NC-Pres: Two polls, two widely different results

Mason-Dixon. Released 7/14. MoE unknown. (5/14-17 results)

Bush/Cheney 48 (48)
Kerry/Edwards 45 (41)

Gallup. 7/9-11. MoE 5%. (No trend lines)

Bush/Cheney 56
Kerry/Edwards 41

I'm guessing Gallup is the outlier, given that the M-D poll is somewhat consistent with its May results, showing Bush static while Kerry gets an Edwards boost.

•  sweet jesus that scared me

  i thought they were national polls for a second.

  by skaiserbrown on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:32:58 AM PDT

  •  ditto

    The fact that it was a Mason-dixon poll brught me back down to earth. Clarification is in order I think

    by gropo on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:48:35 AM PDT

    •  oh

      and there it is "NC-Pres:" :P

      by gropo on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:49:44 AM PDT

•  They've been hawking that Gallup poll

  all over the news, having their talking heads discuss how Edwards is actually unliked in North Carolina, etc. "If Edwards doesn't even bring his home state..."

  They never mention that the poll has a whopping 5% MOE and that there are other polls out there.

  Liberal media my ass.

  by DynomiteUVA on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:33:14 AM PDT

  •  Good

    So when the next poll comes out, we can say "look at that huge convention bounce for Kerry/Edwards".

    by Velvet Revolution on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:17:52 AM PDT

•  NC is in play....

  My mom lives in NC now and although she hears that Edwards does not command a huge amount of loyalty there and people view him as too ambitious, obviously the populist themes of JK/JE are resonating and compounding the doubts already there about Chimpco policies.

  Very good news!

  by Wintermute on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:33:36 AM PDT

  •  Hahaha

    The new Republican spin: ambition is bad.  This seems a little too blatant to me.  Are they suggesting the America adopt a class system?

    by Unstable Isotope on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 06:10:19 PM PDT

•  Gallup's bias

  Hasn't Gallup over the course of this election been more of a outlier.  Where would this Bush come from?  

  by Cthulhugus on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:34:35 AM PDT

•  The Gallup poll has GOT to be way off!

  It has Bush with more of a lead in Edwards' NC than any other poll has Bush in the lead by in any other Southern state besides Texas and Mississippi.

  That's just plain absurd.  And not only is it way inconsistent with the Mason-Dixon, and ditto the Rasmussen poll from last month, but you'd also expect that NC wouldn't be totally out of line with the recent polls in VA and SC, which show Bush with single-digit leads.  (You'd figure K-E to be doing better in NC than in SC; the VA comparison could go either way.)

  One favorable poll result I'm pretty dubious about is Zogby's claim that Kerry's pulled into a tie with Bush in TN.  I'd want to see some corroboration on that one.

  by RT on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:41:11 AM PDT

  •  Gallup

    Gallup's sample of Registered Voters is actually 51-44 Bush, which is somewhat more in line with the other poll results. It's only when they apply their mysterious "likely voter" formula that the lead swells. This is nearly a constant with Gallup polling this cycle. Kerry does much better amongst the larger (and at this stage, infinitely more accurate) RV sample. Look at the latest national numbers:

    LV--Kerry 50, Bush 45, Nader 3
    RV--Kerry 50, Bush 42, Nader 4

    Somehow that LV forumula mystically adds three points to Bush's total.

    Pay little attention to the LV right now. Lots of pollsters use voting patterns from the 2002 cycle for the likely voter screening, and that was, as we know, an unusually poor Dem cycle.

    Moreover, bear in mind that since NC has gone consistently Republican in presidential elections, you're going to have more Republicans who have voted in past presidential elections than Democrats--so that skews the "likely voter" count toward the rethugs.

    Likely voter samples largely ignore the highly motivated 2004 Dem base.

    by mattb25 on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:06:33 AM PDT

    •  And it doesn't tell

      you about passion.  This cycle, it is becoming apparent in my travels that registered voter is just about the same as likely voter.

      Turnout is going to be up, and that spells doom for Bush.

      That, and no way in hell does Nader get 4 percent or even 3 percent in NC.

      by Velvet Revolution on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:22:06 AM PDT

      •  Nader

        He won't even make the ballot here, so I'd peg him down around 0%

        by apostropher on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:37:33 AM PDT

      •  Not even 3%

        Nader's not going to get on the ballot here, so if 3% of people in NC are willing to write him in.. well, that is just sad to me.

        by noshenanigans on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:54:02 AM PDT

      •  One thing about RV

        is that not all the voters who will vote in Nov. are  registered yet.  Voter reg drives will add new voters to the rolls, and I suspect that there will be more net Dems than Reps.

        by erik in grayslake on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 01:39:59 PM PDT

        •  Re: One thing about RV

          "One thing about RV is that not all the voters who will vote in Nov. are  registered yet.  Voter reg drives will add new voters to the rolls, and I suspect that there will be more net Dems than Reps."

          While this certainly could be true this year...

          Almost every study ever done shows that non-voters closely mirror the political preferences of voters.  The theory that Democrats would partisanly benefit if 100% of Americans voted isn't true.

          by NoDissentAllowed on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:31:03 PM PDT

          •  links?

            That's hard to believe. Do you have any links to such studies? My understanding has always been that non-voting but registered voters tend towards the poor, minorities, and working classes -- not your typical R demography.

            And certainly targeting voter registration drives in heavily democratic voting precincts can drive up the D numbers significantly. Especially in congressional races. I certainly hope its being done.

            by chuco35 on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 03:20:35 PM PDT

            •  Re: links?

              "That's hard to believe."

              I agree it's slightly counter-intuitive.

              "Do you have any links to such studies?"

              Not at hand.  Try Google.

              "My understanding has always been that non-voting but registered voters tend towards..."

              FWIW, the studies I've seen are talking about the lack of difference between actual voters and all eligible adults, not registered non-voters.  But I'd guess registered non-voters would be similar as well.

              by NoDissentAllowed on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 03:32:48 PM PDT

•  I once worked for Mason-Dixon

  I was a part-time poll taker.

  As I M-D is a non-partisan organization, or at least bi-partisan.

  Anyway, I trust them more than I do Gallup.

  by Dmitri in San Diego on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:47:50 AM PDT

•  hmmm

  i'm in NC.

  i would be surprised to the point of a near heart attack if kerry somehow won this state. it's not very likely to happen at all.

  by Niky Ring on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:51:29 AM PDT

  •  NC

    I agree with Niky.  If Kerry wins NC, it means the election is most likely a rout. (which would not be a bad thing!)

    by cycleguy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:55:34 AM PDT

    •  rout...

      I distinctly recall my 5th grade school day on November 12, 1984.

      We had a substitute teacher that day, and I recall her asking the class: (imagine a really coniving, snide voice)

      "Does anyone know who won the presidential election last night?"

      20 kids trumpet back "Reagan!"

      "Yes! Does anyone know if it was close, or was it a landslide? Does anyone know what LANDSLIDE means?"

      That was perhaps the crowning moment in my hatred for Reagan. Being surrounded by a bunch of New Hampshire Reagankinder pledging allegiance to "great leader" with this clueless substitute as the ring leader.

      I'd rather not see a humiliating defeat of Bush in a way. Just look how sour the Republican milk was from 1992 to 2000.

      by gropo on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:13:09 AM PDT

      •  That's because

        they were never repudiated.  We want a land slide.  We want as many Americans in as many states to vote against the GOP and drive a stake through the heart of these ultra-right dominionists.

        The bigger the better.  If we somehow pullout NC and/or Tennessee, we're looking at 1980 in reverse.

        Realignment Jr.

        by Velvet Revolution on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:26:19 AM PDT

  •  It may be unlikely, but it's not impossible.

    There are still undecideds. IMHO Bush's popularity is basically static, he hasn't got a lot of room to grow because so many issues look bad for him, so all he has left to do is hammer on Kerry and Edwards. If Kerry and Edwards do make at least some effort here, if they reach out to the African American community, and the manufacturing communities here in NC and if they don't do anything stupid, they have a chance. This early in the game, there is enough time to make a difference.
    
