North Carolina is in Play

(Well, almost)

From time to time, state polls come out that appear to be nonsensical, impossible outliers bucking long term voting and demographic trends. Usually, when these polls are released (showing Kerry up twelve in Iowa, Bush up twelve in Wisconsin, or some such result) it is not long before new polling information countermands these outliers and conventional wisdom regains hold (as I expect it soon will in California). However, once in a great while, polling information in a state consistently bucks conventional wisdom to the extent that it might be time for conventional wisdom to change. North Carolina is on the brink of just such a shift.

In the 2000 Presidential election, North Carolina was not competitive:

2000 National share of the two-party vote
Gore 50.268%
Bush 49.732%

2000 North Carolina share of the two-party vote
Bush 56.464%
Gore 43.536%

This difference translate to a sizable 13.464% GOP advantage in North Carolina, the sort of advantage that would take massive national landslide for Kerry to win the Tar Heel state this year. Further, placing this partisan advantage in the context of long term voting trends, North Carolina would actually appear to be growing more GOP as time goes by:

Partisan Advantage in North Carolina:

  1. DNC + 9.002
  2. DNC + 8.412
  3. GOP + 5.716
  4. GOP + 8.572
  5. GOP + 7.828
  6. GOP + 14.635
  7. GOP + 13.464
Over the past thirty years, North Carolina seems to have twice experienced a sizable pro-GOP shift: between 1980 and 1984, and between 1992 and 1996. Although Gore did slightly better in NC than Clinton did in 1996 (at least relative to their respective national vote totals), a 1.2% shift toward the DNC does not a trend make.

Given all of this, what are we to make out of the last four polls from NC?


3/30- 4/1: Bush 51 - Kerry 44
3/01-3/13: Bush 51 - Kerry 43
2/23-2/25: Bush 53 - Kerry 42
2/23-2/25: Edwards 50 - Bush 47

Further, along with his re-elect numbers, Bush's approval ratings in North Carolina are also hovering around the 50% mark. An Elon University poll conducted April 26-29 showed him at 50% overall approval, with 39% approval for the economy and 45% approval for Iraq.

Since the Iowa caucus, every single poll out of North Carolina has shown Democrats running closer to Bush than the partisan index would indicate as normal. While Kerry has never been close enough to suggest that he could win the state in an election decided by two points or less, it is entirely possible that he could start threatening to take the state even if he is only ahead in national trial heats by four or five points. And hell, with a statewide favorable rating well over 70%, John Edwards as Vice-President would probably instantly make North Carolina a toss up.

All of this data seems to indicate that North Carolina may have shifted back to its partisan levels of 1984-1992, when it leaned GOP but was not rock solid. I honestly have no idea what the demographic, economic, political or other reasons for such a shift would be. Of course, it is possible that no such shift has taken place and we are just experiencing a rare string of outlying polls, but that conclusion is becoming less likely with each passing month.



Display:


Outsourcing (none / 0)

The explanation is "outsourcing", the ravaging of North Carolina's economy, the laser like focus that first Edwards put on the issue in the run up to Super Tuesday, and then Kerry's development of tax code reforms that would at least begin to level the playing field by penalizing companies rather than rewarding them for taking jobs abroad.

North Carolina is still socially relatively conservative, but it has a populist streak when it comes to economics. Compare Edwards numbers vs Bush in his home state before and after he hit upon outsourcing as the key issue and you'll see why he finally surged ahead of Bush in his home state. In my view, Dems may not win NC, but if they can make Bush sink resources in there and divert attention from Burr's Senate campaign to the presidential horserace, they would be well ahead of the game!

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 06:37:42 PM EST

NC should become competetive in the coming years (none / 0)

Not in 2004 most likely, though. But as more people from the Northeast settle down it should become more winnable for Democrats.  
by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 07:00:42 PM EST

i don't agree (none / 0)

I don't think we should divert funds to North Carolina.  We really need to focus every penny we have on the swing states like Pennsylvannia and Ohio.
by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 07:06:23 PM EST

NC counts for more than just the presidential race (none / 0)

I don't think we should divert funds to North Carolina.

'Funds' is a big word. With some very competitive House districts (NC-11, for one), and Erskine Bowles running for Edwards' Senate seat, NC is in play, even if you don't consider it in play for the presidential race. Treating the state as if it's in play helps those candidates, and every Democrat from NC in Congress is vital to the legislative success of a Kerry presidency.

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 23, 2004 at 09:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm being bitchy... (none / 0)

This is all irrelevant... and I LOVE this site, but let's face it.  A huge reason there aren't many people posting here is because you have to post as "Anonymous Hero."  This is annoying.  I realize that I need to register to post as myself, but I think that's stupid at this stage of this blog's development.  This blog averages 3 comments per post.  Please, Chris and Jerome, consider allowing us to post as ourselves... and when we get addicted to the site (as with DailyKos and with DeanForAmerica)... make us register.  Only then will we have an excuse.  As it is, I ain't registering yet... but I'm annoyed with posting as Anoymous Hero.  

As for this particular post... there are some errors that I will bitch about to make my post relevant to the discussion at hand (if 2 comments can be considered a discussion).

The difference translates into a 12.928% lead, not a 13.whatever% lead.  Further, the word "data" is plural.  It's "all of THESE data..." not "all of THIS data".

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 11:21:58 PM EST

I'm being bitchy... (none / 0)

This is all irrelevant... and I LOVE this site, but let's face it.  A huge reason there aren't many people posting here is because you have to post as "Anonymous Hero."  This is annoying.  I realize that I need to register to post as myself, but I think that's stupid at this stage of this blog's development.  This blog averages 3 comments per post.  Please, Chris and Jerome, consider allowing us to post as ourselves... and when we get addicted to the site (as with DailyKos and with DeanForAmerica)... make us register.  Only then will we have an excuse.  As it is, I ain't registering yet... but I'm annoyed with posting as Anoymous Hero.  

As for this particular post... there are some errors that I will bitch about to make my post relevant to the discussion at hand (if 2 comments can be considered a discussion).

The difference translates into a 12.928% lead, not a 13.whatever% lead.  Further, the word "data" is plural.  It's "all of THESE data..." not "all of THIS data".

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 11:24:27 PM EST

Errors and such (none / 0)

I'm on a work related trip right now, and I have to produce posts in a Kinkos near my hotel. This has resulted in significantly greater error than I would like, since I'm paying for the time on a computer. Extesnive proofreading would cost me even more money than I am already dumping into these posts!

As for your other complaint--you could register and start posting as yourself, if you would like to see the comment trend change. :-)

by Chris Bowers on Mon May 10, 2004 at 12:33:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Morons (none / 0)

Christ... moron posting twice (me)...

sorry

by Anonymous Citizen on Sun May 09, 2004 at 11:25:20 PM EST

Anything is possible (none / 0)

NC has an interesting pattern of splitting tickets, so I wouldn't write it off.  There have been quite a number of Democratic governors, including the current one, Mike Easley -- and they did elect John Edwards to a seat that had for a long time been held by Jesse Helm's proteges.   The poll with Edwards shows just how powerful an addition to the ticket he could be.
by ned on Mon May 10, 2004 at 12:42:50 AM EST

Democrats (none / 0)

More than "a number" of Dem govs in NC, more like every one but 2 in the last 140 years, including Hunt thru the '90s and now Easley...also, look for Erskine Bowles to hold Edwards' seat for the Dems...

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon May 10, 2004 at 08:07:58 AM EST

yep, NC's in play (none / 0)

I suspect that high turnout may help the Dems in NC.

There are a few House districts that are competitive (my own 11th district being one of them, in part thanks to demographic shifts); there's the Senate seat up for grabs; traditional manufacturing industries have been badly hit by outsourcing, and the state budget has been trampled by federal squeezes.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon May 10, 2004 at 09:36:12 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.