"Lock" on the Presidency???

[NorthernDog]

December is probably a bad month for polling-everyone is busy shopping, going to Christmas parties, hunting, etc...I wonder how the pollsters take all this into account?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

December is probably a bad month for polling-everyone is busy shopping, going to Christmas parties, hunting, etc...I wonder how the pollsters take all this into account?

They don't.

[Paul]

NorthernDog:
    I am also curious about when we will begin seeing state-by-state polling for the general.  However, I did recently see a poll in Florida which matched Bush against each major Democratic candidate: in each matchup, Bush had at least 56%.  (This poll was done by The Orlando Sentinel.)

[Beet]

Clearly something is going to have to happen before Florida becomes competitive. The primaries and campaign may provide the Dems a bounce early in 2004, but that won't be enough to survive summer and fall.

[English]

I'm beginning to doubt if the Democrats can unseat Bush in 2004, especially considering they're behind in places like Minnesota! This is the sort of place they need to win just to break even! They really shouldn't be behind in Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota, these should be core Democratic states.
One thing I'm sure of, I predict the North East will swing to the Dems, even if the rest of the country goes the other way. I reckon Vermont, Mass & RI may give the Dems +60% or +70%. I also predict they'll gain New Hampshire off the GOP. This is one of the few states where the Republicans have lost support since 2000.

Which specific figures are you looking at, not that I necessarily disagree with any of the conclusions.
I'm especially interested in the time frame of your numbers because for example the GOP has a trifecta in New Hamp. only last year winning all congressional and senate seats up, retaining the legislature and electing a Governor....all with healthier margins than the last.

When does your info say the swing towards democrats have occured??

I'll try and find the source. It was based on voter identification with the Dems and GOP. The percentage who identified themselves as Republicans increased in most states, except in about 3 north eastern states, where they declined. New Hampshire showed the biggest decline since 2000, however it was only 2%, which I'm sure is within the margin of error. Iowa should the biggest increase in voters who regard themselves as Republicans.

[Ryan]

Ah okay I think I saw those figures too. I just didnt put too much emphasis on them as I dont know how voter identification impacts actual voting.

Its still well worth including as any part of a comprehensive study.

[jravnsbo]

The most important thing about voter identification is that it is trending GOP.  I mean NEW people are coming into the party.  That means new voters but also new contributors, volunteers and everything else.  If numbers are stagant you have the same people.  But if you gain new people they had to take an affirmative step to join and generally you would think these people would be more active at least in the short term.

[Ryan]

The most important thing about voter identification is that it is trending GOP.  I mean NEW people are coming into the party.  That means new voters but also new contributors, volunteers and everything else.  If numbers are stagant you have the same people.  But if you gain new people they had to take an affirmative step to join and generally you would think these people would be more active at least in the short term.

Too true, converts are always more devoted and enthusiastic than the average long time members........applies everywhere ......not just religions

[SingingAnalyst]

After 1988 the GOP congratulated itself on having a lock on the electoral college. Little did they know they would lose the PV in 5 of the next 6 elections and the EV in 4 of the 6, with one (2000 FL) still controversial.