WV poll ARG

This is from American Research Group...

West Virginia
Likely Voters Mar 24

Bush 46%
Kerry 46%
Nader 2%
Undecided 6%
600 likely voters, March 23-24,
MOE ± 4 percentage points

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/wv

(Edited by me -- kos)

•  Encouraging

  This is a state Kerry must go all out to win.  it should be ours.  It voted for Dukakis in '88, for God's sake!

  by Paleo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:37:12 PM PDT

•  Does Byrd actively campaign

  I'm not from WV, but I drive through there a few times a year and know Byrd is beloved throughout the state.

  Does he actively campaign for Dem presidential candidates? If he hasn't before now, does anybody think he would this time?

  I've been pretty impressed with Senator Byrd throughout the Bush administration. Here's hoping he takes that principled stance back to his constituents and urges them to stand with him.

  by Bill Rehm on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 01:37:22 PM PDT

  •  In 2000...

    Byrd took Gore for a lap around the state late, when the writing was on the wall.  However, he'd previously been hemming and hawing about supporting him, largely because Byrd is a major coal booster and Gore isn't.  As far as beloved throughout the state, you'd be surprised-- but he's universally beloved and respected among party operators. Several party honchos in southern WV, mountaintop removal country, quietly worked their machines for Bush, which would never have happened if Byrd had actively supported Gore early.

    If you read the fine print in the energy policy Kerry posted at his site, he's a big proponent of so-called clean coal technology.  He could have cut and pasted that discussion from Byrd's own position papers.  If all you knew was what you read there, you'd think the stuff magically condensed out of the air at the power plant, instead of from mountains that are blasted apart-- but Kerry would at least allow mine safety and environmental laws to be enforced.  The clean coal language is directed at Byrd, and Byrd will aggressively support Kerry in WV.

    by lumpy gravy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:31:22 PM PDT

    •  Link to Kerry's energy plan

      http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/energy/plan.html

      by lumpy gravy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:34:08 PM PDT

  •  Re: Byrd Campaign

    Senator Byrd has been quiet so far, but I would imagine if Senator Kerry comes to West Virginia, Senator Byrd will be out and actively campaign for him.  Our two democratic congressmen endorsed Dean early on, while both senators stayed quiet.  

    Everything Senator Byrd has said to date has indicated his utter disdain and dislike for this administration.

    by robertgp124 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

•  It would be nice

  We need every electoral vote we can get, and that could be five out of the Bush column and into the Kerry column. In an election as close as this one may be, that could be the difference between winning and losing.

  by Dem 724 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:32:40 PM PDT

•  Something odd about the ARG internals they report

  According to detailed figures reported on the ARG site:

  They say that 91% of LV voted in 2000.

  Of the 91 percent, 53 percent of these voted for Bush and none of the latter group say they will vote for Kerry this time (!)

  Of the 91 percent, 45 percent say they voted for Gore and 5% of the latter group say they will vote for Bush this time.

  If these stats are correct, how could Kerry be running even with Bush 46-46 in the overall sample?

  According to the ARG figures cited above, Bush-to-Bush, Bush-to-undecided and Gore-to-Bush voters together = (53% x 91%) + (45% x 91% x 5%)  = 48.2% + 2.0% = 50.2% of sample.

  Thus, for the Bush total to be only 46%:

  If NO likely new voters support Bush, then the Bush-to-undecided group must equal about 4.2% of the sample or about 9% of former Bush voters.

  If 22% of likely new voters (2% of sample)support Bush, then the Bush-to-undecided group must equal 6.2% of the sample or about 13% of former Bush voters

  If 1/3 of likely new voters (3% of sample)support Bush, then the Bush-to-undecided group must equal 7.2% of the sample or about 15% of former Bush voters.

  BUT the last scenarios is inconsistent with ARG's finding only 6% of the sample to be undecided!  (They find 2 percent for Nader)

  Thus, assuming SOME new voters are for Bush, the reported figures seem to imply that:

  (a)  At most about 22% of likely new voters support Bush, and very few likely new voters are undecided, so, 75% or so of likely new voters support Kerry.

  (b) About 13% of former Bush voters are undecided, although none have switched to Kerry.

  c) Hardly any former Gore voters are undecided,  although 5% have switched to Bush.

