« WI, MI, AZ Residents: Did You Ever Vote GOP? | Main | ARG Delivers All 50 States (+ DC!) at Once »

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Zogby's Latest Interactive

Posted by DavidNYC

I missed Zogby's latest interactive offering yesterday. Gone is Bush's double-digit lead in Ohio, but he still holds it, along with WV, TN, MO and NV. Bush also leads in the "extra four" states that Zogby doesn't release to the public (but this is the Internet we're talking about, after all): VA, NC, CO & AZ. Those four states show incredibly close results - you've got to believe that Zogby leans Dem.

Posted at 07:29 PM in General | Technorati


I saw the Zogby numbers. Most seemed reasonable except I do not believe Bush is leading by 14 points in West Virginia. It seems like the states where he gets bad samples...he gets bad smplaes frequently (does anyone really blieve Kerry was leading Bush in Tennessee for two months this summer?). I have a friend who has gracioulsly allowed me to piggyback on his Zogby account, so I got to read the specifics about the Zogby poll numbers. The details make them really seem suspicious, given the wild fluctuations in support for given candidates among various sub-groups, such as women and city-dwellers. At one point this summer, Zogby suggested that Kerry was leading Bush by only four points among blacks in Missouri....and that Kerry was only pulling off 58% in Detroit, where Gore won with 91% in 2000. Overall, I try to take most Zogby polls with a grain of salt, although most of his samples this time around seem closer connected to reality than some of the polls we're scrutinizing ad nauseum showing Bush with double-digit leads in Ohio and eight-point margins in Wisconsin.

Posted by: Mark at September 21, 2004 07:49 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Zogby shows Nadar falling and Badnarik rising. This is good for Dems and bad for Bush. If the media picks up on Badnarik as the conservative alternative, Bush will certainly lose.

Posted by: Wilson97 at September 21, 2004 09:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

There are way too many wild fluctuations in results coming out of Zogby for me to take them all that seriously.

Posted by: Pepe at September 21, 2004 10:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is completely OT. I think I have a nice line for kerry to explain his statement

"I would still have voted the way I did"

It could go like this
"A homeless man (or something like that) asks me for change - and I oblige. After a few hours I see him drunk on the sidewalk.
Am I unhappy with what he did - yes?
Do I think I was wrong - No?
Would I do it again ? - Yes

Posted by: mram at September 22, 2004 01:10 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Zogby Polls.

I think they will be skewed against whoever is running ahead at any particular point in time. My understanding is that people have to register to get polled in them. The people who register are going to be hard core Democrats and Republicans. The hard core people will be very unlikely to change their votes. The fringe Democrats and Republicans are more likely swayed one way or the other.

One thing I question about Zogby: They are assuming 4% more Democrats than Republicans in the 2004 election by using the approximate make of the 2000 election. That could be skewed slightly by 9-11. Of course, Gallup has gone over the edge the over way. There is no way that 7% more Republicans will turn out in November than Democrats. In my opinion, Gallup is so skewed it is risking being dropped as the media���s main pollster after this election.

Posted by: DFuller at September 22, 2004 09:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

American Research Group:

They now have polls for all 50 states:


Posted by: DFuller at September 22, 2004 09:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Electoral College projections:

Rasmussen: 213 Bush, 204 Kerry. 285 Bush which includes 1 to 4 point leads (CO, IA, NV, OH, PA, WI)
221 Kerry which includes 1 to 4 point leads (MN & OR)
Less than 1 point: 32 (FL, NM)

Zogby: Kerry 297 Bush 241

American Research Group: Kerry 270 Bush 253. Tied 15 (WV & WI)

Posted by: DFuller at September 22, 2004 11:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The ARG state polls seem very reasonable, although I continue to dispute those North Dakota numbers. I can't bring myself to believe that ND is stronger for Bush than Idaho given the current state of affairs. I also can't imagine Bush prevailing in Iowa this year. Otherwise, the numbers seem very believable...and encouraging.

Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2004 11:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Apparently no one predicted the 2000 presidential race more accurately than Zogby. I have faith in Zogby. I have very little faith in Gallup or Mason-Dixon.

Posted by: Peter at September 22, 2004 02:43 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

That's true. Zogby has been very accurate over the years. He'll be put to the test this year for sure.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 22, 2004 03:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I can definatly see Bush picking up Iowa but I really doubt that Bush would be able to win in Minnesota.

Posted by: David Trinh at September 22, 2004 04:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I do not think Zogby or any pollster was as much into Electoral College polling as this year. It will definitely be interesting.

My current score is Bush 179+37+38=254, even=10, Kerry 196+26+52=274.

I have compared Zogby, Rasmussen, and ARG today. I have come up with the following projections based upon my comparisons:

1) Strong Bush = 179 EV. All three polls have Bush 4 points or greater ahead or it is considered a Bush stronghold and not polled. AL, AK, GA, ID, IN, KY, KS, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WY.
2) Weak Bush = 37 EV. All three polls have Bush ahead or tied. Bush has a 4 or greater in at least one poll. CO, WV, AZ, & VA.
3) Barely Bush = 38 EV. NV & OH have Bush up, but by less than 4 points in each poll. AR has Bush up in 2 of 3 polls with one at 4 points or greater. IA has Bush up by less than 4 points in two polls and down by less than 4 points in one poll.
4) Even = 10 EV. WI shows Bush up by less than 4 points in one, Kerry up by less than 4 points in one, and one poll tied.
5) Barely Kerry = 52 EV. PA and NH shows Kerry up by less than 4 points in 2 polls and down by less than 4 points in one. FL has Kerry even in one and up by less than 4 points in 2.
6) Weak Kerry = 26 EV. ME, MN, NM, OR. All three polls have Kerry ahead or tied. Kerry has a 4 point or greater in at least one poll
7) Strong Kerry = 196 EV. CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MI, NJ, NY, RI, VT, & WA has Kerry up by 4 or more points in all polls or it is considered a Kerry stronghold and not polled.

Posted by: DFuller at September 22, 2004 04:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

David, my thoughts have always been the opposite this election cycle. The polls for Iowa have been solid for Kerry up until the last week or so, and I trust they'll revert back that way in this heavily anti-war state. Iowa is basically the same state it was in 2000, while Minnesota has tens of thousands of additional residents, the vast majority of whom are Republicans. I believe Kerry will win narrowly in both, but if he only wins one of the two, I still suspect it will be Iowa.

Posted by: Mark at September 22, 2004 04:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment


"WASHINGTON - Bowing to political realities, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) has canceled plans to begin broadcasting television commercials in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and the perennial battleground of Missouri."

Missouri? That's not a Repug stronghold!

Why is Kerry giving up on MO and AR???

And I thought we had a shot in AZ??

What's going on?

Posted by: deltanine at September 22, 2004 07:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I like the influence of the Clinton people on Kerry's campaign. There was an immediate response to Bush's attack ad in the form of another ad, very 1992... Hopefully, it will be enough to tip the scales, since the Bush bounce has faded (despite what gallup thinks).

Posted by: Michael at September 22, 2004 07:27 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't take Gallup seriously, either.

Posted by: Pepe at September 22, 2004 07:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Gallup? I worked there. Methodology suspect. Taught me to never trust the polls. The CNN-Gallup poll tends to only have 5-10 questions that followed a "opinion tree" depending on how sophisticated the poll was. Someone knows more about this than me.

Posted by: roo roo at September 23, 2004 08:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think it probably makes sense for Kerry not to spend money on MO. Yes, it is turnable, but there are not that many scenarios in which MO turns the election. I pretty much agree, state by state, with DFuller's Kerry states: Kerry has 196 ECVs that he can be pretty sure of; he has 26 more that he ought to be able to keep with some effort; he needs 48 more ECVs. This is FL and PA; or PA, OH, and any minor state. For MO to matter, Kerry has to win PA (note a similarity in all of these scenarios ...), MO, and either WI or IA-and-a-small-state or three small states, where "small states" means (NH, WV, NV). (If AR or CO are deemed to be in play, more opportunities open up, but AR mattering requires a lot of planets being aligned as well, and CO, while it seems to be trending Democratic, voted Republican in 1996 and -- by 8.4% -- in 2000: not a state a Democrat should feel real confident about, regardless of what the wildly divergent polls may say. NV has similar issues, as does WV.)

In short, Kerry would need to win a couple or a few coin tosses to take the election with MO, but he can take the election by winning a coin toss just in FL or in OH and any of several other states. The odds of winning through targetting MO begin pretty close to 25%, with effort expended only moving the probability up from that point. The FL and OH-and-a-small-state strategies begin pretty close to 50%, although OH is looking like an unfavorably biased coin right now: look for FL to decide the election. Again. Just like everyone wanted. ;)

Posted by: Marsden at September 23, 2004 08:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This election has changed so much in the last month. It looked a month ago like NH and PA were in the bag and WI and IA were leaning Kerry. It looked as though Kerry had 269 votes and would only have to win one of MO, WV, OH, AZ, AR, FL or CO. Now, AZ, AR, & MO are out of play for Kerry and IA & WI are up for grabs. Kerry must win FL and PA to win the election. If he loses PA, then he must take WI, IA, WV, and NV or OH & WI or IA. If he loses PA and wins FL his must take WI, IA, + one of NH, WV, or OH.

Posted by: Dfuller at September 23, 2004 10:28 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If we're counting on Florida to win it for Kerry, we're in deep trouble. Gore had consistent leads, usually in the three-point range, in Florida throughout the last six weeks of the 2000 campaign. Kerry does not have that luxury, at least not yet, in this campaign. Plus, we can count on tens of thousands of Florida voters, mostly Democrats, to be disenfranchised yet again this year because of Republican dirty tricks. Once Kerry starts scoring consistent five-point leads in Florida, I may agree with your scenario, but given that he hasn't gotten there yet, I think it's suicidially foolish for Kerry to limit his campaign to five or six states and completely ignore dark horses like MO and AR. I continue to insist that the Democratic Party will lose election after election after election as long as it accepts its role as the party of 22 states and 22 states alone.

Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2004 10:35 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Does anyone have some insight into the Mason-Dixon polling firm? A September 18th Mason-Dixon poll has Bush up by 11 points in Ohio, despite other polls that show Bush with a slimmer 3 or 4 point lead.

Just an observation, but I've noticed two Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on SUVs.

What are your thoughts on Ohio determining the outcome of this election?

As for Kerry, I really like his feisty style right now, and I am in complete agreement with other posters at this board as to why he didn't attack earlier rather than later.

Posted by: Shar at September 23, 2004 10:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I continue to insist that the Democratic Party will lose election after election after election as long as it accepts its role as the party of 22 states and 22 states alone.

Truer words could not be written! Somehow, the Democratic party is going to need to make significant gains in what was once its region of strength. There is no reason why the South should be as staunchly GOP as it has been of late. If Kerry loses this election, I believe it will force the Democratic party to do much soul searching in order to find a way to become a more truly national party, i.e., one that can win in the South. It should not come to a surprise to anyone that the Democrats face a nearly impossible task in national elections so long as they fail to shake up the fast-growing and ergo politically increasingly powerful and inflential South. Obviously, simply putting a Southerner on the ticket (Gore in 2000, Edwards in 2004) is not enough.

Posted by: Pepe at September 23, 2004 11:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I don't see anything coming out of OH to make me optimistic about a Kerry win there. If Kerry is counting on OH, he's in big trouble. He shouldn't give up there, but I'd be more concerned about holding onto PA and trying to keep IA, WI, MN from swinging to Bush. Also, he should be putting a great deal of time and effort into FL. I don't understand why the Kerry campaign is ostensibly cutting back in ads targeted at AZ, CO, NV, and MO, as well as several other battleground states.

Posted by: Pepe at September 23, 2004 11:20 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mason-Dixon polls tend to favor Bush:

TN Bush +16%, AZ Bush +11%, NH Bush +9%, OH Bush +7%, MO Bush +7%, IA Bush +6%, NV Bush +5%, NM Bush +4%, OR Bush +4%, MN Bush +2%, WV Bush +1%, PA Kerry +1%, MI Kerry +6%,

Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 11:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The Republican Party has been very successful at the spin game. They increased spending by 25% over the last four years and say the Democratic Party wants to raise your taxes. We all love a tax cut, but in order to get a true tax cut you need to decrease or at least, hold the line at spending. By increasing spending by over 25%, Junior has increased our tax burden. I think President Clinton for my tax cut in 2001. It was the growth in the economy and his control of government spending that allowed for the 2001 tax cut. I am angry at all the tax burden increases that Junior has passed on to us. The Republican Party is the party of borrow and spend.

Also, they have done a good job in the south claiming to be the Christian party.

Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 11:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I continue to insist that the Democratic Party will lose election after election after election as long as it accepts its role as the party of 22 states and 22 states alone.

We're running very competitive Senate campaigns in AK, OK, SC, NC... not exactly blue America. We're running competitive House races in AZ, SD, KY, IN, GA... again, not exactly our home turf. Presidentially, it only makes sense to focus on the swing states. What would be the point of John Kerry spending time in Texas or New York?

But nationally, as a party, we are wading deep into enemy territory for Congressional races.

Posted by: DavidNYC at September 23, 2004 01:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Kerry still fails to inspire voters:

Who do you trust more to manage the economy? Bush 50%, Kerry 45%. (A million lost jobs and 50% still think Bush would do a better job.)

Who is a Better Leader? Bush 50%, Kerry 37%. (I didn't know Americans thought that stubborn authoritarians were good leaders.)

National Defense / War on Terror? Bush 53%, Kerry 41%. (Too much money spent overseas which would be better spent on our southern border, inspecting cargo coming in from overseas, and better detecting weapons coming onto planes.)

I just don't see how Kerry can possibly poll below Bush on these three categories. Hopefully, he will bring his message out in the debates. He does not need to hit a home run to win the undecided voters. He just needs to do solid.

Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 01:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I was not referring to state politics, but rather, national politics. NC, for example, has been pretty evenly split between Democrats and GOP within the state government, and I don't believe we're unique in that respect. However, in national politics, the Democrats can't with confidence go into an election and all but "write off" the South--and then expect to win the biggest prize of all, the White House. That's why I believe that if Kerry loses this election, the party will have to find a way to make their message play not only in New England, NY, IL and the Pacific Coast, but also in the South--the fastest growing region of the country. After every new census, the South (and West, to a lesser extent) gains more EVs while the New England States, PA, NJ, OH, MI lose them. You're right about it being a waste of time for Kerry to be campaigning in TX and most other Southern states at this point in time, but that is exactly the problem facing Kerry and the Democrats on the national level: their message is not playing here in the South.

Posted by: Pepe at September 23, 2004 02:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Although one shouldn't say it (an early Kerry mistake) elections can be won without the south. Ultimately though to win the South, as Pepe wants, we would have to change our social beliefs. The majority of social "liberals" in the south would be social moderates anywhere else. However, Florida is the exception and I would focus most of my southern resources on Florida. States like MS, GA, AL, SC, and possibly NC, VA, and TN are not voting DEM unless the GOP candidate is a total loser or we change our ideology. I do think that states like Florida, LA and AR could be potential pickups in the future, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them.

I think the better area to focus is the south west quadrent of NM, CO, AZ, and NV. That area is growing and increasing its political power. Also those states are edging closer to the middle all the time. A Dem hold on those states, CA, the pacific Northwest states, the New england and mid atlantic states, Illinois, Michigan and Hawaii would give the Dems a great start in any election. Throw in Florida and some of the other traditional Dem states that have been edging right such as Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin and you have a solid victory chance. We need to build our block like the GOP has in the south and the great plains states.

Posted by: Michael at September 23, 2004 02:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My opinion is as follows:

For presidential elections the Democrats should focus on the following:

Ohio Valley.
Any state that borders the Mississippi River.
West coast & HI.
Western states of AZ, NM, CO.
TX in about 10 years.

Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 02:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My point is, if the Democrats could undo the GOP stranglehold on the South, they would win national elections quite handily. I don't believe that Democrats necessarily have to jettison their ideology in order to do this. Clinton, after all, understood this strategy. He managed to win not once, but twice by splitting the South while doing well in other parts of the country. In that sense, he was truly a nationally elected president.

I really do feel that Southerners (perhaps more than New Englanders and a lot of Northerners in general) tend to gravitate towards a more charismatic figure. If Kerry had the charisma and personality of Bill Clinton, things might not look so dire down here in the South right now. And if just a few states (besides possibly FL) were in play, Bush would be the one trailing and in trouble.

Posted by: Pepe at September 23, 2004 02:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

This is why I think TX will be a swing state in 10 years. Hispanics make up 32% of the population and blacks 11.5%. Hispanics should hit the polls in increasing numbers soon. In 2000, they only made up 10% of the total voters in Texas. Blacks go to the polls in high numbers. They made up 15% of the total voters in 2000. Texas is skewed now because a Texan is occupying the White House. If the voting is 13% Black at 90% Demo, 30% Hispanic at 60% Demo, and 57% white at 35% Demo, that puts the Demo vote at 49.65% Demo.

Posted by: DFuller at September 23, 2004 02:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

If the head of the Democratic ticket writes off the South every four years, Southerners will feel neglected by the party and the days when candidates like Erskine Bowles and Brad Carson can be competitive in the region will quickly end. The Republicans can run campaigns that are competitive in 37-40 states. The Democrats turf is no more than 25 states even in the early stages of a presidential election year, and seems to dwindle as the campaign goes on. Considering that the blue states are shrinking as a percentage of the national population (and thus Electoral College), the Democrats have to move beyond this strategy or we'll become a permanent minority party.

I agree that John Kerry shouldn't waste his time in Texas, but can anyone give a logical reason why the Kerry campaign insists on handing George Bush the six electoral votes of Arkansas? Only one poll of about 25 has shown Bush leading outside the margin of error in the state, while the rest have showed it essentially tied. It's almost as if Kerry wants to lose it. Kerry should be hammering away at Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana to establish a foothold in a region of the country where the Democrats are fast becoming as irrelevant as the Republicans were for most of the 20th century.

The Southwest is clearly moving to the political center, and I anticipate a likely scenario of long-term drought conditions for the region will further empower the Democrats. However, I don't believe the surge of Hispanics in Texas will turn that into a swing state for at least a generation. There are simply too many institutions being rooted in the state that will continue to indoctrinate new residents and existing residents into theocratic and plutocratic dogmas.

The long-term political configuration will only matter to me if Bush is defeated. If he's re-elected, so little of what we as Democrats care about will be salvage

Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2004 03:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm with the Michigan State University Democrats. I'm planning a trip next weekend to help the Ohio State dems get out the vote and energize the democratic base. I've been reading up on Ohio but I still need more information. Any help you guys could give would be great. I need to educate people around here and convince them that it is worth going down to Ohio. No Republican has ever won the whitehouse without Ohio. I feel like it may be the most important state in this election. Thanks

Posted by: Arjun at September 25, 2004 04:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Just don't tell those Buckeyes you're from the state of Michigan! Well, at least you aren't a student at the University of Michigan--that would not get you very far with your average Buckeye! Good luck!

Posted by: Pepe at September 25, 2004 05:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment