« General Election Cattle Call, September 18 | Main | Blue Swing State Polls »

Saturday, September 18, 2004

CO, MO, PA Poll Roundup

Posted by DavidNYC

DemFromCT has new polls for Colorado, Missouri & Pennsylvania.

Posted at 05:05 PM in Colorado, Missouri, Pennsylvania | Technorati


Hey, looks like Missouri is a bit closer with a 7 point lead for Bush. Pennsylvania is still a bit concerning, but Kerry is definately holding his own in Colorado which is great news!

Posted by: Peter at September 18, 2004 06:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mason dixon just released polls for five battleground states:

Most interesting is Bush up 49 - 40 in NH.


Posted by: David at September 18, 2004 10:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I've had a close look at the WV poll:

In WV-1, 10% are undecided, Bush is polling 48% Kerry is polling 41% Kerry will certainly get a majority of undecided voters in WV-1

In WV-2, 13% are undecided, but as both candidates are polling under 46% the undecideds will split more evenly.

In WV-3, 9% are undecided... Kerry is polling 49% Bush 41%. Almost all of those undecideds will break to Kerry.

Not as importent, but the age gap is interesting: Bush has a big lead amoung early middle aged voters, Kerry has a big lead amoung late middle aged voters, while the young and the old are split down the middle.
Over 13% of old voters are undecided.

Another interesting piece of info: 57% of Indies are undecided.

Other info shows that as per usual, WV-3 is the most socially conservative part of West Virgina.

Overall a good poll from Mason-Dixon and qualified good news for Kerry

Posted by: Al at September 19, 2004 07:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Any idea why CO is so close this year? I'm really surprised that so many polls are showing CO so close. Bush received no bounce from the convention in CO and other Western states.

I think the NH poll is an outliner. All the other NH polls have been close, even Kerry leading in some. Kerry should win NH as he's from the same region and NH is a lot more liberal than it once was.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 09:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The Mason-Dixon polls tended to be skewed toward Bush. That was the only poll I have seen with Bush ahead in NH. The Rasmussen 7-day has Kerry up by 6. The Mason-Dixon also has Bush up 7 in MO, 11 in AZ, 7 in NH, and 5 in NV. All seem a little high.

Posted by: DFuller at September 20, 2004 10:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Thanks. Yes, NH has been leaning Kerry for months. I agree M-D seems kind of baised towards Republicans. Probably just a front organization of the Republican Nat. Committe.

Any take on why CO is so close?

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 10:32 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

OK, I've been reading the CO blogs. It sounds like there's a lot of anti-war sentiment in CO that is fueling support for Kerry. Also, apparently some liberal groups are doing a remarkable job registering voters in liberal Boulder County. So much so that the Registrars Office has had to add temporary staff to process all the new registrations. Looks like Bush might actually lose CO. That would be big news.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 10:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Even Pepe believes that NH will be in the Kerry column in November! And hopefully some of the really big fish like FL and OH will be, too! :-)

Posted by: Pepe at September 20, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The reason Colorado is swinging away from Bush is simple: they've had a 5% drop in employment since 2001, which is the steepest job loss since AT LEAST the 1950s. Even Ohio cannot approach this depth. And employment has barely begun to recover.

Also, a lot of young (liberal leaning) people seem to be moving there, but I think that's secondary.

On a separate note, after the debates, it is highly possible that the "swing states" will be places like Arizona and Tennessee.

Posted by: Jason at September 20, 2004 12:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It sounds like Kerry should be pressing the jobs issue more than the war. The fact is most people have made up their minds about the war. In any case, war is an abstraction, most people are more concerned with things like jobs. Do you think Kerry might actually win CO? I didn't realize the job situation was that bad..

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 12:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm not sure why CO is as close as it is. Perhaps it's due more to the influx of Hispanics than their poor economy. There have been more jobs lost in OH, for example, yet folks there seem to be leaning towards Bush despite the bad economy there. Ohio, as y'all probably know, has a very small and insignificant Hispanic population. What do y'all think?

