New polls, MN, WI, IA

[fujiyama]

Alright here they are:

MN:

Bush Kerry Nader Badnarik Don’t Know
Two-person Race 45.8% 49.0% * * 5.2%
With Third Parties 44.2% 46.5% 4.6% 1.0% 3.8%

WI:

Bush Kerry Nader Badnarik Don’t Know
Two-person Race 48.4% 45.9% * * 5.7%
With Third Parties 46.1% 44.6% 4.0% 1.5% 3.7%

IA:

Bush Kerry Nader Badnarik Don’t Know
Two-person Race 45.7% 50.4% * * 4.0%
With Third Parties 44.4% 47.7% 2.7% 1.1% 4.1%

What the hell is wrong with democrats in some of these states? Over 5% are voting for Nader in MN?! WTF!?

http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/csp/elections/HumphreySurvey1.pdf

[Thrill]

1. Its just hard for me

to believe Nadar will get that type of turnout

[Amarant]

21. Well

if we had a progressive for President or VP (hell, even dean would due... at least he has the image of one) that wouldn't be the case. We are running a centrist ticket - as such no one should expect people on the very left to be very responsive to it.

It's pretty simple really. If you run a centrist ticket expect to get part of the middle but not the left if you run a progressive ticket expect to get he left but less of the middle. You can't have it both ways.

I'm 100% planning on voting straight democratic for EVERY position on the ballot here except president. (where I'm currently at around 80% sure) We have some GREAT progressive democrats running for every single office. It's probably the best group of candidates we've had in 20 years IMO. When I compare kerry to them, however, he's not so stellar, and this state isn't in play so it wouldn't matter rather I voted for him or not. I wish he would move farther to the left. I don't know when the party is going to figure out these pansy ass centrist campaigns don't work, and then go around asking "oh gee why did people vote green? I just don't get it".

[fujiyama]

27. Please keep an eye

on the polls. Some states which may not appear to be in play, may in fact be...

It would be worth considering voting third party, only if you lived in Utah, Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Alaska, or one of the Dakotas. Granted, there are safe democratic states as well, but I would never be confident enough (ok, maybe in Massachussets or New York).

[NMDemDist2]

2. they will poll high, then drop off just before the elections

no worries

[Beetwasher]

3. Never Heard Of This Outfit

:shrug:

WI is all over the place. I just saw a poll this week with Kerry up by like 10...

[spooky3]

6. Very little description of method; that's not good for an academic study.

Were these registered voters randomly selected? Polled by phone or stopped on the street? Response rate? Half the data were collected before Edwards was named, reducing an already small sample size for all the analyses re: whether Edwards made a difference.

Why a MN institute is writing a report about a U of CT study is puzzling.

Can we have any confidence in the finding that the Libertarian candidate is cutting into Bush support?

The report says details will be released July 21; maybe some of our questions will be addressed.

[goodhue]

14. HHH CSP 2004 Elections Project

http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/csp/elections/index.htm

University of Minnesota
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
Center for the Study of Politics
2004 Elections Project

The purpose of the 2004 Elections Project is to provide timely, non-partisan information about the 2004 elections. A principal focus of the project will be on the Upper Midwestern states of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, which have emerged as critical swing states in the 2004 national elections.

[LimpingLib]

4. Even when Nader gets 5%, it doesnt seem to hurt Kerry.

In Minnesota Kerrys lead gos from 49.0%-45.8% to 46.5%-44.2% a net loss of 0.9% though Nader pulls in 4.6%

In Wisconsin your data actualy helps Kerry 1.0% (unless you switched Bush and Kerrys numbers by mistake)as Bush's lead gos from 48.4%-45.9% down to 46.1%-44.6% with Nader getting 4.0%

In Iowa Kerry's lead shrinks the most from 50.4%-45.7% down to 47.7%-44.4% with Nader getting 2.7% BUT I dont think Nader is the cause because Kerrys total drop is 2.7% (same as Nader gets and Nader in reality only hurts Kerry like Gore about 1/4th of his actual vote total)plus if you add Bush's and Kerry's total vote drops and compare it to the 3rd partys then you will find the total drop is higher than what the 3rd partys get.


I am one of those people who dont think we should care whether 3rd partys "hurt" other canidates but all evidence I have seen indicates that in 2000 Nader might not have hurt Gore and infact if we hadnt tryed so hard to undermind Nader then the new registered voters he would have brought in 2000 would strengthen us in mid term plus future presidental elections.

I also agree with the poster above that says Nader's vote will diminish as we get closer to election day (sadly it happened in 2000 rather sharply and will happen this time)and yet another 4 year period is lost where we could have begun to build a strong progressive foundation toward the future and as such Democrats (yes Democrats!)will suffer with fewer liberal voters registered. Infact if we narrowly loose this time it will be BECAUSE of our intense diminishing and belittling of Nader in 2000
which cause many potential progressive voters to not care about registering .

According to exit polls 32% of Naders 2.7% were voters who wouldnt have supported either major canidate (the rest slightly prefered Gore over Bush though nearly a quarter would have voted for Bush)and many were new voters.As somebody who strongly supported Nader in 2000 , you can thank me if Kerry wins a tiny margin of victory in a few key states.Because people like me who supported Nader in 2000 (despite all the the poo poo'ers propaganda) were what kept him alive enough
to get enough new progressive voters registered and are once who will vote for Kerry this time and Democrats everywhere.

[sundancekid]

10. adding to your great analysis, we need to remember that fully 14%

of democrats voted for b* in 2000, while only 5% of repubs voted for Gore ... hopefully, campaign strategists will have located (which states and which electoral votes "swing" and "battleground") the areas where the 2000 dems strayed to b*&co!

[demwing]

5. Your Numbers Have Nader at 4.6%

in MN, not "over 5%"

Am I reading this wrong or what?

[slappypan]

7. What's happening in WI?

Thought Gore won WI in 2000.

[Zynx]

8. Very narrowly.

6,000 votes out of over more than two million.

[mzmolly]

9. That's Minnesota. I hope we come around when push comes to shove.

*sigh*

THIS IS WHY NADER IS A CONCERN.

[goodhue]

12. indeed

A big concern. And belittling Nader does not really help get these swing votes either. Dennis showed a clear path to getting these votes but was largely ignored by party. It would help greatly if green Cobb or his running mate came to MN and actually plugged Kerry. I'm not sure how closely Kucinich will actually campaign with Kerry post-convention, but a joint appearance in Minneapolis in October would be huge.

The bottom line is that here in MN the progressive swing is as important if not more important than the middle swing. Remember Nader got 6% here in 2000. No reason to think he can't get half of that this time around. The conventional wisdom "thinkers" in DC have blinders on when it comes to this problem. This is Wellstone country.

[mzmolly]

15. I think Dennis will help a great deal as he and Edwards are friends.

Remember the vote swap in Iowa?

As for belittling Nader, I intend to expose him just like I intend to expose Bush. And, I'll sleep quite well doing both ;)

Speaking of Wellstone, Nader wanted him to lose too, which is part of the reason for my contempt for Mr. N.

[LimpingLib]

16. Huh?

Minnesota is Kerrys strongest state of the 3 (like it was for Gore in 2000)and though less than 0.9% of "support" for Kerry is lost it is more than made up for in Wisconsin which several polls have showed Nader hurting Bush to the tune or 1%.

I really think you dont get it. 3rd partys will run in many states and get about 2% of the vote, it happens every election. There are many many (like dozens) of minor partys the media never covers plus some left wing canidates that only run in a single state . Evidence show that if you look just at Naders total in 2000 then he "hurt" Gore 0.7% (47% of naders 2.7% would have voted for Gore but 21% would have voted for Bush) but honestly he probabily took most of that in reality from left wing 3rd party canidates who decided not to run or campaign when Nader decided to run.The liberal voters who leaned toward voting Gore would have been so soft that they would have in many cases voted for some progressive 3rd party canidate.

Nevemind the fact that the Libertarian and Reform party canidate took more than the 0.7% Nader took net from Gore (and probabilly he ook even less from Gore if you consider all the local and smaller left wing canidates who would have run and gotten those "Gore votes").

Democrats have engaged in soem pretty crooked tactics (peraps illegal) to kill a credible 3rd party canidate from building a progressive movment for us all in the future. Im suprized you want to be one of the last to keep proudly piling on Nader (the widly discredited comment about support for Wellstone is unreal). Id be embarrased voter turnout is going to yet again be so low and the sad fact is that had Nader not been so underminded in 2000 and yet again in 2004 then whatever additional voter turnout could have come this time would have been progressive populists.

Id really be ahamed on election night looking at the low turnout if I were you.

[mzmolly]

19. Actually Democrats have engaged in legal tactics that are common

and even used against one another. Nader is simply whining (playing the victim) again.

As for your comment about how "I don't get it" I was a registered independent until the year 2000, I GET IT.

Regarding your statistics, we have an electoral college. The numbers you provide don't appear to take that into consideration?

However, Nader could swing the election to Bush, again. He takes more votes from Kerry then Bush in poll after poll, and this election is too close for Ralph to toy with.

Discredited comment about Wellstone? Nader admited to saying this time and time again.

Perhaps your not familiar with this quote:

"Regarding Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Nader said that he is willing to sacrifice them because "that's the price they're going to have to bear for letting their party go astray." In an interview with In the Times, 10-30-2000

Letting the party go astray? :eyes:

"Nader was quoted in Mother Jones magazine as saying that "(Rush) Holt deserves to lose." July 2001, Mother Jones magazine.
Holt, however, has a 100% voting record rating from Americans for Democratic Action, and many other liberal organizations."

Got one more quote for ya:

"The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn't get the message last time." :puke: Nader. Ralllph is right.

As for how Nader impacts this election see here:

http://dontvoteralph.org/pollwatch.htm



I don't have a problem with third party's, I do have a problem if one who claims to be a progressive helps Bush. You won't see me bitch about Cobb. I greatly respect him, he's a real progressive who doesn't talk out of his a*s.

[WI_DEM]

11. all three states are very close

It is sad to see that Bush is ahead in Wisconsin but other polls have indicated this as well. It will be close but Kerry can still win it here.

[goodhue]

13. "What the hell is wrong with democrats in some of these states?"

In Minnesota and Wisconsin the democratic party cannot take the progressive vote for granted. Many of these folks actually left the democratic party in the 1990s, as they felt Clinton was too conservative and corporate. They need to be wooed back and so far Kerry is not even trying. Kucinich and Dean brought some of these folks back into the party for March caucus but I'm afraid that a good number are not sticking with the democrats.

[MsUSA]

17. a direct hit on the nail head goodhue......

Wisconsin, i.e. Madison has always been way more progressive then the rest of the state. Being from Madison, born and bred, I didn't vote for Clinton either.....I will be voting for Kerry, but I sure wish he'd at least attempt to smooth talk the further left wing into his fold.

[The Commie]

20. Many people in the rural areas...

... around here are economically liberal, but conservative socially. The repugs have fanned the flames of culture war so my fellow rural upper-midwesterners think abortion and gay marrige are important issues.

:puke:

[no name no slogan]

24. Speaking as a fellow MNan who voted Nader in 1996 & 2000

AND speaking as a former Dem party activist from the late 80s/early 90s, I can fully back up the statements goodhue made. Clinton/Gore did a hell of a job driving the progressive vote from the Democratic Party-- so good a job that for the first time, a DFL gubernatorial candidate actually finished in THIRD place in 1998 AND 2002, behind the GOP and the newly-formed Independence Party.

The DFL has basically been rudderless since the mid-90s, when progressives left the party in droves to support the nascent MN Green Party-- so much so that the Greens are now one of the four major parties in MN due to their 5%+ finish in 2000.

Some of these former Green voters may well return for the presidential election this year (like myself, and many others), but a good portion of them are also gone for good, given the "old boys club" nature of many local DFL organizations and the DFL's apparent general apathy toward progressive activists and organizations of late.

It will be close in MN this year, no doubt about it. I don't know if we're a "swing state" necessarily, but Kerry will not take MN by the margins that even milquetoast Dems like Mike Dukakis won in 1988.

[featherman]

18. I always keep in mind that WI has voted DEM

for the last four presidential elections. It may be close but I believe turnout is our friend in my former home state and that WI will remain blue with half the Nader leaners and 2/3 of undecided breaking to Kerry in the last two weeks. All DEMS must continue to work hard and take nothing for granted everywhere.

[Sparkly]

22. Wisconsin polls seem to vary widely

Overall, the polls are looking good, but you are absolutely right -- we can't take anything for granted and have to get out the vote!

[louis c]

23. I like Zogby better

Wi, Kerry by 9%



http://www.zogby.com

[DaveSZ]

25. Kerry/Edwards can't take for granted progressives

The best thing though, would be for progressives to take back Congress.

This way they can control the agenda.

[louis c]

26. Kerry/Edwards

should have the support of anyone who wants to remove Bush.

this is not the time to hold their feet to the fire. Didn't you notice that anytime we do that, Fox News gets all giddy. They're dying for a split in our ranks.

[fujiyama]

28. The shouldn't necessarily

be taken for granted, but those on the far left should understand that a vote for anyone other than Kerry, is NOT a vote against Bush, but is rather a wasted vote. It is foolish not to vote for the only candidate that can remove Bush.

Also, while I would love for dems to take back congress, it's very unlikely that'll happen anytime soon, because of the many gerrymandered districts. I do believe the dems will make some gains in congress, and will hopefully take back the senate (also tough, but more likely than taking back the house).