MyDD :: No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State...But North Dakota Is

No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State...But North Dakota Is

by Todd Beeton, Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:15:26 AM EST

Yesterday, Rasmussen Reports released a couple of polls worth mentioning. First up is their Wisconsin poll in which Rasmussen finally catches up to the rest of the world: Obama's up by double digits.

Candidate	July 8	June 5	Pollster
Obama	50	45	49.9
McCain	39	43	39.3

Note that the Pollster trend estimate is pre-this Rasmussen poll. Also, when leaners are added, Obama's lead drops to 10 points.

A few weeks ago, I mocked Quinnipiac for including Wisconsin in its "Battleground State" polls. Today it's Larry Sabato who needs scolding. In Sabato's first look at the 2008 electoral map, he breaks states down pretty much as one would expect but then drops this doozy:

Toss-Ups -- The Real Deal

CO, MI, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI (99 electoral votes)

Uh? And this from his analysis:

Wisconsin is traditionally close, as it was in both 2000 and 2004. Obama swept the Democratic primary here, though, and he has to be rated at least a slight favorite; some early polls have Obama well ahead.

I'm not sure what makes Sabato so convinced Obama's lead is so tenuous. As you can see from the Pollster chart, the trend is unambiguous and methinks Sabato is underestimating the adjacent to Illinois factor.

Rasmussen's North Dakota poll has Obama and McCain tied up at 43% apiece (47%-46% McCain with leaners), which tracks almost exactly with the 538.com average (McCan 43%-42%.)

But despite this virtual tie in North Dakota, Sabato decides in McCain's favor here as well, although this categorization at least makes some sense.

Likely -- An Upset is Possible but Improbable

McCAIN - AK, GA, MS, MT, ND (30 electoral votes)

Nate concurs:

One caution: this poll was taken in the immediate aftermath of an Obama visit to North Dakota, which garnered him some very favorable local press coverage. We still have each of these states tipping to McCain at the end -- but not by such a margin that he can blow them off without risking their electoral votes.

It should not be forgotten that George Bush won North Dakota by 27% in 2004 but Obama is doing something that John Kerry never did: show up, which, Obama likes to say, is 90% of winning. Obama may not ultimately win the state but he's sure going to make McCain spend there.

Tags: 2008 presidential election, wisconsin, north dakota, barack obama, john mccain (all tags)

Permalink :: 9 Comments :: Post a Comment

Sabato's take on North Dakota...fine! (none / 0)

But then he puts Indiana in safe Republican for no good reason. I don't claim to know more than someone who does this for a living, but that state has been polled quite a bit and it doesn't take an expert to know something's going on there. Couple the fact there has not been one poll showing McCain with a decent lead (while two have given obama the edge) with the three seats we won handily in 2006 and positing that Obama has less chance there than McCain has in Minnesota makes his argument look suspect.

It makes me think he knows that this tilts to an Obama blowout (at this point, not getting cocky) but the more interesting story is to have them neck-and-neck.

by thurst on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM EST

What is Sabato Smoking? (none / 0)

And, more to the point, is he inhaling?

Wisconsin is at least Lean Dem. So are PA and MI. And Sabato has Indiana as solid red? What polls did he use?

I did notice over at Pollster.com that quite a few Zogby polls are included in the latest batch of estimates. Does anyone know if Pollster does weighting? I'm quite distrustful of Zogby.

by Bob Miller on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:11:55 AM EST

Re: No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State (none / 0)

The neighboring Senator should spend little time in the Badger State campaigning. Rather he should focus on North Dakota and Montana. Hell I think he has a shot at Indiana as well.

by nzubechukwu on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:37:50 AM EST

Re: No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State (none / 0)

Why do people keep thinking MN is very playable? The convention is here? Most people are pissed at how the GOP is treating the city/protestors/other than those who will profit.

Because of our Gov, Pawlenty, the guy who did get re-elected in the narrowist re-election of a Governor in State history...~12,000 votes.

I live and breath MN. Believe me, it is trending blue. So long as the Dems do not do anything really Stupid (with a capital S) this state will fall blue, with a lot of help up and down the ballot. MN is pissed at the GOP label and guess what, that label is coming to St. Paul. I do not see how they will make their name better unless they run around throwing out $100 bills in the streets.

by Hammer1001 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:35:27 AM EST

But North Dakota Is (none / 0)

I think Wisconsin has a tradition of showing a larger Democratic lead throughout the campaign than the ultimate results show. I'm pretty sure Kerry was up by high single digits for most of 2004 before winning by a point or two.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:39:48 AM EST

Nope (none / 0)

It was less than 5 in most polls with Bush often ahead...and one ridiculous polling service almost always had Bush ahead by 16 (kinda like FDU always has odd numbers in jersey). I remember vividly that it really looked like we were going to lose Wisconsin.

Wisconsin, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota have all been much more comfortable and on a different trajectory than last time around...

Michigan was a lot closer than the polls showed in 04.

by thurst on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State... (none / 0)

Wisconsin was extremely close in 2000 and 2004 (Gore won by less than 2,000 votes and Kerry won by about 10,000, I believe). I'm not sure why, but I hope that the good citizens of my home state have turned a corner.

by rfahey22 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST

Re: No, Wisconsin Is Not A Swing State...But (none / 0)

Excuse me, but could the revisionistic faulting of Kerry please stop? 2004 was a No Change election. 2008 is a Some Change election. Very big difference in attitude of the center 20%- not smarter, obviously, but at least they aren't being as willingly blind. Kerry didn't go to North Dakota because polling there probably had him down 35-55.

On voter turnover the Purple States should split about 4% more Democratic this year than in '04. So Wisconsin is not really in play. And North Dakota isn't really either.

by killjoy on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 02:25:51 PM EST

ND is cheap... (none / 0)

Yeah... McCain's going to have to spend there... and that's going to hurt... NOT!

North Dakota might be the cheapest state in the union to advertise in.

Contesting ND will not hurt. Contesting GA, NJ, and CA will.

by swbrink on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 04:27:05 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.