Posted by: Pepe at September 20, 2004 12:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Probably a confluence of factors is affecting the polling in CO. Economy worst than most states, anti-war sentiment, young voters, new hispanic residents. Frankly, I'm surprised at how well Kerry is doing in CO. He might very well win the state. With the polls where they are now, post the convention, if even 60% of the undecideds break for Kerry, he wins CO.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 01:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree with you, Rock. It really is rather strange, though, that Kerry is resonating better in CO than in many of the other battleground states with slumping economies. If the economy is the central issue, one would think that Kerry should be cruising in states like WI, IO, OH, PA, and WV. However, the states I just mentioned don't have many Hispanics, nor do they have many folks moving from other states to their states. I would also think that the populations in the states I mentioned are much older than the national averages.

Posted by: Pepe at September 20, 2004 02:01 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Which leads me to another question--why are Hispanics and others moving in large numbers to CO if their economy is in such lousy shape? It may be a beautiful place to live, but beauty doesn't pay the bills!

Posted by: Pepe at September 20, 2004 02:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I know people who have moved out to Colorado and they couldn't make a decent living. Jobs are not plentiful in CO, and probably worse during a recession.

I think the main difference between CO and midwestern states with similiarly bad economies is cultural. CO has a lot of young people who aren't so thrilled with George Bush's militarism. Also, the hispanics who are trying to make a go of things in the U.S. probably realize they need the federal government.

It's one thing if you're some WASP businessman in Ohio who's family has been in OH for generations, who's family has served in wars, who supports U.S. foreign policy objectives. Obviously, people with that sort of background are a hell of a lot more likely to be Bush voters. Colorado has a whole other breed. A lot of young people and new residents. It makes for a whole different mindset. I didn't think things had changed that much in CO over the past 4 years, but apparently they have, and Kerry might just win the state. That will throw the electoral college into a tizzy.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 02:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Another poll out today shows CO in a dead heat:

Colorado: Bush 46% Kerry 45%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters

September 16, 2004

Colorado 2004

Presidential Ballot

Bush 46%
Kerry 45%
Nader 3%
Badnarik 2%
Cobb 1%
Peroutka 1%
Not Sure 3%


September 20, 2004--Colorado, a state President Bush won handily four years ago, is a Toss-Up in Election 2004.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey found the President with 46% of the Colorado vote and Senator Kerry with 45%. The ballot in Colorado will include several other candidates including Ralph Nader at 3%, Libertarian Michael Badnarik at 2%, Green Party candidate David Cobb at 1% and Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka at 1%.


Posted by: Rock_nj at September 20, 2004 02:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well, these are good questions -- the data show that the job loss in Colorado has been larger than even in Ohio, and more importantly, it is the state's biggest job loss in over half a century (whereas Ohio had MUCH steeper job losses in the early 1980s than now).

Perhaps the data overstate CO's TRUE job loss and the economy is not as weak as the numbers suggest. I've always thought of Colorado as a fairly Libertarian place (live & let live), and one thing Bush is NOT is a Libertarian. That's why I wouldn't be too surprised if Kerry won Colorado, Nevada AND Arizona; even if he lost FL and OH. If that happened, and everything else went the same as in 2000, I THINK Kerry Kerry would still win the electoral vote . . . is that right? How about without AZ?

Posted by: Jason at September 20, 2004 02:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

However, if Bush loses CO but wins WI, they pretty much cancel each other out. And I sure hope that CO voters don't approve that measure to divide the state into two districts (going into effect immediately). If this passes, it will make CO totally irrelevant. Can you imagine if Kerry wins the state overall, but only gets half the votes there? Some one on this board posted earlier today that right now 60% of CO voters are in favor of this proposal to split the state's EVs. Where did you find this poll indicating this percentage?

Posted by: Pepe at September 20, 2004 03:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, Tennessee a swing state after Bush being up 16 points in the latest poll. Yeah !

I do agree with the fact that a lot of Liberal people are moving to CO. A lot of my liberal friends (I don't have many) have moved there. I don't know why.

Posted by: David at September 20, 2004 08:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I believe the reason CO is in play this year is because of the Senate race. We have a popular hispanic running for Senate against Pete Coors who is partially responsible for building the modern conservative movement of today.

Ken Salizar is pulling big numbers from
largely hispanic counties and this is pulling Kerrys numbers up. I also don't
believe the polls are reflecting the large numbers of new registrations in Boulder county (an overwhelming Dem county).

Typically the hispanic community has a very low voting rate, 18%. They are about 15% of the CO population.

The Dems here are very informed as to what Bush has done to our country and they're fired up like I've never seen before. I believe we could have a Dem turnout near 60%. It could be the difference.

Posted by: pollwatcher at September 20, 2004 10:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

With the Presidential race currently tied in CO, all Kerry would need to do is win more than 50% of the undecideds and he wins CO. That does not seem impossible. The Republican convention had absolutely no effect on the polls in CO. What else is going to boost Bush in CO?

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 06:52 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Just curious--does anyone know if Kerry and the Kerry campaign are hitting the air waves in CO with great frequency? Have Kerry and Edwards spent much time campaigning in CO in person? I hope they keep a highly visible presence in that state, because they seem to have a realistic shot there. It would be time and money well spent.

Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 08:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry probably has a better chance of winning CO and WI, despite their historical voting patterns. The fact is they are trending in opposite directions, this might very well be the first year of many where WI votes Republican and CO votes Democratic.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 21, 2004 08:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry is running commercials in CO, and opening new offices there. CO is in play.

Remember a couple of weeks back when the Republicans fired off some press release saying the presidential race in Colorado was "over" because the Kerry campaign had only reserved television commercial time, but hadn't actually paid for the commercials? This, of course, was when the polls were showing either a dead heat or a one-point difference between the two candidates -- the purpose of the release was to convince potential Kerry supporters that there was no reason to bother to register or vote.

Wonder what they'll say now that Kerry not only has paid for the commercials, he's starting to run them two weeks ahead of schedule? Now that Colorado is one of only 14 states where Kerry is running TV commercials, and now that he is opening new campaign offices here? Probably nothing.

At this point, I'm not even concerned about the day to day fluctuations in the polls. We know it is very close in Colorado, and that most people have made up their minds, so the most important thing is making sure people actually get registered by October 4 and that we get all of our people to the polls starting October 15.


Posted by: Rock_nj at September 22, 2004 11:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry biggest mistake so far:

Picking Senator Edwards over Congressman Gephardt. Gephardt could have helped in the Midwest. Edwards does nothing for Kerry in the south. What happened to Edwards anyway? Did he go to Cheney's undisclosed location or something?

Posted by: DFuller at September 22, 2004 05:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I was concerned about Kerry's picking Edwards for his VP, too. My concern stemmed largely from Edwards seeming to be more popular outside of the state of his birth (SC) and here in his adopted state of NC. It's not that he is unpopular, mind you, just that he has never lit any great fires here in his own part of the country. I didn't think Edwards would somehow pick up a few Southern States for Kerry, and it looks like I was right. More than Edwards, however, the South as a region is still highly suspicious, I think, of New England politicians, especially if they represent MA. I'm not sure that Gephart was that attractive of a pick, either, though he may have helped Kerry more in MO and perhaps IA than Edwards has helped Kerry here in the South.

Posted by: Pepe at September 22, 2004 06:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Gephardt was a dud. Around too long, too familiar. No excitement. Edwards is a charismatic fresh face. He'll help is rural parts of the south and mid west. In a close election it can make quite a difference.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 22, 2004 06:18 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Edwards low profile certainly has been a disappointment in this campaign thus far. The fact that he's campaigning in small towns is part of the reason why he's getting so little camera time. For the life of me, I can't understand this theory that Gephardt would help pull in blue-collar battleground states. Why would Gephardt be any more helpful in Ohio and West Virginia than Edwards? Edwards home state of North Carolina seems to be geographically closer and have more in common with those states than does Missouri. Given that Gephardt represents only one of nine congressional districts in Missouri, I'm not so sure he would have helped Kerry win MO any more than Edwards will help him in NC. Iowa and Arkansas? I have my doubts there as well. Gephardt couldn't do any better than an 11% fourth place showing in the Iowa Caucus in January, and that was primarily among Democratic activists. If he can't excite true blue Democrats in the caucus, how on Earth are we supposed to believe he would excite Iowa swing voters in the general. In short, Kerry's running mate would be getting even fewer headlines than he is today if the choice had been the uninspiring Gephardt.

Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2004 06:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Edwards hitting small towns is exactly the sort of grass roots campaigning that the Democrats need. People in small town America appreciate when someone comes by and talks to them. It's a good strategy. Especially since those are areas where a lot of minds could be persuaded to vote the other way. Don't forget Edwards visits to small towns gets publicized in local media, like newspapers, it has a culmulative effect. It's a good strategy. The Dems rule the roost in urban America, not a bad idea to hit the Republican's turf in rural America.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 22, 2004 07:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment