11.01.2007

Reviewing the blueness of some blue states

Three new polls, all from very Democratic states, all must-win states for the Democratic nominee. If he or she loses California, there is no possible way they will get to 270 electoral votes. And while they can do the math without MA and MD, losing there means they're losing everywhere else. Thankfully for them, Hillary is untouchable in both MA and CA (so much of Rudy's claim that he will make California very competitive), though Maryland appears more competitive than usual. Let's review.

  • Massachusetts
Survey USA released a new poll from MA yesterday afternoon, and there is no way the GOP is getting anywhere here. Clinton demolishes all Republican candidates, and Giuliani and McCain barely hold her under 60%, respectively trailing 59-36 and 58-37. What is most remarkable is that this is the state of which Romney was governor for four years as recently as last year, and he is trashed 65% to 31%, much worse than McCain and Giuliani! Fred Thompson is crushed 66-28, Mike Huckabee 68-24, and Ron Paul 67-24.

  • California
The California poll was released two days ago, also by SUSA, though I somehow missed it until last night. It shows that in the biggest prize of Election Day, Clinton has very little to worry about. The closest Republican is Rudy Giuliani, but he trails 55% to 39%. McCain loses 56-35 and Thompson 58-34. Clinton reaches 60% against all others: 60-30 against Romney, 63-27 against Huckabee and 63-24 against Ron Paul.

As I already mentioned, California is one of those blue states Rudy likes to argue he would make competitive. A New York poll a few days ago proved he would have no chance whatsoever there. At least he is much closer here... but 16% in California is very hard to move given how expensive the state is, so Rudy is very unlikely to try anything there, just as Bush stayed (mostly) away.

  • Maryland
Rasmussen released a poll from Maryland, and the numbers here are uncomfortably close for Clinton. Kerry won the state by 13% in 2004, but Clinton only inches Giuliani by 5: 46-41. She also has a small lead against McCain, 47-40. She leads 49-37 against Thompson and 52-31 against Huckabee. As interesting as the poll itself is Rasmussen's decision to poll Huckabee as the fourth Republican rather than Romney -- demonstrating that Huckabee's inclusion in the top-tier is strengthening. Though I have to admit it is an odd choice to exclude Romney of all people, since many would rate Romney as the favorite of the GOP race at this point (mostly because of stuff like this).

3 Comments:

  • It is no way that anyone who watched the debate as an "undecided" voter would walk away saying "I will vote for Hillary". That notion is ridiculous. I am at this point undecided but Hillary is close to being out of the running in my mind as well as the others who attended the debate party I was at. It is less than 3 months to the primary, she is supposed to be asked tough questions. And a good candidate would be able to answer the questions clearly and the audience would walk away like "whoa" they asked tough questions but she answered them very well. Hillary did the opposite. She went back and forth in her answers, flip-flopping. And I think the thing that really turned me off from her is playing the "victim". If a man did the same thing, no way no one would buy it. All debates ask more and tougher questions to the perceived frontrunner, b/c due to their status it is clear that the people are more interested in them.

    I also see many people defending her elusive response on the issue of illegal immigrants, saying it is a complex issue. Most are, but if someone ask you do you support a "specific" bill, not a "hypothetical" bill,then you should be able to say a simple "Yes" or "No". You can say, "yes, b/c ..." or "No, b/c...." but she didn't take a stance on it one way or another. That is troubling. I cannot vote for her.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 November, 2007 11:14  

  • Not sure if you caught the debate, if you want to read a brief commentary from Fox news, check it out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ocKiHEzvM

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 November, 2007 11:15  

  • (also posted at Politics 1)

    Hillary, or any other Democrat, will likely win Maryland by better than five points, and probably by double digits (maybe high single digits if she faces Rudy, and that's being optimistic for the GOP side.)

    MD is a difficult state to poll, because you have to get the right balance of the differing regions of the state. Calling randomly around the state doesn't always produce good results; they may have underpolled the DC suburbs and Baltimore City (maybe a lot of Montgomery and Prince George's voters were stuck in traffic?)

    If you flash back to last year, the polls showed Ehrlich at least even with O'Malley, and Republicans were slobbering over Michael Steele's alleged chances at picking up a Senate seat. Instead O'Malley beat Ehrlich by 6 points, and Ben Cardin trounced Steele by 11. In both cases the Democrats did much better on Election Day than in the polls.

    Also, the poll was conducted in only one day, which is somewhat questionable, and I'm pretty sure that 9% of Maryland voters are not going to vote third party (for who?) Sorry, but Rasmussen probably fell on its face with this one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 November, 2007 12:23  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home