunately doesn't tell us what it is here.
While I'm glad to see numbers like this, this poll does seem to be a bit of an outlier. Rasmussen last had it as Kerry 47, Bush 44. I do like the Strib poll's low Nader number, but it's not comparable with anything in Rasmussen, which only reports "Other" getting 4%.
At the very least, Karl Rove can't be happy with these results. I presume Bush is running ads in Minnesota - can anyone confirm for sure? If so, then it's nice to see that (at least based on one poll), these ads haven't had much of an effect.
(Thanks to jonner.)
Posted at 12:01 PM in Minnesota | Comments (5) | Technorati
Friday, April 02, 2004
No Kerry Organization (Yet) in Ohio & Other Observations
Posted by DavidNYCOhio, not so surprisingly, has become ground zero in the battle for the Presidency. With 20 EVs, it's the third-largest swing state (behind FL's 27 and just one behind PA), and polls this time around suggest once again that it is up for grabs. Every article on Ohio mentions that no Republican has ever won the White House without taking the Buckeye State. While I obviously don't believe in Hirdt's Law, it's probably true as well that this time out, the GOP can't win without Ohio.
(Democrats, by the way, have taken the White House without Ohio twice in the 20th century: Kennedy in 1960 and FDR in 1944.)
With this in mind, I highly recommend this piece (mentioned to me by a reader) in USA Today by Judy Keen, which does a good job of looking at what's going on in Ohio. There are a few things I'd like to highlight here:
�Ģ Kerry apparently has almost no operation to speak of in Ohio. This is highly distressing. Not only did Kerry have the nomination all but sewn up a month ago, but Ohio was a Super Tuesday state. Didn't he put some kind of field or media operation together there? This is one of those painful times when you just know that, whatever you think of the man, Howard Dean would have had hundreds if not thousands of volunteers already working for him across the state - or rather, continuing to work for him. Let's get a move on, and right quick, Sen. Kerry.
�Ģ One thing I like a lot about this piece is that it does a bunch of SSP-style employment number comparisons, including numbers for the best-off and worst-off counties in the state, in addition to statewide numbers. Keen doesn't mention, though, that even in the county (Holmes) with the lowest unemployment, it's still gone up considerably since Bush took office: From 2.8% to 3.9%.
�Ģ While I'm always hesitant to draw out trends from mere anecdotal evidence - and Keen is quite careful not to - two of the people quoted in the article, who are from seemingly very different backgrounds, both blame 9/11 for their economic woes. (I get the sense that Keen wouldn't have quoted both of them unless it were something she had heard on multiple occasions.) I realize Bush has pushed this line forever, but I'm still a little shocked to see that it's been so successful - and I think my shock is a very bad sign. I think, without realizing it, we let Bush get away with pushing this (dare I use the word?) meme out there, and I can't imagine how we can stuff it back into the bottle.
By the same token, another fellow says that it's his understanding that the economy went south before Bush took office - so, ya know, is it really fair to hold the President responsible? Lots of liberal blogs (at least that I read) ridiculed Bush for lying about when the recession started, but these lies seemingly had an effect. And while ordinarily, I'd agree that there isn't all that much a President can do to fix a broken economy, I know enough to know that there are short-term stimulus measures that should have been implemented but weren't. But once again, Bush has apparently sold this idea with some success.
I raise these points because I think that I - and others - have too glibly assumed that a poor economy would automatically turn voters against Bush. There's no doubt that this has happened, to some extent. And one big weakness in Keen's piece is that she managed only to interview people who still have jobs, despite harping on the employment issue and mentioning several large local layoffs. Plus, most of the people in the piece who defend Bush seem to be Republicans.
But one of the "blame it on 9/11" store-owners quoted is a registered independent. Even though her business has tanked lately, she still can't bring herself to blame Bush - but she is open to the idea of someone improving the situation. I don't know exactly how to reach out to voters like her - the ones who, we are always told, will be deciding this election - but I'd make it a priority of mine if I were the Kerry campaign. Or MoveOn. Or the Media Fund. Or... you get my point. Present a bold, positive economic plan - or something small, clever and targeted. Whatever works, kids. Just do it.
We can't rely on the idea that a bad economy will just churn out new anti-Bush voters. We have to make people believe that we are going to improve their economic lot. That's how Bill Clinton won, after all. And that's how we'll win this time around, too. (As long as we can avoid looking weak on security... but oy, that one I'm not touching.)
Posted at 03:49 AM in Ohio | Comments (6) | Technorati