Traditionally, the party that's the incumbent party has its states colored blue whenever reporting state-by-state outcomes.  The challenger party's states are obviously then reported as red.

This year, The Republican party's states will be blue, Democrat's will be red.  1996 and 2000, Democrats were blue, Republicans were red.  1984, 1988, 1992 Republicans were blue, Democrats were red, and on and so forth...

One of the places where Bush severely underperformed in 2000 was in the suburban parts of the North where all those liberal-to-moderate Rockefeller Republicans live.

His performing better in these areas post-RNC might be due to gaining some of this former (as in the 1980s) base vote back.

Look, I can see what people are talking about here in terms of what Bush has done in office that's different than what he said he'd do: campaign finance reform, the prescription drug bill, etc.  

These are things I've never supported, but most of the American people support.  So while I don't like it, most people do and are therefore willing to forgive them.

In fact, this is what I've often found out most of the time.  Successful candidates are usually very vague on most things in campaign mode, but specify and come up with totally different solutions while in office.  

Usually during the campaign they have one or two clear planks which they push up towards the front and people usually judge them in re-election as to whether they've made those things a reailty (Reagan's cutting taxes as something that was successful, GHWB's saying "no new taxes", then raising them as being an unsuccessful plank).

The strange thing about this election is that the main campaign plank that GWB is going to be held up to was not made during his campaign, it was made during 9/11.  Right now some people disagree as to whether he's followed through on that, some people agree, but I have said before that this will decide the election and right now it is running in the President's favor.

The only thing that can hurt him in this 9/11 plank is the war on Iraq.  

Which gets me back to the original point.  You can be creative as to your wishy-washiness during your time in office, you can't be during the campaign.  If you don't, people will think you don't have a message and will say whatever you need to get elected. (as people think about Kerry right now, read the polls)  That describes Kerry and his moves, especially in the past 2 months.

Finally, I told many people that Kerry lost his edge when he answered the President's question as to whether he would go into Iraq knowing what we know now, by saying that he would go, without doubt.  

He may lose the election by saying the exact opposite of that, as he did today.

It tells me that there are problems with certain parts of his base being energized.

I still think it's a very stupid thing to say at this point of the race after giving basically the exact opposite answer one month ago.

I certainly agree with that.  And I also agree with you about the white liberal population.  

The real question here is the black population, which I am in contact with fairly regularly in Baltimore City; that's from where I'm basing my observations.

I can't speak about Prince George's County, however.  Maybe someone would have a better idea what's going on there.

A little food for thought:  I live in the direct middle of Baltimore City and here's what I can tell you from talking to people here.  White liberals are very energized for Kerry, blacks really don't have much of a horse in this race.  Let that say enough.

If the black turnout is as low in Baltimore as I think it'll be, the race could well be in single digits.  Keep in mind, ARG, not exactly the Republican's most favorite polling service had Kerry only up 9 in Maryland.

I still don't think Bush will have any chance to win here, but I would say that it'll be much closer here than in 2000, imo.

Just reading through the results of the first week of the Battleground tracking poll here among 1250 LV:

http://www.tarrance.com/results.cfm

A few topline numbers:

Unaided horse-race: Bush 46, Kerry 39

Aided horse-race:
(definitely) Bush 43, Kerry 38
(including all leaners) Bush 49, Kerry 45, Nader 1%, 4% Undecided

Generic congressional race: Republican 42, Democrat 45, Undeicded 14

Bush JA @ 53%, 45% disapprove, 3% unsure

Major issues:

Terror: B58-K33
Iraq: B55-K37
Jobs: B42-K48
Prosperity: B48-K44
Strong leader: B56-K35
Shares your values: B49-K43
Middle class values: B43-K48

Sounds about right to me.  Pretty much all Michigan polls lately have put it in the 3-6 point Kerry lead range.

Vorlon:  I realize Rasmussen's typical thing is to poll very small amounts over a number of days.  So what does this say about the New Hampshire poll that was just apparently polled over one day (Sept. 15)?  

I've always heard bad things said about one-day polls and really long polls too (and Rasmussen in general).