    Stranger things have happened. Who would have expected Kerry's big win in Iowa? Things looked bad for him in the fall. And yet... here we are.

    by gogaddy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:03:38 AM PDT

  •  Don't be too sure

    I'm in NC also, and my sense is that a lot of Bush's support in the rural part of the state is soft. They probably won't vote for Kerry, but I wouldn't be willing to bet on them showing up at the polls either.

    by BrentN on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:17:38 AM PDT

    •  Soft support, exactly what I'm seeing

      I talk politics to a lot of people, and many of the proud Repubs that are friends of mine have really toned down their "Bush is great" rhetoric in the last few months. I would not be surprised if they didn't vote for anyone for President, based on what I am hearing them say. But if polled, they would probably say "Bush" out of principle. One NC friend of mine, a right-winger on everything but religious issues, told me she is going to vote for Nader. This is someone who last year told me that she was, and I quote, "in love with George W. Bush." Apparently the affair's over.

      by gogaddy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:28:03 AM PDT

      •  soft as heck

        Shoot, I live in Texas, in DALLAS (moneyed, selfish, republican) of all places, and talk politics often.

        A coworker of mine that's a conservative devout christian (abortion is murder type) won't vote for bush. Says stuff like "I might even vote for a democrat if they had anybody good". And "Bush has screwed things up so badly, I can't see him winning at all"

        Talk about soft support, if the jesus lovin cowboys down this way don't like Chimpy anymore. I mean, people love a winner, and lately Bush has the stink of loser about him.

        by naderhader on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:49:52 AM PDT

      •  Indeed

        I think there will be less of a turnout among the rural Christian vote for Bush.  I think one of the key mistakes Bush made was trying to stick his hand in every pot- dote on the Christian Conservatives, then dote on the CEOs.  In many rural areas, the very Christian Conservative people he's trying to woo are the same people left unemployed by the major downturn in manufacturing jobs.

        Many of the diehard Repubs I know (most of which I am, by some weird stroke of "luck", related to) are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by the party and are wanting to do a 2000 Nader-style "prove a point" thing.

        by noshenanigans on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

•  Latest NC Rasmussen poll is

  49. Bush
  42. Kerry

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/North%20Carolina%20July%206.htm

  by G35Guy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:54:32 AM PDT

  •  That poll is pre-Edwards though

    by FrenchSocialist on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:11:33 AM PDT

•  mason dixon MOE

  says 4% on the link given.  Also with those MOE's the poll results overlap.
  

  by puppet10 on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 09:55:00 AM PDT

•  Turnout adj yields 8 of W's 15 pt Gallup margin

  M-D is unadjusted, if I'm not mistaken

  by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:00:13 AM PDT

  •  I'd really be interested in

    seeing how Gallup makes its turnout decisions for a year like this.  They are completely guessing on that front and puts "fiction" after "scientific" polling.

    by Velvet Revolution on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:36:25 AM PDT

    •  Not guessing at all

      It's a historically valid statistical model.

      The question is, will this year be like most years?

      Gallup approach is more fundamentally sound -- it just may not give the right answer.

      by RonK Seattle on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 01:23:11 PM PDT

      •  Re: Not guessing at all

        "Gallup approach is more fundamentally sound..."

        Conventional polling wisdom is that you should use RV instead of LV data this far out from an election.

        It's basically too early to figure out what LV model to use...

        by NoDissentAllowed on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 02:28:24 PM PDT

•  How it's being covered in NC - dead heat

  THIS is how NC television is covering the Mason-Dixon poll:
  http://www.wral.com/news/3530033/detail.html
  "Mason-Dixon Poll: Presidential Race Considered Dead Heat In N.C."
  Results are in from the first statewide poll since North Carolina's John Edwards joined John Kerry in the race for the White House. From the numbers, the news is mixed.

  The WRAL-Mason-Dixon poll shows George Bush and John Kerry in a statistical dead heat in North Carolina. Just three points separate them, though the gap was closer three months ago. The undecided vote could make all the difference."

  (3% Bush margin MOE 4% makes it a statistical dead heat)

  Also the 20 point Kerry lead shown by Mason-Dixon poll in the Raleigh-Durham area will probably magnify itself in the polls with higher turnout in Edwards' home area of the state. Wake County (Raleigh) went 142,000 to 132,000 for Bush over Gore in 2000.

  .

  by dean4ever on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:04:45 AM PDT

  •  The aggravating thing about the Mason Dixon Poll.

    The last time they did a head to head matchup, it was Bush 48-41. Now it's 48-45. So Kerry has gotten a 4 bump bounce, likely from the Edwards selection. But they don't report that. This is what they do: because in the earlier poll they did a hypothetical question with Edwards that showed a 1 point Bush lead, they report that there has, in fact, been no bounce. Blatantly inaccurate. You cannot accurately compare trendlines of a hypothetical veep question to actual horserace data. I'm so tired of reporters having no idea how to report polls.

    by mattb25 on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:09:38 AM PDT

•  Gallup

  I'm curious.  There are several comments on this thread that bash Gallup as an inherently unreliable (or less reliable) pollster (see, for example here and here).   Does anyone have any actual data to back this up?  I know that Gallup's presidential track record is, over the years, quite good and their primary polls this year were as good as one can expect.  In fact, they were much better than SUSA and ARG and were significantly better than Zogby (caveat, Gallup didn't poll many primary states before the respectiv e primaries so I don't ahve that much data).  Moreover, Gallup has the (I think deserved) reputation for careful, thorough methodology and constant revision and checking of their models over time.  Of course, that doesn't mean that this poll is necessarily valid but I find the claims that Gallup is inherently biased a little odd.

   

  by Scott Pauls on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:06:15 AM PDT

  •  Blaming the Pollster

    "There are several comments on this thread that bash Gallup as an inherently unreliable (or less reliable) pollster (see, for example here and here).   Does anyone have any actual data to back this up?"

    If a poll shows bad things for the preferred candidate around dKos, some of the more sub-mental posters invariably blame the pollster for bringing bad news.

    While sometimes they think the pollster is just incompetent, usually they think the pollster is part of some ideological plot to defeat their candidate.  It's part of every dKos thread that involves a poll with bad news.

    They rarely worry about actual useful facts like the RV/LV issue raised above.  Instead, it must be because Gallup is corrupt or insane.

    More broadly, sub-mental folks never like being brought bad news.  See George Bush for one example.  See my relationship with dKos for another.  

    When I was arguing months ago that the popular candidate around here (Howard Dean) was going to get destroyed, either in the primaries, or if we were unlucky, in the general election, I was a pariah who got banned multiple times.  Now that I'm arguing that we're likely looking at a landslide for the preferred candidate around here (John Kerry) I'm a trusted user.

    by NoDissentAllowed on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:57:41 AM PDT

•  Edwards is more popular than Shrub

  According to the Gallup Poll (which I don't have in front of me), on Edwards beats Bush. Edwards is in the 60's whereas Bush is in the 50's. Unfortunately Kerry is in the 40's.

  Edwards beat Faircloth. I'm from Louisiana. Landrieu beat a right winger, Woody Jenkins, first time out. It was a knock down drag out fight. CW said she'd lose her re-election bid in '02. Well... guess what... Miss Mary is still in office. I have a feeling Edwards would have had the same result had he run for re-election this year.

  Can his popularity take Kerry over the top in NC? I don't know but Bush has to be worried about it.

  by Bidabunch on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:08:34 AM PDT

•  Raleigh rally a harbinger of D turnout

  The 25,000 turnout for Kerry and Edwards at a rally in Raleigh last weekend probably indicates a very high intensity level of D support in NC, especially the Raleigh-Durham area where Mason-Dixon shows Kerry with a 20 point lead. Organizers had hoped for 10,000 and when Saturday dawned with predictions of 96 degree temps (which is what the actual weather was) organizers then though 5,000 was a realistic number.  

  So if Gallup adjusted for turnout by BOOSTING Bush by 8 points as one poster above suggested, perhaps Gallup had it BACKWARDS.

  by dean4ever on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:13:06 AM PDT

  •  I saw the pictures

    and I doubt they really had 25,000.  It was a very impressive gathering, but campaigns always tend to exagerate their crowd numbers.

    by NickC on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:22:31 AM PDT

    •  Pics of K/E in Raleigh!

      Anyone care to do a head count... ? Just kidding. Link

      by gogaddy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:37:40 AM PDT

    •  25,000

      I was at the rally, near the BACK of the crowd. The size of the quad on which the rally was held is approximately 550 feet by 200 feet. (110,000 square feet) and it was JAM PACKED with people standing. I think 25,000 is a very realistic number in attendance.

      by dean4ever on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 11:04:43 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Local papers, relying on law enforcement estimates, reported 15k to 19k.  Still a good turnout on a blisteringly hot day.

      by Pontifex Minimus on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

•  Why does anyone pay attention to Gallup

  They are one of the worst polling agencies around.   I'll never forget the polls they put out in 2000, with Gore up by 6 one week, and Bush up by 8 the next.

  They are always way out there with there polling numbers.  Their format just can't be trusted or taken seriously.

  by NickC on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:19:56 AM PDT

  •  See my comment above

    Any evidence to this?  If, as in 2000, Gallup does a tracking poll that showed Gore up some weeks and Bush up others, it doesn't surprise me too much because, as you might recall, the election was close.  The only real way to judge their effectiveness is to compare a Gallup poll done as close to the election as possible with the actual vote totals.  With the data I have, Gallup has a pretty good track record of being within their margin of error.  

    For example, sitting in front of me, I have Gallup's data for the presidential elections from 1936 (when they started) through 1996.  That's 16 elections.  They were outside a 4% error (roughly their average moe), 4 times.  As a comparison, I'd note that I compiled data for SUSA, ARG and Zogby on this years primaries that were available.  SUSA  and ARG were outside MOE roughly 50% of the time while Zogby was outside around 25% of the time.    

    So again I ask: any data to back up this theory?

    by Scott Pauls on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:27:12 AM PDT

    •  Data

      I don't think there was really any serious criticism of Gallup's polling before 2000. I think all the complaints are related to their polling during 2000 and throughout the Bush administration. The example that the previous poster cited of Gore being up 6 points one week and Bush up 8 another is, as you said, not really surprising given the closeness of the race. But Gallup had almost daily swings along those lines, such as polling on 10-21-00 where Bush had an 11-point lead, and just three days later Gore a 1-point lead. And then three days after that, Bush was up again - by 13 points! There were pretty much no other polls in 2000 that reflected that kind of volatility, though there were quite a few bad polls skewed in Bush's favor, like Rasmussen and Battleground, which I think never showed Gore ahead.

      The major problem is Gallup's likely voters model which seems to skew Republican in most instances. If you can find their polling of registered voters from 2000, it was pretty much in line with most of the respectable polling of that time in depicting a close race all the way through. But since the late '90s, reporting of the r/v numbers has been jettisoned for the most part, so you tend to get the "Likely Voters: Bush Ahead By 14 Points" headlines. The bias in their l/v numbers is also reflected in the fact that Gallup has given Bush at least slightly higher approval ratings than other polls for the bulk of his presidency.

      by Shawn on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

      •  gallup polls

        The wild swings are some evidence of a methodological error in a single tracking poll.  Now, I would agree the the likely voter model is not particularly relevant (not to mention undefined) but alas, most pollsters seem to use it.  However, I would argue that Gallup's previous (and recent) performance still puts them among the more reliable pollsters.  

        Also, there is no way to know how wrong the tracking poll was without correct data with which to compare.  If (as you seem to above) you argue that the swings weren't reflected in other polls at the time, that is basically irrelevant - comparing polls with different methodologies is not statistically valid.  Looking at the three day averages and the six day averages it seems that there were a couple of days (around the 19-21st and 23-25th) where there were significant errors and everything else looks pretty good.  This could easily be attributed to a couple of days that landed outside the 95% confidence interval which happens, of course, 5% of the time.  In any tracking poll, you should expect this to happen at least once every couple of weeks or so.  That's why I was hoping for examples that showed a poll close to an election that was seriously off the final result.  

        by Scott Pauls on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 04:23:07 PM PDT

•  NC Politics

  As an (almost) lifelong NCian, I feel really strongly that NC is going to be a down-to-the-wire battle. The Gallup poll just doesn't match up with what I've seen here at all this year. On Tuesday, I wrote a piece over at the American Street about Democratic prospects in NC this year that you may find germane.

  North Carolina, despite perceptions, is one of the most Democratic states in the South. Don't be shocked at a close race.

  by apostropher on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:42:47 AM PDT

  •  Great piece, 'r

    I recommend anyone interested in thoughtful "why NC is in play" commentary go read Apostropher's column, linked above in his comment.

    by gogaddy on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 10:58:06 AM PDT

•  The stars have aligned.

  The NC GOP has been tearing itself to shreds over the past year. Bowles has (for now) a growing lead over Burr in polls. Burr is kneecapped by issues like big tobacco that are normally big pluses for a Thug candidate. And now we have Edwards to help drive up turnout.

  If we don't NC then we're going to come within about 3-5 points. Hopefully that will help elect Dem legislators and Bowles, and help solidify their hold on the state.

  Are there any competitive Congressional races?

  I do worry about Badnarik's polling...the Mason-Dixon poll had him drawing more black support than white support. That takes votes away from K/E.

  by JamesB3 on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 11:45:41 AM PDT

  •  Patsy Keever!

    One of the biggest tossups of the year is in the 11th district.  The 8th (Robin Hayes) leans republican, but is considered competitive.  And the 5th and 10th are open, but heavily Republican.  

    In general, the research triangle is heavily Democratic; the Charlotte, Ashville and Winston-Salem areas are marginally Democratic; everything else west of the research triangle is heavily Republican, wingnut even, and the Eastern half of the state is the swing region where elections are decided.  

    My understanding is that Kerry has a big lead in the Raleigh area where the rally was, but that he narrowly trails in the swing Eastern part, and trails badly in the west.  I predict the state will go down to the wire and be decided in the east.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 04:28:12 PM PDT

•  NC Rally Picture

  http://www.jacknichols.org?y=../viewentry&x=256789

  by KickinIt on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 11:52:25 AM PDT

•  All the state polls

  (according to realclearpolitics)

  I have a feeling I'm not the only one who's been obsessing about this and fully understand it's probably a bit premature. Nonetheless, if the election were held to the topmost polls shown in the state-by-state section of the above site, the outcome would be:

  Kerry 277
  Bush 261

  Here are the raw numbers....(apologies to those whose intelligence I insult with the parentheses)...

  For Bush:

  New Hampshire +1 (4 ev's)
  Arkansas +2 (6)
  Missouri +2 (11)
  Nevada +2.5 (5)
  North Carolina +3 (15)
  Ohio +4 (20)
  Wisconsin +4 (10)
  Colorado +5 (9)
  Virginia +5 (13)
  Louisiana +6 (9)
  West Virginia +6 (5)
  South Carolina +7 (8)
  Tennessee +10 (11)
  Georgia +11 (15)
  Arizona +12 (10)
  Kentucky +13 (8)
  Alabama +14 (9)
  Indiana +16 (11)
  South Dakota +16 (3)
  Texas +18 (34)
  Kansas +20 (6)
  Montana +20 (3)
  Idaho +30 (4)
  Mississippi +31(6)
  Oklahoma +32 (7)
  Utah +45 (5)
  Nebraska +? (5)
  Alaska +? (3)
  North Dakota +? (3)
  Wyoming +? (3)

  For Kerry:

  Maine +1 (4)
  Florida +3 (27)
  Michigan +3 (17)
  Iowa +4 (7)
  Minnesota +4.6 (10)
  Pennsylvania +5 (21)
  Washington +6.4 (11)
  Oregon +6.6 (7)
  New Mexico +7 (5)
  California +8 (55)
  New Jersey +10 (15)
  Maryland +14 (10)
  Vermont +15 (3)
  Illinois +16 (21)
  Connecticut +18 (7)
  Rhode Island +24 (4)
  New York +28 (31)
  Massachusetts +29 (12)
  Hawaii +? (4)
  Delaware +? (3)
  DC +? (3)

  With this thread in mind, I took the NC poll that shows GWB by 3, as the 15% jump seems a bit out of whack to me. And the question marks are ones not covered by that site, but they're all pretty obvious ones I think.

  by swanwilliam on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 03:19:23 PM PDT

  •  Re: All the state polls

    "All the state polls (according to realclearpolitics)"

    Zogby Interactive polls should not be taken very seriously.  Respondents are self-selected.

    by NoDissentAllowed on Thu Jul 15, 2004 at 03:27:23 PM PDT

•  can't win my home state blues

  FACT 1: Bush wins Texas, Cheney wins Wyoming

  FACT 2: kerry wins Mass.

  IN DOUBT 3. Edwards could easily  LOSE NC.

  What does it say about a Pres & Vice Pres candidates when home states aren't GUARANTEED?

  It probably means 4 more yrs of bush and you won't be able to blame nader this time.

  by political orphan on Fri Jul 16, 2004 at 06:10:35 PM PDT