New Composite Poll (April 27th) Bush 321-Kerry 217

[phillybri]

http://www.federalreview.com/compositepoll.htm

IT’S APRIL, SO IT’S ACADEMIC Bush 50.39 | Kerry 48.03
April 27, 2004

If I had to predict this election today, I’d see this race as I usually see Duke/UNC basketball games. One of three things will happen. Duke will win in a blow-out. Duke will win a close one. Or UNC will win a close one. But no way will UNC win a blow-out. I hope things are different next year, though.

In this election, Bush is Duke and UNC is Kerry. I see no way that Kerry can win a significant electoral victory in November. If history is a guide, Kerry won’t get more electoral votes than Clinton did in 1996, when he won 379-159. And Clinton won states where Kerry appears to have little chance – Tennessee, Arizona, Nevada and Louisiana.

But even though it’s early, Kerry shows significant weakness because he has failed to gain any ground during a recent avalanche of bad news for Bush. Some say that Bush has held up his numbers because of the rally-round-the-president factor, but I don’t think this is so. Recent polls show Bush has increased his job approval numbers, while Kerry’s negatives have risen. And Kerry’s negatives aren’t up because of Bush’s ad campaigns, as pollsters have found less disapproval increases in battleground states. Bush can attribute much of his success to Kerry’s return to making speeches in public – he really does make Dole look like he has passion and Gore look like he has pizzazz.

But it’s more than Kerry’s inability to connect with voters and be liked. In weeks when Bush trailed in the polls, he was rated low on domestic issues. If it’s the economy, stupid, then Bush will win because he leads on foreign policy. Why? The economy has rebounded and the voters are refusing to let it be talked down. In the recent ABC News poll, Bush outperforms Kerry on Terrorism, Iraq, Same-Sex Marriage, Taxes and Education and is tied or trails Kerry within the margin of error on the Economy, Job creation, Deficit, Prescription Drugs, Social Security and Health Insurance - The bread and butter of recent Democrat campaigns.

[joshdawg]

1. I will only say this:

If Bush* wins in November, it will be the result of one of two things: the election was rigged or the American voting public was brain-dead stupid!

[Snivi Yllom]

30. or possibly this

He can't connect with the public, he's unappealing on TV, but we'll nominate him anyway! Did we mention he's a war hero? They always win!

It's Bob Dole II. I am thoroughly discouraged so far.

[trumad]

2. Federal Review

What a stupid fucking site.....

[DarthReagan]

3. That's just plain mean (EOM)

[trumad]

12. Sorry

Let me put it in another context... The site is a piece of filty shit... Better?

[DarthReagan]

14. I'd answer, but I don't know what "filty" means

But I suspect it's not good.

[trumad]

16. and an H

[lancdem]

4. Kerry hadn't gained any ground because his strategy

is to keep a low profile and raise funds while Bush burns through his money, evening the playing field by late spring. And he has managed to keep the race close in so doing. That electoral projection is garbage. See this site: http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com

Undecideds go to the challenger, so Kerry is in fine shape.

[DarthReagan]

6. Smart strategy . . .

for Kerry to lay low and then come in with more money in the fall. You often see the mistake by candidates who early in the contest blow a lot of money in hopes of "defining" themselves, but it is often at a time when no one pays attention, so there are no dividends and the bank accounts get empty.

What do you see as the faults of the "garbage" projection?

[lancdem]

7. He's actually going to spend money in the coming months

when he'll be competitive with Bush money-wise. I say garbage because the writer is assuming Kerry will lose states Gore won in 2000, and I seriously doubt that will happen. Polls out since the WaPo and CNN polls show Kerry about even or trailing within the margin of error, but even more important, Bush's numbers are in the low 40s, and the undecideds are high. Undecideds overwhelmingly go the challenger (the average is 85 percent), so Kerry is in much better shape than meets the eye.

BTW, welcome to DU. :hi:

[DarthReagan]

10. I understand

I don't think this assumes that Kerry will lose states Gore won in 2000, but the polling indicates that he may . . . but it's early. All of the lightly colored states on the map should be considered toss-ups, this just allocates based on today. There's more data on the site including the projected margin for victory for each state. Most "lean" states are really statistical ties.

Dick Morris said 85% of undecideds break for the challenger. That doesn't conform to historical polling that I've seen.

But no, I don't think Kerry is in bad shape, though you'd have expected some bump with recent bad news in Iraq, Woodward's book, etc.

[bearfartinthewoods]

31. correct me if i'm wrong but

isn't the set up that both parties can spend the money the raise during the primary season, only until their convention, (ours in July and theirs in Sept). at that point, both are limited to the 90 million of federal matching funds which will have to last us from July to Nov and for them, only from Sept to Nov.

if this is correct, who's bright idea was it to schedule our convention so early and force us to stretch our money so much longer than the pubbies?

[lancdem]

5. All Kerry has to do is win the states Gore won in 2000

and capture Ohio, for example. That's very doable.

[dolstein]

19. Same old DU fallacy

Everyone around here is under the delusion that what Gore accomplished in 2000 should be a piece of cake for Kerry. But it wasn't even a piece of cake for Gore. And that was with the advantage of incumbency. The truth is that Gore's performance in 2000 is much closer to being a best case scenario for Kerry than a worst case scenario.

[David Dunham]

21. Dumb article. Undecideds in Nov. always break against incumbent.

[DarthReagan]

22. not true, undecides don't always break against incumbent (some don't vote)

Last Washington Post poll in 1992 was Clinton 43 Bush 35 Undecided 6. Final result was Clinton 43, Bush 37. Like I said, I don't know where Morris got his data.

[Josh]

27. Dick Morris has never been correct in a prediction

He said Dean would have the nomination by March 2, Schwarzenegger wouldn't get more than 25% of the vote, and that Bush would win the election with room to spare.

So he's going to be wrong about the 85% as well. The most common statistic I heard was that undecideds usually break 2-1 for the challenger, except in 2000 when they broke the other way for Gore - but that was probably because of the timing of the Bush DUI story.

[jfxgillis]

26. Well, you may be right but the projection is still stupid

The most recent polls in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania have a one point edge for Bush in Ohio, one point for Kerry in Florida and Pennsylvania is a dead heat.

No way any of those deserve even a SLIGHT designation.

If the instrument takes account of the 2000 results, as it claims, then you could argue for putting OH in the Bush column and PA in the Kerry column, but FL is still a dead heat.

Wisconsin's and Oregon's projections are too stupid to even dignify with an analysis.

[DarthReagan]

32. Stupid analysis? Stupid critique.

Well, since Oregon and Wisconsin were very close in 2000 when Gore won the national popular vote and polls today show a Bush lead in the national popular opinion (however slight), that's enough to swing Oregon and Wisconsin. In addition, recent polls in those states have shown Bush leads. The analysis is no more stupid than the data, so your complaint is with the voters of Oregon and Wisconsin.

And it takes into account the 2000 results. It isn't controlled by them.

All those states are dead heats, but I didn't want to copout with a map full of tossups. A slight change in polls toward Kerry and the map turns blue. This will show you trends very well.

[DarthReagan]

8. the map

Kerry gains Iowa from last week:

[WI_DEM]

9. I didn't know that Nevada seemed to be such a longshot

but it is far from over. In the fall, unless Kerry is totally arrogant--he should wipe the chimps face in the debates--that is if the chimp will actually debate. But he (Kerry) does need to be more aggressive on Bush and especially with Iraq. He needs to unite the Democratic party and bring many of the 2.7 million Nader voters from 2000 over--he isn't going to do it by being tepid towards Bush on Iraq, the war on Terror, or security.

Also, I still say Bill Richardson would be the best bet for VP. The Latino vote would be galvanized and right now New Mexico is leaning towards the chimp--that would change and the numbers would change dramatically in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado.

[Mattforclark]

11. Nevada isn't such a long shot

It should be quite competitive, especially if demographics there are going the way they seem to be going.

[Sean Reynolds]

13. Well that isn't going to change much for this election.

Nevada is still a very conservative state, as is Utah and the rest of the interior west region. Even though Utah, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona ARE all seeing a demographic change, it's not large enough quite yet to offset the current conservative population.

[Mattforclark]

18. One word...

Vegas.

Nevada went for Clinton both times, and Gore only lost it by around 1 percentage point.

In some ways, Nevada is sort of like the West's Pennsylvania, with the big city leaning D and the rural areas leaning R (though the rural areas probably have more relative power in Nevada than in Pennsylvania). It's Las Vegas with Utah/Idaho in between. :)

But you're right about Utah, and to a lesser extent Colorado and Arizona.

[eumesmo]

20. Nevada was Bush 50 Gore 46 Nader 2 Buchanan 1 nt

[Sean Reynolds]

24. Two words (ok, three). Denver and Salt Lake City

Both liberal cities inside conservative states. Plus Vegas is a pretty conservative city compared to Salt Lake City and Denver.

If Salt Lake City continues its growth, as well as Denver, these two states will be in play in about 20 years.

Colorado will make it before Utah however, because Denver is a much larger city than Salt Lake. SLC only has a population of about 181,500 people - sadly still too small in moderate Salt Lake County.

But the population can continue to grow, and in 20 years may be around 250,000 (with the county growing more and more liberal it may in fact be enough to throw Utah into the swing state column). Same thing goin on in Nevada too, but Vegas seems to be turning MORE conservative than it was 10 years ago.

[DarthReagan]

15. Latest Nevada poll had Bush up 11

Haven't seen anything new since mid March.

[Mattforclark]

17. That's a single poll, from a month and a half ago

with a result that is quite unexpected, considering Nevada's recent voting history. It's like those polls that show Kerry winning by 10 in Iowa, Bush winning by 10 in Wisconsin, etc. Polling can be wildly all over the place, especially with relatively small samples, and even in swing states. The previous poll, from a month before, had it at 49-48.

See:

http://www.surveyusa.com/currentelectionpolls.html

So I don't think that the one poll is good enough reason to conclude that Bush is solid in Nevada. If you don't have a tossup category, I would put it slightly leaning Bush, personally.

:)

[DarthReagan]

33. Single poll more recent than 2000 results

Additional polls will show how Nevada really stands.

[snippy]

23. There is no validity to your methodology.

There is no rationale, theoretical or otherwise, for averaging different polls, of different sample sizes of different universal sets, conducted at different times, by different organizations, for different purposes, and with different methodologies. It may be interesting, but it is meaningless.

[eumesmo]

25. I've had the same misgivings

with these types of studies, but can see some logic in it. The logic would be that the biases of the polls would offset each other and you get an average to approximate what's going on.

However, some polls have better track records than others, and more recent polls, by logic, should be more relevant than later polls.

[SEpatriot]

28. Goes down to the wire...

I'll try to spare you my Super bowl analogy... but the Duke/UNC analogy was good. Kerry (like the Pats) has to open it up now to win, can't rely on playing defense and keeping it close. VP decision should be bold, and maybe strategic - Edwards or Clark could turn around places like NC,VA,AR even TN and FL. But there may be bolder choices in this scenario. Kerry can sweep the left coast and all of New England, save NH. PA,OH,MI strung together with a few surprises, NV, WV and IA. Bush's negatives have to be cumulative and Kerry needs to catch fire by mid-summer to really get the big mo, but October will be crucial. (Will Bush find Osama?)

The electorate always waits to focus 'til October (last 5 minutes of 4th quarter). Kerry needs to start scoring some points now and not wait for Bush to tank himself -- which he just might by October.

[dusty64]

29. I think historical

voting trends should also be taken into consideration here. I really do not see such a large chimp advantage and find it hard to believe so many blue states will turn red after so many cycles of voting Democratic. Especially taking into consideration the complete mess the rightwing has made of this Country in such a short time. Polls or no polls, I just don't believe it.