  These COULD each be true statements, but none of them seem very likely, and in combination they seem even less likely.  (All Bush waverers have switched to "undecided", while nearly all Gore waverers have gone all the way over to Bush?  I don't think so.)  

  This leads me to think that either the 46-46 tie or the detailed internals reported on the ARG site are incorrect.  I would e-mail them an inquiry but they do not list an e-mail address on their Web site.

  Any comments?

  by LorinK on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 02:54:39 PM PDT

  •  Democracy Corps: similar

    Interesting.  I found something similar a few days ago in a Democracy Corps poll: see here.  (If that link doesn't work, you can find it easily: it's my one and only diary entry.)

    by Winger on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:32:49 PM PDT

  •  raw data is not final data

    polls don't give you the raw data. the answers of each person are weighted differently depending on the scarcity of demographic traits they possess. some likely voters are very hard to poll. likely voters with hard-to-find demographics have their answers weighted more than likely voters who are easy to find for polling.

    by ten nights on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:41:23 PM PDT

  •  Butterfly sample questions

    perhaps?

    by BCF on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:06:03 PM PDT

•  interesting nader data ...

  according to these numbers, nader costs bush 1 percent of the vote even though he is taking more votes from democrats than republicans: bush 46 kerry 46 nader 2 undecided 6 bush 47 kerry 46 undecided 7 half of nader's votes come from bush; half are undecided between the two. nader: 1 percent republican; 2 percent democrat; 3 percent no party.

  by riverway02115 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 03:59:05 PM PDT

  •  "undecideds" in 1st round...

    would include many of the folks who are set on voting for 3d Parties, but not given the option.

    by ben masel on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:53:43 PM PDT

•  W. VA

  I think the gun control and environment versus coal/steel jobs issues killed Gore here last time.  I don't think Bush has nearly the same advantages on these issues this time.  Kerry does not come off as strongly pro-gun-control and Bush's flip-flop on tariffs has to hurt him this time.

  by briefman on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:07:46 PM PDT

•  Man, if...

  If Kerry picked Rockefeller for his running mate, there'd be no question here. Not only that, Rockefeller would be important in areas hurt by foreign steel like western PA and Northeastern Ohio. I'm tellin' all y'all. That's who he should pick! ;)

  by WVUDemocrat2 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:28:57 PM PDT

  •  Too elitist

    I could just see the republicans counting how many homes Kerry-Heinz-Rockefeller have.  Not to mention how much money.  Kerry doesn't need to make himself more upper crust than he is.  Wouldn't Edwards carry the day in WV?

    by Paleo on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:40:42 PM PDT

    •  Let them go there

      Jay Rockefeller has come a long way from his ancestors.
      He's my kinda rich guy.

      by Ptolemy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:09:26 PM PDT

    •  Bush-Cheney?

      Bush-Cheney ticket is probably the most elitist ticket in the nation's history. Rockefeller knows how to talk to people and is a good communicator. Something like that could rub off on Kerry.

      As far as Edwards, I don't think he would do any better than a Max Cleland as a running mate (veterans are a big part in WV). Rockefeller would win this state in a heartbeat and Kerry won't have to work for it. Kerry, himself, will have to win WV with either Edwards or Cleland on the ticket.

      by WVUDemocrat2 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 01:37:42 AM PDT

  •  Could Rockefeller spend his money?

    If Kerry would choose Rockefeller as his running mate, could Rockefeller spend unlimited amounts of his own money on the campaign before the convention?  

    Of course, he wouldn't officially be the nominee until the convention, so probably he couldn't spend any as part of the Kerry campaign.  

    Still, my impression of the campaign finance laws is that individuals can spend unlimited amounts of their own money on their own, so I'm sure he could get around any restrictions.  Would be nice to have $25 million or so from Sen. Rockefeller battling Bush right about now.

    All that said, it would be a decent choice, but I still think Florida is ground zero again.  Compete HARD in West Virginia (Kerry should be photographed hunting there at least once a week between now and election day), but choose Graham or Nelson as running mate and go all out for Florida.

    by yellowdogjez on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:12:32 PM PDT

  •  RE:

    I was actually quite keen on Gore picking Rockefeller, but I guess Gore's position on coal would have made it an incongruous fit.

