Bush Below 50 in Twelve "Red" States

Since any incumbent below 50 is in trouble, Bush is in danger in twelve states he won in 2000. In each of these twelve states, he has been below fifty in a significant majority of all post-Super Tuesday polls. Further, in each of these twelve states, his raw score in the last five trial heats has averaged below fifty. These twelve states are worth a total of 136 electoral votes, leaving Bush 142 seemingly safe electoral votes.
   U50 Polls  Mean
AZ  10	13   46.4
AR  13	15   47.0
CO   5	 5   48.0
FL  31	35   45.4
MO  16	17   48.6
NV  12	12   46.4
NC   8	14   49.6
NH  14	14   42.6
OH  24	27   47.3
TN   7	11   47.5
VA   5	 5   48.6
WV  11	12   47.3
Bush looks finished in New Hampshire. Also, while he looks weak in all of these states (with the possible exception of North Carolina), he looks particularly weak in Florida and Nevada.

Compare this to Kerry's standing in Gore states, and it is pretty obvious that right now the battleground is leaning toward Kerry.

Tags: General 2008 (all tags)

Comments

17 Comments

Kerry is not in trouble!
Kerry is a fairly weak canidate (although I'm believing he's intentionally arranged all this SBVFT crap to come out NOW, instead of later, which shows tactical brilliance-it even ruins half the RNC convention as well).

Bush is an EXTREMELY weak canidate.  He was weak in 2000 as well, but his last four years have not won over many people (beyond a few "9/11 changed everything" morons) and lost a lot of people (Log Cabin Republicans, Arabs, moderate Republicans, true fiscal conservatives).

In 2000 Gore was weak too, but Bush was stronger than he is now.  Plus, Gore was a HORRIBLE campaigner.  For example, he didn't let Clinton campaign for him-not even in Arkansas.  Plus, had he handled the recount differently, and asked for a state-wide recount in Florida-he would have won.  Plus, Nader is weakened this time.

All this mean that Kerry will win.  He's better at campaigning than Gore, Nader is less of a problem, and Bush's record turns off a small but significant number of people who voted for him last time.

by Geotpf 2004-08-25 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry is not in trouble!
Kerry is a fairly weak canidate

I agree with your ultimate conclusion (that Kerry will win), but I think it's possible to overstate your initial contention.  I think it's highly unlikely that any of the other available Democratic candidates would be in any better shape right now than Kerry is, and many of them would be distinctly worse off.

I think the problem is somewhat that you're confusing the necessary results of the process that's underway for an inherent attribute of the candidate.  What I mean is, there's a definite progression that needs to occur before we see the real "strength" of Kerry reflected in the polls.  The public isn't going to flip a switch one day and suddenly be opposed to Bush.  Their discontent has to grow past a certain level before many of them can even consider changing their minds, and even once they've allowed themselves to think about it, they'll need additional time to get used to the idea of voting for Kerry, especially considering all the propaganda about him they've been exposed to.

Although it's certainly possible that somewhere along the line a tipping point will be reached, and things will quickly cascade in Kerry's favor, it's more than likely that that moment won't come until it's provoked by the ultimate crisis, the need to make a definite decision on election day.  Until then, I think it's probable that we'll continue to see exactly what we're seeing now, a contest which can be grossly characterized as 50/50, but which, when closely examined, reveals that Bush's support is being slowly eaten away, and Kerry's support is increasing just as incrementally.  That's going to be awfully frustrating to live with, and is never (until the very end) going to give us a satisfactory moment of relief and catharsis, but that's the way I think it's going to play out.

by Ed Fitzgerald 2004-08-25 10:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry is not in trouble!
"I think it's highly unlikely that any of the other available Democratic candidates would be in any better shape right now than Kerry is, and many of them would be distinctly worse off."

I agree.  To butcher a Churchill quote, Kerry was the worst choice, except for all others.  (Edwards or Clark may have been ok.)

by Geotpf 2004-08-25 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Bush Below 50 in Twelve "Red" States
Wow--one poll where there are no internals somehow trumps 180 polls? I have no evidence to counter this wild speculation.

Show me one incumbent in the last four years that has won despite being at 45 or lower in the polls two months before the election. Do it. I dare you.

by Chris Bowers 2004-08-25 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: New LA TIMES Poll
Get an account, get a diary, and improve your html.
by Chris Bowers 2004-08-25 08:13PM | 0 recs
nader
Anyone got a good handle on how the numbers would stack up if Nader bailed out of the race?  That might make things really interesting...
by global yokel 2004-08-25 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: nader
Many sites run both with Nader and without Nader polls.  Usually Kerry gains a point or two with Nader out.  But it doesn't matter-I don't think Nader's going to bail out.  His ego is too big to drop out at this point, I think.  He's an ass.  Ultimately, I think Kerry will win with him in the race.  Making sure he fully earns his place on the ballots (and keeping him off the ballot in as many states as possible) is still an important stategy, however.

Now, there may be a wrinkle here, however.  At one point I thought that Nader and Kerry have a thing going-Nader will drop out, but mega-late, and with Kerry's full knowledge.  (Kerry and Nader have met on a couple occasions.)  Kerry will run ads and plan assuming Nader is out; Bush will still think he's in.  Then, after Kerry's elected, Kerry will make Nader Secertary of Transportation or something.  His dropping out at the last minute would cause Karl Rove to have a heart attack-Bush will be concentrating in the wrong states (the states to concentrate in and the tactics to do so differ if Nader is in or out).  But I've decided that Nader isn't thinking for the welfare of the country-Nader is thinking of the welfare of Nader.  Sad.

by Geotpf 2004-08-25 11:05PM | 0 recs
Badnarik, Peroutka
My personal opinion is that if Nader bails, Kerry wins. No question. But I don't think he'll do it.

