« CO, MO, PA Poll Roundup | Main | Red Swing State Polls »
Monday, September 20, 2004
Blue Swing State Polls
Posted by DavidNYCNBC hired Mason-Dixon to poll six blue swing states: IA, MI, OR, PA, WI & NM. Results are available here. I'll look at them in more detail in a bit.
Posted at 07:18 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
yo dude.
I figured out how to bypass register.com's stupid little banner on their 'Web Site Forwarding' feature and now I am scouring the net looking for places to post it.
This trick will save you $50.
step 1) create a page 'redir.html' and put it in your root directory.
copy this into it:
parent.location="http://www.swingstateproject.com/";
step 2): go to register.com and forward your domain to www.swingstateproject.com/redir.html
boooyeah! and go nader.
Posted by: Poppa Deezle at September 20, 2004 07:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Wow, Bush up in NM and OR? Kerry still keeps a good lead in MI
Posted by: david at September 20, 2004 07:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks, Poppa. I'll give it a try.
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 20, 2004 07:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
These results are odd. Zogby has Kerry up by 12 in Oregon, and well ahead in NM, WI and others. Note that the dates are a week old.
Posted by: science at September 20, 2004 09:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For what Zogby or MSN?
Posted by: David Trinh at September 20, 2004 09:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The MSN link says that their survey was done on Spet. 13-14. Zogby was Sept. 13-17. Zogby's is at
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html
Posted by: science at September 20, 2004 09:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Another nail in the coffin.
Posted by: WistheOne at September 20, 2004 10:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It is puzzling that this poll shows Bush ahead in NM and OR, which are blue by everybody else's count. This might have been taken right after the convention, or with an overly Republican sample.
By the way, I've been very focused on congressional races recently. It's quite a bit of nailbiting this year.
The top Senate races seem to be in AK, SD, CO, OK, FL, LA, and SC.
Alaska (currently GOP) - Murkowski is badly perceived, but in such a conservative state, Alaskans may decide they hate Democrats more than they hate the Murkowski dynasty. According to the last poll, Knowles is up by 1, but that's not really secure.
South Dakota (currently DNC) - All the polls showed Daschle ahead until this last one. The last one shows Thune ahead by 3. Both are very popular candidates, and while Daschle is loved, Thune is very well-received too, just barely losing to Tim Johnson in '02. We're going to fight for this one.
Colorado (currently GOP) - Okay, for weeks Salazar was ahead (2 polls showed him up by 4, the last by 11), but Rasmussen indicates Coors being ahead by 1. Seems to be an outlier...this still looks like lean Salazar to me.
Oklahoma (currently GOP) - With Tom Coburn's skeletons coming out of the closet last week, Carson developed a lead, but in a red state like this we'll see what happens. Seems that this is lean Carson, but who knows anymore?
Florida (currently DNC) - What with 3 consecutive hurricanes, barely any polling has been done. The last showed Castor up by 4 - reassuring, but not quite comfy enough. And, after all, this is Florida.
Louisiana (currently DNC) - For some crazy reason, Louisiana has its primary after everybody else. Thus, there is no info yet because Democrats are split on whether to pick John or Kennedy to oppose Vitter. In the sole southern state that has never elected a Republican Senator, though (and a state with a Democratic governor), it would be fair to call this lean Democratic.
South Carolina (currently DNC) - Although this was a kick in the stomach a few weeks ago (with DeMint leading Tenenbaum by 13), the last poll (bear in mind, it was a Democratic pollster) showed DeMint only up by 3 among likely voters, and 6 among definite voters. This is probably due to Inez running strong ads against DeMint. And even though this is the Land of Thurmond, Inez is very well-loved....and, of course, Rasmussen shows Bush only leading Kerry by 6! What is this, a swing state??? Anyhow, Tenenbaum is not done yet.
As far as House races, I cannot find one poll. This is very frustrating. I'm especially curious about CA-20, KY-04, TX-32, GA-12, and AZ-01. As far as CA-20, I'm curious because Roy Ashburn, who I know and despise, is running...
And then, gubernatorial. It seems that we will lose IN this year (a shame - I thought maybe Kernan would ride Bayh's coattails, but...), with MO a toss-up, but we will pick up MT (at least according to the last poll, which was quite a while ago). Meanwhile, WV, DE, and NC seem like they'll stay Democratic; ND and UT like they will stay Republican. I am really curious about VT, NH, and WA, though. Any info?
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 20, 2004 10:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I had heard that the Progressives in VT were backing the Dem candidate for Governor - true?
Posted by: DavidNYC at September 20, 2004 11:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, what skeletons came out of Coburn's closet last week? I didn't hear of anything.
Also, did you or anyone else here see the Daschle-Thune debate on Meet the Press Sunday morning. How was it?
Lastly, any Texans here that give a testimonial about the chances of the endangered Democrats there? Can we expect all of them to be defeated in their new districts, or do at least some of them have a chance of prevailing?
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Nathaniel, what skeletons came out of Coburn's closet last week? I didn't hear of anything.
Also, did you or anyone else here see the Daschle-Thune debate on Meet the Press Sunday morning. How was it?
Lastly, any Texans here that give a testimonial about the chances of the endangered Democrats there? Can we expect all of them to be defeated in their new districts, or do at least some of them have a chance of prevailing?
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Actually, Louisiana has an open primary system. On election day, all the Democrats and all the Republicans all run against each other at the same time. If no one candidate gets more than 50%, the top two vote-getters compete in a runoff a month later. So there is no one Democratic candidate (though in all likelihood, John will face Vitter in the runoff). You can thank former governor Edwin Edwards for this lunacy.
Posted by: Chris at September 21, 2004 03:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry is going to win OR for sure. The economy stinks there. Kerry will win that state. I haven't seen any indication that it is swinging towards Bush. NM has been a bit of a see-saw, but it seems to lean towards Kerry. NM has a Democratic Governor who will probably be able to get the machine out to deliver the votes.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 06:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the blue states in greatest danger of swinging are in the Upper Midwest (MN, IO, and WI). NM is unpredictable as well, for Gore only carried it by something like 300 votes in 2000.
PA is also now a blue state to watch--I still don't understand what's going on in the Mid-Atlantic States of PA, NJ, and now MD. All of them were as blue as could be for most of the summer. The poll (I forget which one) showing MD tied is probably not to be taken seriously. However, a number of polls are consistently showing that PA and NJ are in play. For some reason, Kerry is not resonating as strongly as he should be in that part of the country. Still, I think Kerry has a better chance of holding onto the Gore Mid-Atlantic states than he does the Gore Upper-Midwestern states.
Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 08:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think all the pollsters are on acid this year. Has anyone seen recent articles about the surges in voter registration? NC reported 304,000 additional voters, though no one seems to know who they are.
Posted by: Randy at September 21, 2004 08:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Zogby out today.
I hope they are accurate, but they tend to lean very blue.
Kerry up in WA, OR, NM, MN, WI, IA, AR, MI, PA, NH, FL
Bush up in NV, TN, MO, OH, & WV.
Posted by: DFuller at September 21, 2004 08:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Zogby's interactive polling has been highly suspect. Don't take them too seriously. But, the results posted above don't seem too out of line with expectations. WI and AR are suprises. None of the Bush states are surprises.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 09:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
NM will probably be won by Kerry rather easily this year. 2000 had a Republican Governor, and the whole Clinton fatigue problem. Now NM has a Democratic Governor who will get the vote out and if anything people might be looking to vote against Bush.
I agree that Kerry risks losing perhaps WI in the upper Mid West. Such is life.
As far as the Mid Atlantic goes, I really think it's the whole 9/11 thing. There has been no discernible bounce in the polls in the Western states that weren't really affected by 9/11. The Mid Atlantic states have bounced. It's the one region where the 9/11 convention message resonated with voters.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 09:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
New poll shows NJ tied. From Quinnipiac, very non-partisan. Bush has made it a race in NJ. I think the McGreevy scandal is hurting Kerry in NJ. The Democrats outnumber Republicans in NJ, and have a stronger GOTV organization. The Dems win NJ again this fall.
GEORGE W. BUSH 48%
JOHN KERRY 48%
RALPH NADER 2%
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 09:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
An interesting aside in the NJ poll:
Among registered voters, Kerry is ahead 47%-43%, down from a 49%-39% lead in August.
So, randomly asked callers are split between Bush/Kerry, but the ones who count (the registered ones) still lean towards Kerry. As I said, Kerry wins NJ.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 09:13 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I respect your opinion, Rock, and agree that Kerry should win NJ--but who could ever have thought we might be sweating over the Garden State?
You're probably right about 9/11 having an impact on the Mid-Atlantic states. However, isn't it ironic that it doesn't seem to have made much of an impact on NY, the one state in the region that experienced the 9/11 nightmare on its soil? As far as I have seen, Kerry's numbers remain strong in NY. Of course PA did experience 9/11 on its soil too, but flight 93 was not, as we know, intended to go down where it did, in that rural corner of the state. It will be interesting to see how the final lap of the election plays out in the Mid-Atlantic states.
Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 09:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think Mason-Dixon, along with Strategic Vision, are full of crap. Both always lean Republican, even when all other polls show a Democratic leaning. Look at Zogby polls today. In the 2000 election Zogby came the closest to predicting the presidential race.
Posted by: Peter at September 21, 2004 09:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This election cycle ought to weed out a lot of bad polling techniques, if nothing else.
Mark, Coburn, a physician, is accused of sterilizing a woman (1) without her consent, and (2) in order to receive Medicaid payment that the procedure that she was supposed to have had would not have qualified for. Coburn claims that the woman consented orally. An ugly matter in any case, and likely to sour pro-life support for Coburn entirely.
Posted by: Marsden at September 21, 2004 10:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
On thing that I don't think has been fully digested by the electorate yet is just how badly things are going in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal had a poll -- apparently of its readers, so probably an 80% Repbublican sample -- in which 62% of almost 10,000 respondents said that, knowing what we now know, the Iraq invasion was unwise.
It seems pretty clear that a major change is going to have to be made in Iraq. Bush seems intent on making it a post-election surprise. If Kerry can keep from shooting himself in the foot again (a big "if"), he really ought to be able to put Bush on the spot about how badly he's bungled things and about how he is not leveling with the American people about how dire the situation in Iraq is.
Also, I saw a blurb on Headline News yesterday about record numbers of young voters being registered in (I think) WI, MN, and IA. Couldn't find a full story on the internet, but that's not bad news if it's accurate.
In any case, there's probably not too many degrees of separation between any given voter and someone who has been seriously injured in Iraq. When the war over there stops being an abstraction and begins to be considered as something very serious and very real, I think Bush loses a lot more votes than he wins.
Posted by: Marsden at September 21, 2004 10:26 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I never would have thought NJ would be close. But, after the RNC in nearby NYC and the 9/11 ceremonies and then the McGreevey scandal, things suddenly have gotten close in NJ.
New York polls have tightened up dramatically in recent weeks. Kerry once led by 20% in NY, not surprisingly for NY, but now only leads by 5% in NY. That's a dramatic shift. Kerry still wins NY, but not by a super wide margin.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 10:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Marsden, thanks for the info on Coburn. When OK primary voters went with Coburn over the endorsed Humphreys, I all but wrote off Carson's chances. Now, things are looking up. I hope it holds.
As for Wisconsin, it's a moderate problem for Kerry, but I'm far from panic mode yet. In 2000, virtually everybody expected WI to go for Bush, but same-day registration laws brought out the liberal college students from Madison in droves and produced gangbuster margins for Gore in left-wing Dane County. With Nader less likely to pull in 4% of the vote this time, I'm expecting a similar scenario where the pool of voters expands beyond what the polls suggest and produce favorable numbers for Kerry come Election Day. Another bellwether for WI is the rural southwestern quadrant of the state (La Crosse) which is one of the few rural areas where Al Gore polled well. Knowing how this region thinks, I'm not inclined to believe Bush is much more popular there now than he was in 2000. If Kerry can hold Gore's ground here and pick up some votes in gun crazy, but blue-collar and anti-war NW Wisconsin, I definitely think he'll win the state.
Pepe, apparently 9-11 is having an impact on Bush's support in New York. The last three polls have shown Kerry's margin dwindled down to 11 points, 7 points and 5 points respectively. I doubt they'll stay that low, but it's hard to deny the impact Bush's 9/11-baiting is having on this election, particularly in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 10:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You know what's utterly amazing about the 9/11 baiting? Despite having to take 9/11 and terrorism seriously, which we should. The fact is a person's chances of dying from terrorism are far far lower than dying from a many preventable causes of death that are ignored by the powers that be, from unsafe trucks to unsafe hospitals to a prescription system that is riddled with problems. Bush ignores this non-sexy death issues.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 10:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Tobacco kills millions compared to 3,000 for terrorism. Of course, if you pick on tobacco you lose NC.
Posted by: DFuller at September 21, 2004 11:27 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It's shameful how low our politics have sunk in this country. We've got major class warfare now, only now it's coming from above, high up above. Our policies, including the attack on Iraq, are designed to benefit the wealthy few. Even 9/11 is being baited to benefit the few, to send more money their way and to ignore problems like tabacco, unsafe trucks, unsasfe drugs, unsafe hospitals, that might actually eat into their profit margins. We've totally lost any sort of concern for common decency and the public good. Sick!
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
DFuller, I don't think there's any shortage of "picking on tobacco" as it stands. Aside from North Carolina, the tobacco issue has turned Kentucky from a swing state to a GOP stronghold in the past two election cycles. As a populist, I'm dismayed by the Democrats willingness to accommodate regressive tobacco tax increases that take money disproportionately from the pockets of their own working class constituents in an effort to shore up revenues and stick it to the tobacco companies who support Republicans. Sorry for the digression, but the Democrats tendency for nanny state moralism on the tobacco issue has been one of my primary grievances for the past few years.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 11:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I would hate to be a campaign manager. Trying to make sense of these polls and how to spend your advertising dollars would be mind boggling.
Posted by: DFuller at September 21, 2004 11:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark,
I wasn't trying to say pick on tobacco more. I was just trying to say tobacco kills many more people than terrorists. I believe that all the state tobacco lawsuits are ridiculous. I am sure that if you add up all the taxes imposed on purchasing tobacco it would more than offset the increased medical costs to the states. The sin tax seems to be taking off almost to the point of being ridiculous. Now, some people want to add a fat tax to sugar drinks. Where does it end?
Posted by: DFuller at September 21, 2004 11:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think DFuller was making a good point as was Mark. The fact is there are many preventable causes of death that make this cultish use of 9/11 seem utterly bizarre and blatantly political. Also, as Mark said, targeting tabaccos, while a good campaign issue for Dems and their supporters in the health industry, hurts them in mid-South tobacco states.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 12:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I fully expect NJ, NY, MD etc. to fall back into the Democratic camp after flirting with Republicanism for a while. I fully expect NC, VA, CO to fall back into the Republican camp.
The real problem for Kerry is the battleground states. Among the Gore 2000 battlegrounds, only Michigan and WA look safe for him. I expect him to take PA, Oregon and (with some work) MN. I expect WI to go Bush, and Iowa and NM to be tossups.
The real problem for Kerry is the Bush 2000 battlegrounds. AZ and TN look out of reach (If TN isn't going to vote for native son Gore, they aren't going to vote for a Yankee). I do expect Kerry to take NH (espite the recent poll showing a big Bush lead) and one of either WV or NV. But Ohio and Missouri are begining to look pretty solid for Bush. Ohio doesn't even look like a battleground state any more. That would mean Kerry's only real hope is Florida, which is still a tough nut to crack.
I don't think I'm being pessmistic here -- in fact, I'm being optimistic for Kerry in some ways. If you look at recent polls, Bush is ahead solidly in Iowa (2 polls) and NH. PA is evenly balanced and so is NJ (!!).
Posted by: erg at September 21, 2004 12:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
As much as I despise him, you have to give a little credit to Bush. He (or his handlers) were able to shift the focus away from the economy and jobs (which were polling as the biggest concerns along with Iraq for most of the summer) back to his perceieved strength terrorism (which polled as the biggest concern a few weeks ago...yes maybe a convention bounce but still). Granted Kerry is partially to blame as well, but it still amazes me the Houdini like move the Bushies made. Hopefully the Iraq Attack strategy pays off. A negative job report around debate time would be a help too...I hate to hope for a worsening economy but part of me is wanting to sacrifice short term to remove the evil from the white house.
Posted by: Michael at September 21, 2004 12:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Michael, The Republicans are masters at the art of propaganda. Why on earth the American people should be so concerned with a country half way around the world like Iraq, while their own country suffers from decades of neglect, is truly a testimony to the power of propaganda. Bush has done a wonderful job getting people to focus on terrorism and 9/11 and Iraq. He knows those are winning issues for him, even if he was the sitting President when 9/11 happened, even if he hasn't caught Osama, even if the war with Iraq is going poorly, people strangely still credit him.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
erg, Kerry might actually win CO. The polls have been tied for over a month now, no convention bounce for Bush. Registration is liberal Boulder county is tremendous. There's a hispanic running in the Senate race who will bring out progressive Dems and hispanics. If Kerry wins over 50% of the undecideds and keeps his current base, he wins.
Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 12:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I agree with the poster who sees OH as all but in the Bush column, just as MI looks quite safe for Kerry. For either of those two states to swing at this stage would have to be seen as a pretty big upset. Perhaps in OH that thwarted terrorist attack on a Columbus mall last June has made terrorism there more of an issue than a slumping economy. I was in OH during the aftermath, and it dominated talk in the Buckeye State the entire time I was there.
Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 12:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, you are way too obsessed with the poll of the hour. Bush is most likely ahead right now in Ohio, but to say that it's no longer a battleground state is the exact kind of defeatist attitude Republicans love to see. A month ago, Kerry was leading in nearly every Ohio poll. Who's to say he won't regain the lead a month from now after the debates? The worst trap to fall into is the exact trap you and many of Kerry's handlers have fallen into by waving a white flag of surrender at the first sign of bad news in a given locale, and thus shrinking the battleground and conceding defeat in states that are still competitive. Don't you think Al Gore wishes he hadn't embraced this viewpoint in Ohio and Arizona, among other states, back in 2000 when he did considerably better than expected in them even after ignoring them for two months? We can't make this election all about winning Florida, Wisconsin and Colorado. If we do, Bush likely wins.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 01:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Poll of the hour? On just about every serious poll OH has been red or leaning red for quite some time--and the GOP leads have been much bigger than any lead I have ever seen for Kerry when he was at his peak of popularity in the Buckeye State. I didn't say it was impossible for Kerry to win OH, just that it's not very likely, and it would be considered, at this time, an upset. OH is from top to bottom, a state dominated by the GOP, so I don't know how you can feel that Kerry has an uphill battle there. Also, in case you missed it, I was also conceding MI to Kerry--again, I'm just trying to view things through unbiased eyes. If Bush wants to keep MI in play, but he's wasting his time there. If I were in either the Kerry or the Bush campaigns, I wouldn't pour a lot more time and money into either OH or MI.
You're certainly right about not making this election all about winning FL, WI, and CO. We also need to focus on WV, PA, NJ, MN, IO, NM, NV, and perhaps MO and perhaps OR.
Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 01:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, Ohio is a "51% Republican state." Yes the GOP does control most of Ohio government, but usually win by less-than-overwhelming numbers because. The state is nowhere close to being Idaho, and the economic malaise there is still a huge liability for a radical free trade ideologue like Bush....and quite possibly enough to reverse the 51% Republican status to 51% Kerry status. It's nowhere near as dire as you make it out to be.
On the other hand, I'm not ready to concede Michigan yet. Michigan seems bluer than Ohio seems red, but if Kerry falters badly in the final weeks of the campaign, Dems will stay home and swing voters will vote with the guy they know will win. If I were Karl Rove, I'd forget about campaigning in Michigan, but that doesn't mean it's a lock for Kerry given the larger-than-expected fluidity of the electorate.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 01:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
kerry is done unless he blows bush out in the debates or something terrible happens in iraq.the american people do not seem to be paying attention and the so called liberal media has called it for bush already.also mason dixon polls always seem pro
republican.
Posted by: JOEL at September 21, 2004 02:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe,
The reason PA is affected by 9/11 has almost
nothing to do with the plane that crashed in
Somerset County (near Pittsburgh). It's because
Eastern Pennsylvania is critically linked to
New York City, just like New Jersey. Many people
from New York go to school in the Philadelphia
area. Likewise, many people from Northeast
PA work in New York City. Even though a plane
may have crashed in Western PA, 9/11 had
a stronger impact on Eastern PA. (And also
note that Eastern PA has almost 3x as many
people as Western PA).
-B
Posted by: Brian at September 21, 2004 04:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
FYI, the abbreviation for Iowa is IA, not IO. And we grow corn here, not potatoes.
Also, we've been a blue state since 1988. And we've got one of the fastest growing immigrant populations in America, esp. hispanics. Also a lot of pissed-off teachers and other believers in public education, which used to be our number one industry. We're not a state that's bursting with young people these days, but by all indications the youth turnout here, as elsewhere, will be huge. Plenty of reasons for optimism.
Granted, we also have a lot of red-meat-and-potatoes rural folks, which often translates to conservative voting behavior; however, you might be surprised at how many of these people pride themselves on their independence and aversion to narrow partisanship. I see a lot of yards with campaign signs for the various GOP candidates in this fall's elections, but conspicuously lacking Bush-Cheney signs. I suspect a lot of Republican-leaning Iowans have gone sour on Bush, and while I expect few of them to come out for Kerry, I believe Bush support is softer here than recent polls suggest.
It will be close, but Kerry will win Iowa. Unlike in 2000, the Nader effect will be negligible.
Posted by: BlueHawkeye at September 21, 2004 04:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I just hope that all those recently-arrived Hispanics to IA (!), MN, and WI have registered to vote and that they actually plan to vote. Kerry will need every vote he can get from them in order to off-set the Bush supporters in the Upper Midwest.
Speaking of the Hispanic vote, with the huge Hispanic population in TX, does anyone here have a guess as to why are they not more of a factor down there in the Lone Star State? Are TX Hispanics more GOP-leaning or what?
Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 04:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
'Speaking of the Hispanic vote, with the huge Hispanic population in TX, does anyone here have a guess as to why are they not more of a factor down there in the Lone Star State? Are TX Hispanics more GOP-leaning or what'
Both NM and Texas have a lot of Hispanics who've been here for generations and that tend to vote more like Anglos. Also, in Texas, Dubya did make some effort to court Hispanics (with words, not deeds).
That being said, I remember reading stats that the majority of children in grade school in Texas are black or Hispanic. In 12 years, Texas could well become Democratic. That will be a real joy to watch.
IA -- My undertanding was that the population was 90% + white. How much difference will the Hispanic vote make ?
Posted by: erg at September 21, 2004 05:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I don't expect the Hispanic vote to be much of a factor in Minnesota and Iowa for a generation. The food processing and low-skilled agriculture industries are prominent in both states (my rural southwest Minnesota town of 5,000 people is more than 30% Hispanic) but very few are citizens with voting eligibility. Furthermore, the meatpacking industry, only slightly better today than it was in the Upton Sinclair era, has such a huge turnover rate that the Hispanic population in most of the communities that host them is incredibly fluid. My guess is that in my town, less than half of the Hispanics that were here in 2003 are still here in 2004. This is exactly the way the meatpacking want it so they can keep wage levels suppressed to below the poverty line.