Yep, I pulled a Rasmussen there and posted incorrect numbers at the topline. hehe  Have since corrected it.

(caveat lector)

Rasmussen has put out three state polls publicly today in the states of Ohio, New Hampshire and New York.  Here are the results and the links to his internals.  As I always say with Rasmussen, caveat lector (let the buyer beware):

Ohio: Bush 48, Kerry 45 (668 LV, Sept. 12-18, 2004)

http://rasmussenreports.com/Ohio_Fall%202004.htm

New Hampshire: Kerry 51, Bush 45 (500 LV, Sept. 15, 2004)

http://rasmussenreports.com/New%20Hampshire_Fall%202004.htm

New York: Kerry 49, Bush 44 (500 LV, Sept. 12-18, 2004)

http://rasmussenreports.com/New%20York_Fall%202004.htm

I think Zogby is doing what he did at the conventions, release his poll before everyone else's so that he gets the top line first.   Concurrently with that, I believe a number of national polls will be released this week.

In the post-convention polls, this meant his polls weren't really post-convention polls, but no one cared about this.

Who knows what these polls are?  I take them with a certain bit of credibility because they are Zogby national polls and they have a good record in Presidential races, but if he continues his record since the 2000 election in this election, he deserves to be as maligned as Rasmussen.

The only other polls that have been done on South Carolina in the last 2 months are two SurveyUSA polls, one in mid-July that showed Bush up 7 and one in mid-August that showed Bush up 11.

A lead of 6 doesn't sound unreasonable to me considering North Carolina has appeared to be polling closer as well.  Still, I don't trust Rasmussen's machines, ever.  (caveat lector)

Bush won South Carolina by 16 in 2000.

Btw, on New York, a decrease in the margin in New York of roughly 15%, from a 25% margin in 2000 to a hypothetical 10% margin in 2004 would lead to a shift of 1% in terms of the national popular vote.

I personally continue to believe that there's a high possibility that we've seen shifts of potentially 5-10% or more of the vote in New Jersey and Connecticut towards Bush that's being balanced out by 5-10% (I haven't seen more here) movement in North and South Carolina, fwiw.  

It might affect both states, it might not, it might exist at Election Day, it might not.

I wish I could quote this, but there's another poster on another site who's very interested in demographics and how states vote and change in terms of race, opinions, and such things.

He once said that there are three places in the United States that over all incumbent re-elections regardless of party tend to vote disproprtionally for that incumbent.

Those three places he said were Iowa, Hawaii, and upstate New York.  Wonder if we're seeing some of that here.

That said, I still don't trust Rasmussen polls, I do trust Quinnipiac and Marist in NY however.

Marist also showed Kerry only up +8 in NY just a couple of days ago (Sept. 15).

That said, I still don't trust Rasmussen's machines for anything, ever.

Some more weekend polling.  Results are Bush 47, Kerry 44 head to head, Bush 46, Kerry 43, Nader 1.4, Badnarik 1.2, Petrouka 0.1, with all those other parties included.

These results compare similarly with results done a week ago, showing Bush up 2 in head to head and up 4 in the three-way.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=867

The reason why I think that New Jersey is closer, New Hampshire is a little more pro-Bush than we thought and Bush has taken a lead in Wisconsin is because of something that I noticed in the national polls post-convention.  

His support among Catholics dropped enormously post-RNC in all respects and in all polls.  And if there are three states (out of some others) where Catholics play a very, very important role among swing voters, those are in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin (with the strong German Catholic population.

This is the group Kerry has regain what he's lost in order to fair better in these states.

Simply put, if Kerry isn't even tied in West Tennessee, he will lose by at least 15 points in the state.  Simply put, Kerry needs to be winning West Tennessee by at least 10-15 points in order to have a chance here because of the conservatism of the eastern part of the state.  All of the undecideds going for Kerry wouldn't even put him under 8-9 points.  

Things look pretty much lost here for Kerry and Bush has solidified his lead here to where I doubt much will happen here between now and November.

I would make a complaint about polling factors, party registration, odd looking numbers or something like that, but there isn't any that I can make.  Of course any of these could be the 19/20 outlier or somewhere else within the +/-4% MOE, but it doesn't feel like any of these are.

This reminds me just that I should never trust Zogby interactive state polls or Zogby state polls ever.  If Bush pulls the 89% of Reps and 51% of Indys that he's pulling in NH here, he will most certainly win.  OTOH, if he's only pulling 25-30% of Dems in WV, along with every other Rep. and half of the Indy vote, WV will be very close.  And that's what Mason-Dixon seems to be saying.

The other thing we're seeing that I noticed when I started seeing polls (like Pew and Harris) out with no change among RV orientation and LV orientation was that Kerry was losing support among younger voters.  These polls seem to validate that thought, because in most of these states, Kerry is losing among 18-34 year olds as well.

I was reading this Knight-Ridder article on the story, and they seem to mention that Mason-Dixon couldn't poll Florida because of the hurricanes (which makes sense), but also polled Nevada.

Somehow this didn't get put up on the MSNBC site.  I wonder why.

It says that Bush is up 5 in Nevada, 50-45, fwiw.

Link:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/special_packages/election2004/polls/9700117.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Yep, I just saw that Vorlon.  I guess it's good when one poll shows similar results to the other one.

It's unclear whether this Mason-Dixon poll is same one as the Mason-Dixon poll released earlier by the Cleveland Plain Dealer, because the Plain Dealer said 50-42 instead of 49-42, but I'm guessing that it is.

Nonetheless, it explains the reason why West Virginia is being so actively pursued by both campaigns.  Bush is ahead by more in NH than I thought he would be.

Otherwise, Missouri, Ohio, and Arizona are both 4-5 points above where Bush was in 2000, leading me to think there is a 4-5 point Bush lead.

I might also point out that in 2002, Mason-Dixon was the most accurate state polling firm, followed by Survey USA and then Research 2000.   No doubt the reason why MSNBC is using them this year instead of the erratic Zogby state polls.

[Plain Dealer poll: Bush leads Kerry in Ohio 50-42]

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/special_packages/election2004/9700035.htm

Plain Dealer poll: Bush leads Kerry in Ohio 50-42

Associated Press

CLEVELAND - President Bush leads Sen. John Kerry by 50 percent to 42 percent in Ohio, a state considered crucial by both campaigns, a new poll indicates. Two percent of those surveyed supported Ralph Nader.

The poll commissioned by The Plain Dealer for its Sunday edition was conducted from Sept. 10 to Tuesday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. It was based on interviews with 1,500 registered voters who plan to vote Nov. 2. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

A May poll by the newspaper showed Bush leading 47 percent to 41 percent. Six percent in the most recent poll said they were undecided, down from 9 percent in May.

A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll taken Sept. 4 to 7 showed 52 percent of people surveyed in Ohio said they would support Bush and 44 percent backed Kerry. Two percent of the 661 likely voters questioned by telephone said they would vote for Nader, and 4 percent were undecided.

Bush beat Al Gore in Ohio by 3.6 percentage points in 2000. No Republican has won the presidency without Ohio.

Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign in Ohio, said the poll results run counter to other polls that show the race much closer.

Bush spokesman Kevin Madden downplayed the Bush lead in the poll, but he said the president's organization of 64,000 volunteers in Ohio would help Bush win.

Voters surveyed in the Plain Dealer poll said Bush would do a better job of safeguarding America, 55 percent to 36 percent, and handling the situation in Iraq, 54 percent to 40 percent.

The poll indicated that some voters have yet to connect with Kerry and his policies, reflected by the 66 percent of Kerry's supporters who said their dislike of Bush was their top reason for backing Kerry.

Among those surveyed who said they are planning to vote for Bush, 55 percent cited his character and integrity as the top reason, followed by his leadership in the war on terror.

"The numbers will not make Kerry happy but will not make the Bush people breathe easier either," said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. "That's not a big enough lead to guarantee victory."

Green said the lead could be vulnerable based on turnout, upcoming debates and how issues play out, such as Iraq, between now and the election.