    I have always liked j. Rockefeller, but I think his star has faded as a VP candidate over the years.

    by jg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:49:08 PM PDT

•  When I see the Nader numbers . . .

  in so many states (W Va, Colorado, etc.) potentially making the difference between a Kerry win and a Bush win, I just want to scream!  The nightmare is starting all over again.

  Hello folks!  John Kerry is a heck of a lot more progressive than Al Gore ever was.

  by ohwilleke on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:36:43 PM PDT

  •  Nader - not gonna happen

    Nader won't reach 2&%, maybe not even 1.5.  Why?  He's not even gonna be on the ballot in many states.  This is unnecessary fear.  And people remember last time.

    by Crab Nebula on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:41:58 PM PDT

    •  In Colorado where Nader is 4% in the polls . . .

      it only takes $500 and 10 signatures to get on the ballot for the Presidential race.

      by ohwilleke on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:16:51 PM PDT

      •  then run

        and file 20 signatures

        then you can claim to have twice as much popular support as Nader

        by Ptolemy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

  •  nader is taking votes from bush!

    god, can't you read? * bush 46 kerry 46 nader 2 undecided 6 * bush 47 kerry 46 undecided 7 * half of nader's votes come from bush; half are undecided between the two.

    by riverway02115 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:58:06 PM PDT

    •  any explanation?

      Why do you think this is? Why would Nader appeal to Bush supporters more than Kerry supporters? And is this poll something we can rely on come November?

      By the way, you really need to stop rating comments 1's and 2's because you don't agree with them. Read the rating system guidelines and look how the system is put in practice by others. Right now you're just abusing it.

      by jd in nyc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:52:41 PM PDT

      •  i don't know why

        nader is taking votes from bush. it is interesting though. on the ratings system, i don't think i have abused the system. if a poster makes a marginal comment, shouldn't they get a marginal rating? people have done it to me. i rarely troll.

        by riverway02115 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 04:56:43 PM PDT

        •  Please explain this one.

          http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2004/3/26/175847/459/1?mode=alone;showrate=1#1

          My "rigged" in the caption I'll admit was harsh, "Flawed would be more precise.

          Now i wouldn't give my comment a 4 myself, maybe 2.75.

          by ben masel on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 05:46:04 PM PDT

          •  noted

            and corrected. you get a two. :-)

            by riverway02115 on Mon Mar 29, 2004 at 08:13:25 PM PDT

•  promotion..

  wow.. an upgrade to the front page.. I like it :)

  Any more former senior advisors to Bush to come out soon and expose Bush again??

  Eric

  by esherard8 on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 04:37:56 PM PDT

•  Nader

  We must stop Ralph Nader.  This looks like it could easily be a race that comes down to a handful of Nader voters swinging a key state to Bush, as happened if FL in 2000.

  He is a paranoid megalomaniac and has no real interest in anything except his own perception of reality, which is contorted by his demonstrated sociopathy.

  by Long Haul on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:42:38 PM PDT

  •  I wouldn't lose sleep over it - yet.

    Take any figures on Nader with a grain of salt - he still faces a very serious uphill challenge getting on ballots all over the nation, especially without party support (and much less support overall).

    by soultaco on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:48:00 PM PDT

    •  You're both wrong

      He's going to get on all 50 state ballots.
      I say we allow the coyote to run off the cliff.
      Let him into the debates with Bush and Kerry, or just Kerry.
      He'll lose half his support overnight.

      I've been looking at the details of the positions of the three ... and Nader just isn't detailed on the positions that now face us.
      He's pretty anemic on lots of things.
      A little prodding, and he looks like a shallow jerk.
      Who better to expose that than him?

      He ain't Dean and he ain't Kucinich.
      He's a storefront, like Bush.

      by Ptolemy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 05:57:40 PM PDT

      •  bad idea

        If 50% of Nader's voters leave him after watching a debate with Nader, Kerry and Bush, then Nader goes from 2% nationwide to 1%. But consider that at the same time he is going to pick up some support from people who didn't really know him, or who want to be contrarians, etc. If he gets just 1 out of 20 voters who previously weren't with him, he gains almost 5%. that's a net gain of over 3%.

        To break even, Nader would have to lose half his voters and only gain about 1 out of 100 of the undecided, Bush, or Kerry voters.

