is bush running ads in illinois?

[WalterMitty]

yes or no?

[lonestar]

I hope not.

[Keystone Phil]

Hey welcome to the forum lonestar. As for these ads, I would hope that Bush would put out ads in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Those are two states in the region he has a good chance of winning. Illinois is not in play for us right now.

[Smash255]

Remind me to go hysterical if  Bush is putting ads in Illinois especially  Chicago

[Keystone Phil]

Remind me to go hysterical if  Bush is putting ads in Illinois especially  Chicago

Yeah kinda like how people believe Kerry has a chance in Virginia, right?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

a recent poll showed Kerry only down by 2 points in Virginia, yet he has a double digit lead in Illinois. Gore won Illinois by more than 12 points, Bush won Virginia by 8, with Nader taking 2. The two are not comparable. Illinois is more comparable to Georgia.

and for the record Bush is running LOTS of ads in Minnesota, yet apparentely they aren't helping any.

[Keystone Phil]

The Dem candidate has not won Virginia since '64. It's a  conservative Republican state that won't go for a Massachusetts liberal.

Virginia is not in play for Kerry.

[ATFFL]

a recent poll showed Kerry only down by 2 points in Virginia, yet he has a double digit lead in Illinois. Gore won Illinois by more than 12 points, Bush won Virginia by 8, with Nader taking 2. The two are not comparable. Illinois is more comparable to Georgia.

and for the record Bush is running LOTS of ads in Minnesota, yet apparentely they aren't helping any.

I don't liek Rasmussen releasing state polls based on his tracking polls.  They will contain data a month old and, to my knowledege, he doesn't have as many controls on teh state level.

If he wants to do tracking polls by state, he should just go ahead and do them.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

and Minnesota hasn't been won by a Republican since 1972 but you'll argue it's in play. Btw, wouldn't you have said in 1996 that Clinton could never win Arizona since it was conservative Republican state that hadn't voted Democratic since 1948?

Sorry, but there's now way you can say Bush has a better chance in Illinois than Kerry in Virginia.

[Beet]

and Minnesota hasn't been won by a Republican since 1972 but you'll argue it's in play. Btw, wouldn't you have said in 1996 that Clinton could never win Arizona since it was conservative Republican state that hadn't voted Democratic since 1948?

Sorry, but there's now way you can say Bush has a better chance in Illinois than Kerry in Virginia.

I agree with you that VA could be in play as it looks right now, though its still a solid advantage for Bush. 1996 was a really historic election however, as you had no real left-wing candidate, you had a moderate conservative and two centrists. Even if you don't think Clinton was a centrist in '92, he certainly was by '96. It also took place in context of the Republican party winning control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. Clinton in 1996 was the first Democrat to enter a term of office with either house of Congress (not to mention both) controlled by the Republican party since at least Woodrow Wilson, if not before. It was also the first time two consecutive Republican congresses were elected since 1928-1930. In many ways both 1992 and 1996 were very unique elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

and Minnesota hasn't been won by a Republican since 1972 but you'll argue it's in play. Btw, wouldn't you have said in 1996 that Clinton could never win Arizona since it was conservative Republican state that hadn't voted Democratic since 1948?

Sorry, but there's now way you can say Bush has a better chance in Illinois than Kerry in Virginia.

I've got an even better analogy.
The popular vote in Vermont was started ibn 1828.  As of 1992, it had gone Democrat once, in 1964. Pretty hopeless for Clinton.  

[Smash255]

VA  could go to Kerry, MUCH better chance than Illimois going Bush.  NOVA has trended to the left and its one of the most populated parts of the state.  Their only have been a couple polls, but it looks like the state will be nmuch close than it was in 2000, especially if Warner or Edwards is on the ticket.  Bush will proabably do fairly well in most of the rest of the state (except Richmond) but the D.C burbs which use to be a Republican Stronghold will miore than likley go to the Dems this year (especially Fairfax)

[WalterMitty]

id rather see bush run ads in illinois than california.

the voters of virginia are much smarter than you all give them credit for.  they arent going to fall for the protectionism b.s. of john edwards.  they didnt in the primary and they wont in the general if he is the vp pick.

how well did edwards do in nova with his silly protectionist platform?

[KEmperor]

Well I feel kind of left out here in NY.  Neither candidate is running ads, and its too early for the local ads.  Kind of boring, actually.

[??????????]

Well I feel kind of left out here in NY.  Neither candidate is running ads, and its too early for the local ads.  Kind of boring, actually.

Lucky. We are currently under a hail storm of ads.The GOP calls me twice a week. My wife gets all kinds of letters from the GOP.

[millwx]

VA  could go to Kerry, MUCH better chance than Illimois going Bush.

I agree that the VA-IL comparison is silly.  An average of polls over the last month and a half shows:
Illinois = Kerry +12.5%
Virginia = Bush +5.7%

And for those that think looking back a full month and a half is too far, there is only one poll in each state around a month and a half old... both were more Bush favorable.  So, ignoring those two polls gives Kerry an even larger lead in IL and closes the gap slightly in VA.

Yes, one can choose to not believe some of the polls (like the questionable Rasmussen polls), which would aid Bush - particularly in VA.  But one can also argue, for various reasons, that Kerry is more likely to do better than his poll numbers (Nader-faders and undecided break).  But just looking at the numbers straight-up, with no subjectivity at all, VA and IL aren't comparable.

In fact, the poll-average in MN is Kerry +6%.  So, MN and VA are very similar.  Any Dems that argue that MN is safe, but Kerry should go after VA are fooling themselves.  And vice-versa, any Reps who think Bush should target MN, but Kerry has no chance in VA are delusional.  Frankly, with all of the much closer states (WI, OR, PA, NM, etc) I think both candidates have bigger fish to fry, and should not even try for MN or VA unless/until things change.

And as for IL, there are few safer states for Kerry (MA, CT, RI, NY).

[muon2]

I've seen no local buys for Bush in Chicagoland. The candidates seem to be relying on their cable buys only.  The interesting feature is that many in southern WI work in IL and watch Chicago stations. It will be interesting to see if either campaign uses Chicago after Labor Day to reach those voters.

[Smash255]

I've seen no local buys for Bush in Chicagoland. The candidates seem to be relying on their cable buys only.  The interesting feature is that many in southern WI work in IL and watch Chicago stations. It will be interesting to see if either campaign uses Chicago after Labor Day to reach those voters.

True, but people & that area also watches Milwaukee televison stations also.  From a cost/benefit prespective it would be much smarter to place those ads on Milwaukee stations than Chicago stations.  Whiel Chicago media isn't as expesnive as NY or LA media time its still way up there & quite a bit more expensive than Milwaukee media