Yes folks, it's officially political junk time. Barack Obama will spend tomorrow in the 39th state, North Dakota, and John McCain will spend tomorrow in the 51st state, Mexico. [North Dakota] hasn’t gone for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. It’s been reliably “red” in presidential contests for 40 years. The suggestion that the state is taking on a shade of purple – it could go either way – seems ludicrous, especially to Republican faithful who can’t conceive of North Dakotans tilting blue. Well, that’s what Republicans thought about New Hampshire, where Bill Clinton won twice, where Sen. John Kerry won in 2004 and where George W. Bush won by a thin single point in 2000 over Al Gore. The state’s Democratic governor won re-election in 2006 with a whopping 74 percent of the vote. Political winds change. North Dakota is not New Hampshire, but at least one public poll and several “internal” polls suggest Obama has a chance to beat McCain in the Peace Garden State. The polls are intriguing because they are the first indications that North Dakota’s 40-year Republican grip on presidential politics is not as strong as it once was. Not weak, mind you, but not a guarantee. [...] If Obama can challenge in a state that’s gone for the Republican candidate since 1964, he can challenge anywhere. [...] State Republican Party officials tend to dismiss Obama’s appeal to North Dakotans. But remember, these are the same people who endorse congressional candidates [...] who rarely get an anemic 30 percent of the vote against Democratic incumbents. These are the same people who grudgingly support Gov. John Hoeven only because he’s wildly popular; some of them believe he’s not “Republican enough.” Their analysis of Obama’s chances is partisan boilerplate. No one should conclude that Obama has a lock on North Dakota. He certainly does not. But given the surprises in this year’s presidential campaign, it would be unwise to assume McCain has the lock. That’s the dynamic the Obama campaign senses, and that’s one reason he’s in North Dakota today. 
But a quick sampling of what visiting a state like North Dakota can do for you: check out this editorial from the Fargo Forum, which endorsed George W. Bush in 2004:
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Something You Probably Never Expected to See
-- Nate Silver at 2:40 AM
Labels: north dakota
40 comments
Why have there been no recent polls or more recent from Ohio, Indiana, MONTANA, ALASKA, NORTH DAKOTA(never), MISSOURI(important swing state) or Nevada?.
Why always NY and CA?
North Dakota will only vote for Obama in a 1964/1984-style landslide. So far, there is no indication that this will happen.
Why there is no indication than Obama can win ND?
There are polls? Never in ND or Montana.
Why? Obama is with tv ad in the states.
anon,
Because Obama, by all accounts, has a mid single-digit lead over McCain nationally. George Bush won ND by 27 points in 2000 and 2004. The electorate in ND is essentially made up of the same people that rejected the liberal John Kerry. This is not a situation of demographic shifts like we are seeing in VA and NH.
Obama's positions on issues are not measurably any different than Kerry's. There is simply no reason to believe that Obama is going to overcome a 27-point defecit in ND, unless or until he can gain a solid double-digit national lead.
And to follow up, I'm not saying "No He Can't" win ND. It's just that in before he has any chance to do so, he's going to first need to nail down OH, MO, NV and FL.
There's no indication of a landslide yet, and there's no indication that there can't be one. I think the whole point here is that McCain shouldn't assume he has ND simply because it isn't the reddest state and it's so far away from the election still. Also, this very site gives Obama over a one-in-four chance of a landslide currently, but again this is largely because we are so far away from the election. The less McCain assumes now, the better off he'll be. Otherwise, he might indeed be facing a landslide come November.
Anon,
McCain shouldn't take any state for granted and it wouldn't kill him to spend an afternoon or two at a town-hall in Bismarck, but unless he starts to tank in FL or MO or NV, he'd be wise not to spend a dime there.
It's always a good idea for a presidential candidate to spend Independence day in Mexico. Mexico's electoral votes could make all the difference in this election.
As someone who lived in North Dakota for 36 years, I find it hard to believe that a Democratic Presidential candidate could win there. Then again, I've read the Fargo Forum for years and years and that is just about as foreboding as it gets. I'll suspend disbelief and think that ND is in play. It would be fantastic to see it go blue.
"If Obama can challenge in a state that’s gone for the Republican candidate since 1964, he can challenge anywhere."
More utter idiocy from the irrelevant peanut gallery. This race features changing demographic alignments. Simply because one state changes means little nationally. For instance, West Virginia was won handily by Bush in a close election in 2000 - although it had been won by the Dems in every election since 1932 except the landslide defeats of 1956, 1972 and 1984 (the Dems don't have a good "since 1964" because they get routed more often). If Bush could win in one of the most reliably Democratic states could he win anywhere? Rubbish.
Obama is ahead by about 3-5 points in the polls, so clearly he is not in landslide territory. He might get there, but the fact that formerly safe states are becoming open is interesting more for the long term implications of shifting demographics (and worth explaining), than for the implications of this for Obamellatio.
Guess that SUSA poll in February showing Obama up 46-42 over McCain in North Dakota was a mirage. Must be North Dakota's shifting demographics.
I've been following the Obama-Kerry race myself. I have it now at approximately 441-97, with the only states Obama "losing" are the bluest of blue states and Arizona. In case you can't guess, Obama "wins" where he runs closer or wider than Kerry, and "loses" when his margin isn't as large as Kerry's.
So far, it's a landslide, and contrary to what everyone has told you since 2004, Kerry lost a very, very close race. Of course, phalanxes of Bushie vote padders helped. Not sure they'll be around this time, though...
Oh man HosertoHoosier, I see what you did there. You took the name "Obama", and combined it with the word "fellatio." My goodness that's just plum hilarious.
I looked the exit poll from Nevada in 2004.
Kerry lost by only 21.000 vote.
For me, it's impossible for Obama lose in Nevada with the big turnout.
Las Vegas and Clark County will be big this year.
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/
http://us.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NV/P/00/epolls.0.html
New Rasmussen poll out today for Montana. Obama leading McCain 48-43. I would think this suggests that much of the map is in play this election.
Hey, Anonymous (7:51 AM): there is no such MT poll that I can find. the latest shows McCain up by a comfortable 8%. The West will prove infertile ground for the easterner, Barack Obama.
There is an epxression, that cannot be used in polite comapny,a bout folks who wind up with too much money too fast. Obama's recent behavior shows that he may fall pray to the monicker.
I am happy to watch him waste his money in quixotic campaign unlikely to yield much in the way of results and probably help Republicans on the down ballot do better as those who oppose (and fear) him come out in even bigger numbers.
I stand correct -- there is such a MT poll. The rest of my comments stand!
There is an epxression, that cannot be used in polite comapny,a bout folks who wind up with too much money too fast. Obama's recent behavior shows that he may fall pray to the monicker.
There's an expression that can be used in a polite company about folks who try to use ten cent words with 5 cent spelling and grammar - "racist dufus".
Just saw the Montana poll anon 8:10. That's huge. One poll doesn't make a confirmed lead, but Rasmussen has been relatively accurately, though tending to find lower numbers for Obama in previously red states, so a poll like this is definitely a good sign.
Can't wait for Nate's analysis of today's polls now.
The "Where They Are Thursday" graphic is from Time's "The Page." You may want to cite it...
Amen, Spike. That's very good.
</