Take heart: Kerry has solid lead over Bush in new Ohio poll

[Thomas Veil]

Article (http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/108452723289790.xml)

Democratic challenger John Kerry pulled significantly ahead of President Bush in the critical swing state of Ohio this week, according to a poll of likely voters released Thursday.

Kerry had a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Bush in the telephone poll of 600 Ohio voters interviewed by American Research Group between Monday and Wednesday. Independent Ralph Nader registered 2 percent in the poll, and 7 percent of voters said they were undecided.

The poll has a 4 percent margin of error.

Both Bush and Kerry have indicated that Ohio tops the list of their "must win" states, and no Republican has been elected president without winning Ohio. New Hampshire pollster Dick Bennett said voters interviewed by his firm indicated they were upset about rising gasoline prices and the war in Iraq, and were more negative about Bush than positive about Kerry.

Bennett said that polls he has previously conducted in swing states were virtually tied, except for a New Hampshire poll at the end of March that found Bush ahead by 5 percentage points. Earlier polls conducted in Ohio showed the candidates in a dead heat.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, it's only one state's poll, and yes, it's a snapshot in time, but Ohio is a quite accurate predictor of presidential winners.

Now if Kerry will only capitalize on this by coming out fighting. My biggest criticism of him is that he seems to be running a rather lethargic campaign.

[Voltron]

Let's look at the battleground states first:

Missouri +3 Arkansas -3 Pennsylvania +7 Iowa -5 Maine -5 Ohio -4 West Virginia -3

These numbers suggest that Bush is ahead in Pennsylvania, which he lost last time, and behind in Ohio, which he carried last time. The results in the other states would be the same. This would be a net gain for Bush of 1 electoral vote.

What reasons could there be for Pennsylvania and Ohio to move in opposite directions? Ohio has suffered from job losses in manufacturing more than Pennsylvania. And Pennsylvania has a bigger mass of affluent suburbs, in the ring 50 miles around Philadelphia, in which Bush ran far behind previous successful Republicans. One hypothesis I have advanced is that Bush might run better among affluent suburbanites in 2004 now that his opponent is promising to raise taxes on high-income earners. Perhaps the Pennsylvania numbers are evidence of this.

Now let's look at the nonbattleground states:

Bush margin larger .............. Bush margin smaller
Alabama +4 ....................... Kansas -3
California +3 ...................... North Carolina -6
Louisiana +6 ...................... Oklahoma -10
Maryland +12 ..................... Utah -8
Massachusetts +5 .............. Vermont -5
New Jersey +10
New York +8
Tennessee +4

...

So far, both candidates have limited their time buys to 18 or 19 battleground states, covering 34 to 36 percent of the nation's voters. If these polls are accurate—again, a big if—they could bring into play states covered by the New York, Baltimore, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Central Valley media markets—another quarter of the nation's population. That will present tough decisions for both sides. If these states do turn out to be in play, this election will look less like 2000 and somewhat more like 1988, when New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California all voted Republican by narrow margins.


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040511.htm

[Backtothemac]

He will carry Alabama. Count on that. A democrat hasn't carried Alabama in God knows how long.

[Neserk]

Voltron, what is your margin of error on those numbers? They really can't be interpreted without a margin of error...

[skunk]

Voltron, what is your margin of error on those numbers? They really can't be interpreted without a margin of error...
Don't worry, everything will change when Junior loses his poodle...
He's going to be SO upset!

[Sayhey]

He will carry Alabama. Count on that. A democrat hasn't carried Alabama in God knows how long.

Since Carter in '76 (although he almost won in 1980.) If Kerry has to carry Alabama he is in serious trouble. In almost every serious scenario I've seen almost no southern states (except Florida) are up for grabs. That could change depending on who Kerry picks as his running mate, but really if he is to win he has to keep the states Gore won and add one or two others - Ohio would do it. And yes, skunk, if the "poodle" is jettisoned I think this gets a lot easier.