« General Election Cattle Call, July 12 | Main | Swing States and TV Advertising »

Monday, July 12, 2004

Rasmussen: Hefty Kerry Lead in MN

Posted by DavidNYC

Rasmussen has a new poll out in MN:

Kerry: 50 (48)
Bush: 41 (43)
Other: 3 (4)
Undecided: 5 (5)
(MoE: ��5%)

And Bush's job approval ticked down one point, from 48% to 47%.

Only one real point to make here: The reliability of many pollsters - perhaps Rasmussen's most of all - is often questioned. I share that skepticism, by which I mean to say that I don't think, for instance, that Kerry will win Minnesota by such a huge margin. However, the valuable thing you can glean is the delta - ie, the poll-to-poll change. Moving from a five-point lead to a nine-point lead suggests that Kerry has at least some positive momentum in the state.

(Thanks to FrenchSocialist.)

Posted at 04:19 PM in Minnesota | Technorati


The biggest problem I have with Rasmussen is that their state-by-state polls are DOA. Releasing a June1-30 poll on July 12? Half of the people surveyed were surveyed four weeks ago. In fact, these polls are so old, when they are released they are almost always too old to be included in the GECC.

Posted by: Chris Bowers at July 12, 2004 04:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The GECC might be up-to-the-minute, but nothing is too decrepit for the rest of the SSP! :)

Posted by: DavidNYC at July 12, 2004 04:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

While Rassmussen may be off it is reasonable to assume that he is off to Kerry's benefit because that poll ended June 30 and all national polls recently show an improvement since Kerry picked Edwards. So if Kerry was leading by 9 before the Edwards announcement... You get my drift.

Posted by: Alan Snipes at July 12, 2004 05:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's a gaudy lead in NM as well.

Joe Monahan has the poll numbers. I saw similar poll numbers, but Joe really puts it in perspective.

Simply put, Kerry dominates among NM Dems. Bush can't win without them, or at least without Nader taking a sizable chunk of them. He's not.

Posted by: Ralph at July 12, 2004 06:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment