Comprehensive NPR Poll

[Ben.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll predict Minnesota will go Republican before New Mexico does.  I think Bill Richardson's enormous popularity as Governor will give Kerry a narrow in NM.  I feel the same about Tom Vilsack in Iowa.

I think Minnesota has trended right more than any other state Al Gore won in 2000.

 

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The slimness of the win for Gore in 2000 was because of a really strong showing for the greens (La Duke), which wont be replicated this time around, in 2002 in both in the race for Governor and the Senate liberal third party candidates effectivley cost the Dems both races (as well as Tom Harkin but don’t get me started) I doubt that Mn will go to Bush but I'd say that would be more likely that WI going to Bush... however less likely than NM or IA (both of which might well go to W)....

[zachman]

Do governors and political machines make a difference?

[Kghadial]

I'd say political machines can make a difference in getting out the vote, in a 49/49 nation, its WHO shows up at the polls that makes the difference.

Governors certainly help, for a lot of people they are the political figure that matters the most to them. The senators and House members, are all in DC , while the governor is right there.

Not to mention that all governors have a network of party loyalists who got them into office, they probably have those people on a rolodex and can get them to go and help the presidential candidate.

But all in all, really governors only show which way a state is trending.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll predict Minnesota will go Republican before New Mexico does.  I think Bill Richardson's enormous popularity as Governor will give Kerry a narrow in NM.  I feel the same about Tom Vilsack in Iowa.

I think Minnesota has trended right more than any other state Al Gore won in 2000.

 

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The slimness of the win for Gore in 2000 was because of a really strong showing for the greens (La Duke), which wont be replicated this time around, in 2002 in both in the race for Governor and the Senate liberal third party candidates effectivley cost the Dems both races (as well as Tom Harkin but don’t get me started) I doubt that Mn will go to Bush but I'd say that would be more likely that WI going to Bush... however less likely than NM or IA (both of which might well go to W)....

Not true at all.  You clearly don't understand Minnesotans.  One of the main reasons Minnesota has such high turn-out is becuase of the number of independent voters that have a habit of voting niether Republican nor Democrat in local elections.  True the Dems used to dominate Minnesota's politics, but the colapse of the DFL has caused all sorts of wierd results in the state.  One could arrguee that Ventura cost Coleman the election in 1998.  Minnesota has changed drastically.  Just think, in 2002 they rejected one of their most favorite sons, Walter Mondale, a man who one by HUGE margins in the state in all of his Senate bids, back in the 60's and 70's and even managed to carry the state in the face of the mega-land-slide of Reagan in 84.  They rejected there old war horse in favor of an up-start who represent almost everything Mondale was against.  That singnals a change.  Minnesota has been slowly drifting to the GOP and this election will prove it conclusivly for once and for all time.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

You're probably right. The biggest event in the move to the Republicans in Minnesota was the Paul Wellstone Funeral which turned into a Democratic Party rally of "All Republicans are Evil" and truly offended many of those Independent voters you mention. In Minnesota, I think it's fair to say that the majority of those strong-minded Independents tend to be center or left/center in terms of their ideology, but many of them vote Republican now more out of politics than policy.

[12th Doctor]

Interesting statistic, with the exception of Mark Dayton's 6% win in the Senate elections and Betty McCollum's win in a heavily Democrat district, both in 2000, the DFL has not won a single election state or national seat in an open election in Minnesota since 1998 and haven't had state wide control since 1996.  Before that, DFL lock on Minnesota was something you could set you could always be certain of.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Walter Mondale was never elected by a huge margin to the Senate:

1966
---------
Walter Mondale  D  53.9%
Robert Forsythe  R  45.2%

1972
----------
Walter Mondale  D  56.7%
Phil Hansen         R  42.6%

You may have confused him with Hubert Humphrey, who cracked 60% in 1948 and 1976

[Gustaf]

What i find most interesting about that NPR poll is that when NPR gave the positioning statements for Kerry and Bush to the people, Kerry gained more support than Bush did.  I think once Kerry articulates what he is all about, that'll give him those few percent that can make the difference.

Okay, that makes me distrust the poll right there.  I was waiting for something to jump on.  NPR given the issue statements of the candidates, why not let NOW do it?  Or how about the AFL/CIO chairman?  I don't trust NPR to accuratly dipict the stances of the candidates anymore than I trust a Neo-Nazi to tell me why both sides went to war in WWII.

The differences were maginal, and you could actually READ the issue statements if you're suspicious. So please do that and then tell us what's wrong woth them, but don't just throw about accusations that are unfounded.

[muon2]

What I found most fscinating in the NPR poll was the impact of negative statements. The public and media decry position position attacks in political ads, yet those polled responded more favorably toward Bush when his message included attacks on Kerry's position, as well as positive statements about his own. Given the polarization of the partisan bases, that seems to indicate that independents do respond positively to "negative" ads.

[CTguy]

I don't think it's possible for the Republicans to win the popular vote, much less the popular vote if the Democrats win the electoral vote.  No matter who the democrats put up, you know it's likely they are going to win New York and California by at least 1 million vote margins.  Also I think being a New Englander, Kerry will galvinize fellow New Englanders to vote and give him huge margins.  He'll probably have almost a 1 million vote surplus in Massachusettes alone.  

The only state I could see giving Bush a huge numerical margin is Texas, which will probably just cancel out New York.  

I could also see 5 other states giving Kerry a 500K vote surplus: Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan.

[CTguy]

I just checked out that polling in greater detail and I just have a few comments.

When you look at the numbers, about 10% or so have not yet made up their minds.  

It appears that the majority of those who have not made up their mind are Independents or Democrats.  More women than men haven't made up their minds, and it looks like African Americans and "others," which I am assuming are mainly hispanics have not made up their minds either.

If you extrapulate the percentages they were going to each candidate for these groups, it's clear these voters will trend to Kerry by a 70% ratio or so if they don't mostly vote third party.

This is common in a lot of polls, when republicans are winning and then it is a lot closer on election day than predicted, because most late deciders are minorities and women and people who make less money and are less informed.

I think those numbers look EXTREMELY GOOD for Kerry.  But the election is a long time from now.

I still say though, that without huge inroads in New York and California, it's unlikely Bush will win the popular vote.

[Gustaf]

I just checked out that polling in greater detail and I just have a few comments.

When you look at the numbers, about 10% or so have not yet made up their minds.  

It appears that the majority of those who have not made up their mind are Independents or Democrats.  More women than men haven't made up their minds, and it looks like African Americans and "others," which I am assuming are mainly hispanics have not made up their minds either.

If you extrapulate the percentages they were going to each candidate for these groups, it's clear these voters will trend to Kerry by a 70% ratio or so if they don't mostly vote third party.

This is common in a lot of polls, when republicans are winning and then it is a lot closer on election day than predicted, because most late deciders are minorities and women and people who make less money and are less informed.

I think those numbers look EXTREMELY GOOD for Kerry.  But the election is a long time from now.

I still say though, that without huge inroads in New York and California, it's unlikely Bush will win the popular vote.

Good points. Also, those who are undecided have a tendency to vote against the incumbent.

[CTguy]

True, if they don't like Bush by now then it's doubtful many of them are going to like him by election day.  I'm not a betting man but I wouldn't put the house on Bush.

[angus]

I am a betting man and I lost lots of money on Al Gore last time.  This time I'll not taking the headspread.  I think the over-under may be something like 278-260 Bush.  If I can get a better line I'll take it.  Anybody in the SF Bay Area want to put your money where your mouth is?

[CTguy]

I didn't know there were republicans in the San Francisco Bay Area.  LOL

[angus]

There are three of us.  But I'm definitely always the only one at the SF Bay Area Chapter Sierra Club meetings.  

[CTguy]

LOL!