        And note that Nader voters are unlikely to drop him in after hearing him in a debate. Those folks know who he is pretty well...better than the typical Bush or Kerry voter knows those guys.

        by jd in nyc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:25:19 PM PDT

        •  They DON'T Know Him!

          They only think they do!  But as I have seen personally (I live and work in heavily Nader country), these people tend to be as fanatically narrow-minded as they come.  They are also "my way or the highway" types, only they are going against the commute.

          by Long Haul on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:48:58 PM PDT

          •  depends on your criteria

            If you mean they don't know the "real" Nader, where that involves psychological analysis into his personality and real motives, then I'd argue this is a contentious criterion for knowing a person. I probably agree with you in this case, but once we set that sort of a standard for knowing a person, there will never be widespread agreement about who knows anyone.

            I meant something more mundane: a greater percentage of Naderites know about his background and positions, listen to his speeches, etc. In that sense, there is not going to be much of anything that surprises Nader fans in a debate, and nothing to induce them to change their minds about him...at least, not in the numbers that the poster above was supposing. I didn't mean anything more than that.

            by jd in nyc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:58:10 PM PDT

            •  No, the my way people

              Are his SUPPORTERS
              They aren't his VOTERS

              He'll lose more contrarians and shocked libertarians by a debate than he will gain.
              He also makes Kerry look like he has zing.

              A debate with Nader puts Nader in a tight spot.
              If he attacks Bush too much, he just makes Kerry look like a reasonable moderate liberal.
              If he attacks Kerry too much and Kerry still keeps his cool and articulates policy ... well, Nader may sacrifice his progressive props altogether.
              AND if he says there is no difference in the middle of an actual debate ... he looks like an idiot.

              by Ptolemy on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:09:47 PM PDT

            •  ratings

              Riverway, why in the world did you rate my last post a "2"?

              Normally I just let ratings slide, but this one makes no sense to me.

              by jd in nyc on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 09:48:40 PM PDT

              •  Nader apoligists

                They've gone crazy

                by jfern on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:08:58 AM PDT

      •  Hopefully, Except...

        ...he pulled it off in 2000, at least enough to do what everyone feared he would - toss us into the shrubbery.

        by Long Haul on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 06:43:24 PM PDT

      •  Well, 49 states maybe ...

        ... Wyoming has some of the most stringent ballot access laws - not that Nader could ever shift the balance here, but he didn't even get on the ballot here in 2000 with a real campaign structure behind him. He'll probably not even try to get on the ballot here this time. I wonder how many of the swing states have stiff ballot access requirements? Anybody know the rundown on ballot access in the 18 Magical Swing States?

        by Longshanks on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:47:55 PM PDT

    •  He's got party support

      The Republican party, that is. They'll gladly pay his filing fees.

      by jfern on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 07:10:35 PM PDT

      •  Lol

        Hard-core Nader apoligists keep rating me down. I actually voted for the fool in 2000. Sorry, buddies, that's not going to happen again.

        by jfern on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:13 AM PDT

        •  no one says you have to vote for him

          but some of you are attacking him for no good reason. i think that is marginal at best.

          by riverway02115 on Fri Mar 26, 2004 at 04:59:26 PM PDT

          •  Ummm

            He's no saint, and thanks to him we already got 4 years of Bush, which by far cancels out any good he may have done for the US circa 1970. The fact that he's running again proves that he doesn't care how much damage Bush does to the US. Who was standing up to Bush's drive to war in late 2002? Al Gore, not Ralph Nader. And I say this all as someone who actually voted for Nader in 2000.

            by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:16:43 AM PDT

          •  And

            I was merely pointing out the obvious. The GOP is funding Ralph.

            by jfern on Sat Mar 27, 2004 at 02:18:23 AM PDT

•  WV Television

  I live in Ohio near Wheeling WV.  The Steubenville OH/Wheeling WV market, which in reality reaches from Pittsburgh PA to Zanesville OH, is getting hammered with Bush campaign ads night and day on the major networks.  The only organization that is firing back so far is makeamericaworkforus.org.  Where are the Dems and the Kerry campaign?  
  

  by Buckeye BattleCry on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 08:45:32 PM PDT

  •  RE:

    Trying to raise some scratch to compete with that Bush war chest.  

    This market you mention sounds extremely important considering all three states are battleground to one degree or another.

    by jg on Thu Mar 25, 2004 at 10:54:22 PM PDT