Another good question is how things would look if the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates were ever included in any polls.

Last year the Libertarians and the Christian right candidates (Constitution, Reform) pulled about 1% of the vote combined.

This year the Libertarians are already polling at 1-1.5%, which is probably a reaction to the mediocre economy, government waste, and high cost of the Iraq occupation. And those problems show no sign of stopping. That slow leak of votes is going to continue through to Election Day. My hunch is that the Libertarian party will snag a higher percentage than anyone expects.

by drewthaler 2004-08-25 11:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Badnarik, Peroutka
I think the Badnarik will do better than Nader.
by Geotpf 2004-08-25 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: New LA TIMES Poll: Kerry hurt by Swift Boat
Nationwide polls mean NOTHING.  It's the Electoral College that counts.  Ask Al Gore.  And in the Electoral College, Kerry has a sizeable lead.

There are several plausible scenerios where Kerry loses Ohio, Florida, AND Missouri-and still wins the election.  If Bush loses any of the these three states, he almost certainly loses.  Kerry could lose all three and still win.

by Geotpf 2004-08-25 10:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry
You are right, we can't assume he's winning.  His lead is way to slim for that.  There are so many things that can happen outside either canidate's control, plus mistakes or brilliant moves made by either canidate, plus good old fashioned dirty tricks to be complacent.

As for GOP moderates and fiscal conservatives, I think we have a few of the former.  I doubt many of the latter will vote for Kerry-although they may vote Badnarik or stay home-a non-vote or vote for a third party by somebody who was going to vote against us is half as good as getting them to switch, but it only takes two halfs to equal a whole-for every two fiscal conservatives that choice not to vote, Kerry gains a vote.

Oh, and Arabs?  A majority of them supported Bush last time.  He is now as popular with them as he with blacks in Florida (a slim 3% in each group).  THAT is a major shift-and it helps in Michigan, and possibly Florida.

by Geotpf 2004-08-25 10:58PM | 0 recs
other red states?
chris, any poll news from texas?
by annatopia 2004-08-26 12:51AM | 0 recs
Re: other red states?
chris, any poll news from texas?

Not Chris here, but I'll answer if I may.

The lastest poll from Texas is a SurveyUSA effort which was just released, and showed Bush ahead by 21 points (58-37), well outside the margin of error of 3.7.  

Nor is Bush's lead faltering any, the previous two Rasmussen month-longs (in May and June) had him ahead by 17% and 18%.

In the SUSA poll, Bush was ahead with whites (71-26), but behind with blacks (18-75) and Hispanics (44-50).  Kerry did not lead with any other demographic group.

Bush was ahead with Republicans (95-3!) and Independents/Other (55-37), and Kerry's support among Democrats was not as strong (84-12).  Bush lead with conservatives (82-15) but was behind with moderates (51-44) and liberals (70-27).

Bush led the "pro-life" 76-20, but Kerry could only manage 55-41 with pro-choice voters.

Bush was ahead in all regions of the state except West Texas, where Kerry led 58-36, but Houston was close at 50-47 for Bush.

In short, there's no sign of Kerry making any real inroads in Texas, the state is Bush's.

by Ed Fitzgerald 2004-08-26 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: New LA TIMES Poll: Kerry hurt by Swift Boat
Who is using month old polls?  In the Zogby polls released THREE DAYS AGO, Kerry was leading in TEN OUT OF TWELVE battleground states: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04.html

But...but...but those polls suck and use untested methods, yatta yatta (never mind Zogby is the only person to get the 2000 election results right).  Fine.  Use the other state polls here: http://realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys.html and here: http://realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_sbys2.html and tell me what you get.

KERRY IS LEADING IN THE STATE POLLS.  His lead there is slightly down before the Swift Boat mess, but the blowback on that hasn't had a chance to show up in the polls yet-just the initial reaction.  He will rebound.

by Geotpf 2004-08-26 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush Below 50 in Twelve "Red" States
Heh. Boy, it's HARD to argue with EXCELLENT STATISTICAL ANALYSIS like that! (snicker) Or at least, it would be, if everyone who reads MyDD didn't already know quite well what an outlier is.

Go 'way. You're not smart enough to troll here.

by drewthaler 2004-08-26 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush Below 50 in Twelve "Red" States
Do you have the numbers for the four new states that weren't released at the Wall Street Journal graphic?  I gather they all went for Kerry, but I haven't seen the numbers yet.
by Geotpf 2004-08-26 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush Below 50 in Twelve "Red" States
I've heard that they're not being included until next month, but I can't confirm that at the Zogby website.

I wonder if the decision to add these 4 states wasn't Zogby's alone, and not agreed to by the WSJ, since there's new language in the current report about the states presented being decided by both organizations.  If that's true, that the 4 new states would be included only in Zogby's subscriber package, and not in the WSJ survey, so I'm not sure if we'll know what their results were there.

by Ed Fitzgerald 2004-08-26 02:20PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads