Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Today's Polls, 6/24

Why haven't the Democrats thought about nominating a Midwestern candidate before? States like Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri have all traditionally been swing states, giving the region the most fertile electoral soil on the map, winnable by either party in any given cycle. Two new polls today suggest that having a Midwestern candidate in Barack Obama may be paying dividends to the Democrats.

In Indiana, SurveyUSA has Obama with a 1-point lead on John McCain. A couple of other polls, including one conducted by SurveyUSA in April, had also shown a lead for Obama. But that polling had been done in the run-up to the state's primary, and the results frankly seemed aberrant. For Obama to continue to be battling Indiana to a draw is fairly impressive, and puts a state in play that the Republicans probably never expected they'd have to defend.

Apart from Obama being a Midwesterner, the explanation for his results in Indiana may be as simple as this: the Democrats had never really bothered to compete in the state before, until the presence of an important primary there forced them to. Certainly, Indiana has been reliably Republican for a long time -- in 1992, Bill Clinton won every state bordering Indiana, but did not win Indiana itself. But that should also have provided a hint that there is nothing about Indiana that makes it demographically impossible for the Democrats; Democrats have found success in each of its neighbors. If Obama can hold his deficit in Southern Indiana to 10-12 points, tie in the small, industrial towns of Northern Indiana, and rack up 20+ point margins in Indianapolis and the Gary/Hammond region bordering Chicago, he can win the state.

Just to Indiana's north, Public Policy Polling shows Obama with a 9-point edge in Michigan. Although Obama's numbers in our Michigan polling averages still lag just a little bit behind those in Pennsylvania and Ohio, the state seems to be making up for lost time, breaking out of its state of self-imposed exile from the primary process. Michigan was by far John McCain's best opportunity to play offense in a Kerry state, and while it may tighten again if the national polls do, it might also eventually revert to its traditional position of polling about 3-5 points better for the Democrats than their numbers nationwide.

Finally, in New Mexico, SurveyUSA has Obama ahead by 3. While Rasmussen has usually shown New Mexico as an Obama state, SurveyUSA's last poll had shown the state tied. Obama is leading 63-34 among Hispanic voters in this poll, who make up about 30 percent of New Mexico's electorate.

60 comments

Alex said...

Thanks for the update Nate. A new LA Times national poll just came out, too, with Obama up 49-37 heads-up and 48-33 with Nader and Barr included. Perhaps the Newsweek poll was not as large an outlier as we thought?

Nate said...

I saw that, and the poll did get included in the trend analysis. This is probably the best polling day for Obama since the Quinnipiac polls came out. But my best guess at where the race stands is embodied in the graph you see just to the left of you -- Obama is ahead by 5-6 points.

Falsehood said...

Obama's bounce isn't receding.

Interseting stuff; thank, Nate.

Aaron said...

Yes, Nate- will you please comment on the new LA Times poll? Another outlier, or a confirmation of Newsweek?

Anonymous said...

Republican senator runs Pro-Obama ad

Link

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I think the dynamics of this election can be summed up simply.

ObamaLover: Pls vote for Obama, he is the best hope of bringing us back from the wrong path the country is currently headed.

Independent: (and racial bigots): I can't vote for him, he is naive, inexperienced, liberal, democrat, pro-choice (and black).

ObamaLover: F@@k you, what'u gonna do? Vote Mccain?

Anonymous said...

I heard an interesting line the other day - McCain cant win, but Obama can lose. In other words, he is in the drivers seat. Seeing polls that he is up 10%+ reinforce that, even if it is only the end of June.

Aaron said...

Sorry Nate- I posted before I saw your comment.

I was looking at the MO numbers- is there an error? There are two SUSA polls from 5/17 that show different Ns and different results.

Anonymous said...

North Dakota is inching ever closer to blue litmus instead of red...

Nate said...

Aaron,

Nope, SurveyUSA released two different Missouri polls that covered the exact same time period. It's a little weird, I know.

Anonymous said...

There is a 54% gender disparity in SUSA NM poll.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=31e69724-cf94-4dbc-b14b-961f53d67e39

W
T
F
?

Anonymous said...

Nate asks:

"Why haven't the Democrats thought about nominating a Midwestern candidate before?"

Because Democrats consider Midwesterners to be knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Only "real people" like Coastal Elites are capable of understanding the enlightened ways of taxation and infanticide.

My Barack Is The Man said...

The new LA Times poll is very interesting. It's GREAT news for Obama across the board. But I thought most interesting was that they say Nader takes more votes from McCain than Obama! I think what's happening here is Nader & Barr are drawing RACIST votes from McCain. There's really no other way to see this. It's pretty obvious. Why would anyone who would vote for Nader be voting for McCain over Obama unless they are a racist? I'm sorry but I just can't think of any rational reason.

Anonymous said...

""Only "real people" like Coastal Elites are capable of understanding the enlightened ways of taxation and infanticide.""

Actually, when it comes to infanticide, no one is more prolific than nature (i.e. "God").

Another Mike said...

"Michigan was by far John McCain's best opportunity to play offense in a Kerry state . . . ."

I've always thought McCain had better chances in NH than MI.

Anonymous said...

I saw an article, can't remember where, that said Nader probably draws alot of disgruntled Hillary supporters who would have otherwise voted McCain -- that's why Obama polls better with Nader in the race as opposed to without Nader.

Erik said...

"Why haven't the Democrats thought about nominating a Midwestern candidate before?"

Because they did and then George McGovern (SD) and Walter Mondale (MN) got their asses handed to them? (And Hubert Humphrey (MN) lost to Nixon as well.)

Brent said...

Is it possible to get a map showing where we are at in each state and compare it to where things will probably end up according to your estimates. I would really like to see the comparison and progression. thanks again for this site, its great. Have been following it daily

niq77174 said...

Granholm isn't eligible.
Hot Rod is totally corrupt.
Ted Strickland's been in office for two years.
The governor of Indiana wasn't very popular by the time he left office.
ed Rendell has foot-in-mouth disease.

That leaves Jim Doyle, plus a bunch of Senators, none of whom, other than Russ Feingold and evan Bayh, have ever shown much interest in being President. And I think it's clear Bayh passed on running in 2004 because he didn't think it was a good year to run, and that he might run in 2008. Feingold has pissed off so many people I don't think he could raise the scratch.

So the answer to your question is "there's no one to run". I guess Tom Harkin or Dick Gephardt if you count those two states.

justin said...

Finally a new poll from Indiana! I was cautious of the earlier Indiana polls as they were done when Barack was paying all his attention to the state due to the primary so I thought that those polls may have overstated his actual support but this poll has to be devastating for McCain.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know what's up with the Indiana poll? The party ID numbers only add up to 93%.

Kiran said...

Having grown up and gone to college in Indiana one thing that I've noticed is how good a bell weather St. Joseph county is.

Bush beat Kerry by 2.4%, won the nation by 2.5%

Gore beat Bush by 0.2%, won the national vote by 0.5%

Go back to '96 and Clinton/Dole/Perot splits are almost identical

Go back to '92 and its slightly less good but still very very close