In some cases, the western Minnesota meatpacking towns of Worthington and Willmar, for example, the transformation of the meatpacking industry has actually HURT Democrats. The industry was heavily unionized from the 1950s to the 1980s and meatpacking communities produced large Democratic majorities because of it. Now, the old union workers have either moved or died off, leaving the communities with thousands of Hispanic laborers, the majority of whom either don't or can't vote, and the rest of the community which largely profits from the cheap labor pipeline. Both of the aforementioned communities have followed this dynamic in the last 15 years, and the more-Republican-than-ever poultry processing town of Gainesville, Georgia, seems to be doing the same. Long-term, Hispanic migration will most likely improve Democratic numbers across the country, but I don't believe it's going to help Kerry much outside the states with stable Hispanic populations, such as the Southwest and New York.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 05:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Pepe, most of the voting Hispanics in states like Texas have been indoctrinated into the region's cowboy culture over the generations. Many of them are as conservative as the Bible-thumping oil executives in Plano. Assuming the Hispanic population continues its allegiance with the Democratic party by a 2-1 or 3-2 margin, Texas will slowly become less Republican. But I don't see it being competitive for Democrats again in at least 20 years.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 05:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Latinos (mostly Mexican American) in Texas tend to vote Democratic. The distribution of Democratic votes in recent TX (e.g., 2000 presidential race) closely follows Latino majority counties, like my home county, El Paso, or deep south Texas. It is true that Bush courted Latinos in Texas. It is also slightly the case that long-established Tejanos (Texas Latinos) are a bit more Republican in their voting than California Latinos--but the effect is not large. The statement about indoctrinated, cowboy-culture, bible-thumping etc. is impressionistic baloney. Evidence of voting patterns shows that Mexican Americans in Texas as a whole (allowing for a lot of individual variation) are blue-collar, jobs, health care, and public education oriented Democrats. The key is not their positions when they vote, it is their extremely low turnouts. I believe that in 2003, El Paso (a city of 700,000) had 16% turnout when Tony Sanchez was running for Governor and Ron Kirk for the Senate. That was a terrible lost opportunity. Low Latino turnout has complicated causes: non-citizen status, in part; low educational levels and disconnection from the political system among citizens; and a legacy of political machines that mobilized a low level of voting to keep bosses in office. The demographic change is coming to Texas. In my opinions, making the case for unions, public health care, and public education is crucial to developing this constituency in the changing Texas. Even culturally conservative Latinos/as, like the secretary in my office or the contractor who has worked on my house, see themselves as Democrats because of basic economic and social justice issues.
Posted by: JoeElPaso at September 21, 2004 06:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm still curious about CA-20, AZ-01, KY-04, GA-12, and TX-32. Any info?
Posted by: Nathaniel at September 21, 2004 08:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Joe, my statement about conservative Hispanics was not based on stereotype, but personal communication with several Texas Hispanics or expatriate Texas Hispanics. Furthermore, I said "many" Latinos from Texas fit this demographic, not "majority", "plurality" or anything that could be construed as "impressionistic baloney." I realize El Paso has become a Democratic stronghold in recent years, but the fact that Gore and Bush split the Hispanic vote almost down the middle in Texas in 2000, El Paso clearly does not represent the entire Hispanic community of Texas.
Ultimately, we're in agreement about most things. The continued increase in the Hispanic population of Texas (and all of America, for that matter) bodes well for Democrats, even though I suspect the polarization along ethnic lines will become more prominent and push even more working-class whites into the GOP column. In Texas, this is unlikely to matter much, since so few working-class whites continue to vote Democrat. But in states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, among many others with single-digit Hispanic populations, I could certainly see continued erosion of whites supporting Democrats.
My opinion is that issues of social and economic justice are unlikely to even be on the radar screen after 2004 if Bush is re-elected. The tentacles of globalization will have battered the low-skilled and semi-skilled job market so bloody that it will be virtually impossible to repair them. Furthermore, the nation's finances will be in such crisis mode if Bush's tax cuts are made permanent and defense and wartime spending continues to soar that major budget cuts will have to be imposed on existing programs that serve social justice causes. It's gonna be hard for me to care about politics beyond 2004 if Bush is re-elected because I can't imagine a scenario where my primary concerns as an American will not be left for dead for generations. I suspect many Americans, including Hispanics, will be inclined to give up on these same ideals if the current course is not changed in November.
Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 09:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Well, I don't know that this is worth debating too much, other than that I actually do research for a living so I can't leave these statements standing. In 2000, the best estimate from exit polls is that Bush received 43 percent of the Texas Hispanic vote--higher than one might have wanted, but not a majority. Mark said in his second comment "many" and I suppose that "many" covers a lot of cases. Examination of counties in Dave Leip's atlas show almost all the Gore-majority counties along the border, and Latinos along with African Americans kept Bexar (San Antonio), Dallas, and Harris (Houston) counties closer than they might otherwise have been, given their sprawled suburbs. A supposedly liberal stronghold like Travis (Austin) had a Bush/Gore ratio very similar to Bexar or Dallas. What I don't have at hand is internal splits for those counties eg., Latino/non-Latino splits in San Antonio minus its suburbs or the same for Houston. Anyway, 'nuff said.
Posted by: JoeElPaso at September 21, 2004 11:23 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Kerry is doing very well in Ohio. Rasmussen and Zogby have Bush up by only 3% or so, well within the margin of error. Ohioans decide late and remember that the undecideds shift to the challenger. That's exactly where Kerry/Edwards want to be in Ohio at the moment.
Kerry/Edwards have been doing a tremendous job focusing on the Iraq quagmire of endless war, the increase of terrorism in the world since Bush was elected, and the fact that 9-11 occurred on Bush's watch because Bush and his administration failed to act on the warnings of hijacked planes flying into buildings.
Kerry/Edwards continue to focus on the economy, the loss of good paying jobs, outsourcing, health care, and preserving social security for all.
Rock_NJ, I enjoyed reading your posts. Do I believe that the corporate polls are skewed? ABSOLUTELY. Yes, Strategic Vision and Mason-Dixon are crappy Republican biased polls.
Look at the Harris Poll: Bush's positive rating has now slipped to 45%, the lowest in his presidency!
Posted by: Shar at September 21, 2004 11:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry Shar, I just can't agree with you about OH. Kerry is certainly not where he wants and needs to be in OH at his time in the election. OH must be the greatest overall disappointment in the Kerry campaign here in the 4th week of September. The Buckeye State was ripe for the picking, but this socially conservative state seems to have rejected Kerry. I don't know about "Ohioans decide late" (I am a Buckeye), but I do know they tend to be conservative, albeit by a small margin. Obviously, in OH social issues supercede their slumping economy. To make matters worse, OH will also have the gay marriage amendment on its ballot on Election Day--you can expect that to bring out just about every ultra-conservative voter in the state. Can you guess who they will also wind up voting for president? OH voting for Kerry at this time in the campaign would possibly be the biggest upset of the evening. Is it possible? Well, anything is possible, that's why we have upsets in the first place. However, for anyone to think Kerry is where he wants to be in OH at this point in the election is wearing rose-colored glasses.
Posted by: Pepe at September 22, 2004 07:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I love seeing all these states pass the Gay Marriage amendment. It will make it all that much sweeter when the Supreme Court rules that the Gay Marriages in Mass have to be recognized. This was the same tactic with Interacial marriages and the precedent with the interstate commerce clause of the constitution and marriage is extremely strong. Pass your hateful amendments now boys, cause we will have the last laugh.
Posted by: Rainbowfred at September 22, 2004 02:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment