Poll: Kerry gaining in key Midwest states

[unfrigginreal]

By Jeff Zeleny and John McCormick
Chicago Tribune staff reporters
Published October 13, 2004

CHICAGO -- Sen. John Kerry has improved his standing over President Bush in four Midwestern battleground states where domestic concerns of health care and the economy have overtaken the issues of terrorism and Iraq, a new Chicago Tribune poll shows.

snip

The separate, state-by-state polls found Kerry to hold slim leads over Bush in Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota, while Bush maintained a narrow advantage in Iowa. But the findings of the surveys, which questioned 500 likely voters in each state, fall within a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

snip

Of the four states, Bush's approval rating is lowest in Ohio, where factory closings and unemployment hang like a cloud over the president's re-election hopes. No Republican has made it to the White House without winning Ohio, and just two presidential candidates since 1892 have won without the state.

While many Republicans had recently believed that Bush was in good position in the state, the Tribune poll found that only 43 percent of likely voters in Ohio say they approve of the job Bush is doing, while 50 percent disapprove. Seven percent say they have no opinion.

Bush's approval rating is a few points higher in Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin, but remains below 50 percent in all three states.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/nationworld/sns-poll,0,5922495.story?coll=sns-newsnation-headlines

[JuniorPlankton]

1. Nice! n/t

[calimary]

2. Add this to the little whiffs coming out about the bushies more or less

giving up on Pennsylvania... (It's alleged, anyway.)

Even so, NO TIME TO GET COMPLACENT!!!

[NicRic]

3. To close for comfort !

Of course news that Kerry is ahead is much better then it being close with him behind. I just cant get that uneasy feeling that it being this close gives the repugs the oppertunity to steal another out from under us ? I like super bowl games to be close and exciting ,I would prefer something with so much at stake as this election that we had a comfortable lead. I've already bitten off all of my nails. Kerry has clearly won both debates, if he wins debate #3 ,how could the American voters put a 3 time loser who was never elected to the office in the frist place , back where he dos'nt belong. I read a story that bush has history on his side ,no war time President has ever lost a re-election bid. However ,was it not bushes fathers losing that also go against history ,I cant recall the exactly what it was that went against history ,anyone recall ! Just as records are made to be broke ,so are historical trends. Like father like son ,a one term loser !

[louis c]

5. Some War Time Presidents Couldn't Get Nominated

Truman was eligible to run in 1952, but chose not to when his Korean war time popularity sunk to 35%. The voters changed party by electing Eisenhower.

Lyndon Johnson ran for the nomination, but dropped out when it became apparent that he couldn't get nominated because of his performance and lies concerning Viet-Nam. All observers of that 1968 election know that Bobby Kennedy would have won as an anti-war candidate if they didn't put a bullet in his head. Humphrey, the VP, picked up the mantle of the incumbent and lost to that piece of shit Nixon.

While our hostages were held in Iran, Carter lost the election of 1980. It wasn't war time, but it was a foreign crisis.

Wilson won in 1916 on a platform to keep us out of WWI. After the war, the Republicans took control of the White House and Congress. There was no "War Time Incumbent".

So, in modern times, incumbents have been driven from office in time of war. The only one to run and win was Roosevelt in WWII, and there are a lot of circumstances that differ. That certainly wasn't a war of choice, and FDR had pulled us out of a depression. I know a lot of Repukes like to say that incumbents don't lose in time of war, but the facts are that two had to give up without a fight, Johnson and Truman. Two won, Roosevelt and Nixon (1972). In both the later cases, the war was not of their making, in the eyes of the voter at the time. In the former cases, both Presidents Johnson and Truman were blamed for the conflict.

Bush is more like the Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin vs WMD) model than all the others, and Johnson had a good economy but couldn't even carry the NH primary.

[louis c]

4. I follow all the polls

and if this one is correct, Kerry wins easy.

I sure hope you're right.

The trends that I see confirm these numbers.

Ohio just can't vote for the incumbent with the job loss they have incurred.

[unfrigginreal]

6. The Ohio trend is especially sweet with the rumors that Bush

is conceding PA. I hope it's right as well.

[liberal N proud]

7. Looking Good

Perks me up better than a cup of coffee.