Maryland as Bush Country?

[NHPolitico]

How crazy is this? Rove has to be tickled pink by these numbers in a Dem stronghold like Maryland.   This would put his approval in battle ground states easily into 50% territory. And note that Kerry's lead is without Nader on the ballot. You can probably chop off a point just from that.

------------------------------------------
The Gonzales poll (released Tuesday and conducted by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies, an Annapolis-based polling and consulting firm-- MOE of 3.5 percentage points) showed Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski with a big lead over her Republican challenger, State Sen. E. J. Pipkin, and showed voters pretty evenly split on whether President Bush is doing a good job.

Asked who they would support in the Senate race, 59 percent said they would vote for Mikulski and 27 percent for Pipkin with 14 percent undecided.

On the question of Bush's performance as president, 47 percent disapproved and 45 percent approved in the Gonzales poll. In the presidential race, Democrat John Kerry held a slight lead over Bush, 48 percent to 43 percent, with 9 percent undecided.

[HockeyDude]

Yea.....OK.  Please Bush, campaign your ass of in Maryland.  I'm begging you.  C'mon, you know you can do it!

[Sibboleth]

It's possible that Maryland will go over to the other side in November...

Mind you, a poll done in Mississippi in Febuary had Bush tied with a "generic Democrat".

[NHPolitico]

It's possible that Maryland will go over to the other side in November...

Mind you, a poll done in Mississippi in Febuary had Bush tied with a "generic Democrat".

I'm not really focusing on the match-up. Just the job approval rating in a solidly Dem state.  

[Nation]

I bet they did most of their polling throughout the state -- the majority of voting is done in PG and Baltimore City each year anyway, and as long as Kerry doesn't !@#$ up too much, they'll come out and vote for him.

[classical liberal]

There's no way Bush will win MD.  The five populated counties will go to Kerry with 60%-80%.  Everywhere else could go 100% for Bush and Kerry would still win.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why wouldn't Bush win Maryland?

Maryland is rich, suburban, and not particularly liberal on economic issues. That's one state you'd think would be more Republican than it is.

The Democrats ought to have no trouble in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, or Iowa, but for some reason they all ranked far behind Maryland in 2000. In other words, states that should be Democratic trended Republican in 2000 - and vice versa.

[dunn]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

[Nation]

You're right, Bandit. Most of the state is in fact Republican. Even the most even state where I live (Anne Arundel County) is about 51-44 Republican. But the inner cities and Prince George's County (both that and Baltimore City have very high black populations -- PG County is the most affulent county with an African-American majority in the nation) will both vote for Kerry in droves. Easily outnumbering almost every other county in MD, including those on the eastern shore and the western part of MD.

Dukakis and Mondale were both very different scenarios then Kerry's, as well.

[The Vorlon]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

Mason Dixon had Kerry up 11 points.

You'll make a lot more money betting on Mason-Dixon than you will  on "Gonzales Marketing & Research"

[Nation]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

Mason Dixon had Kerry up 11 points.

You'll make a lot more money betting on Mason-Dixon than you will  on "Gonzales Marketing & Research"

Yeah, the name of that firm who did the poll was a little odd to me. I had never heard of them before.

[Beef]

showed Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski with a big lead over her Republican challenger, State Sen. E. J. Pipkin,

Nothing conclusive about that.  Mikulski is the Ted Kennedy of Maryland.  She'd win reelection easily, even in a Bush landslide.

[Beef]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

[angus]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

[So the Heroes Fall]

45 percent is hardly amazing approval, and I don't think it matters if people approve of him or not. A good amount won't vote for him under any circumstances, they will vote for the Democrat no matter what. Anyone who thinks Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning Maryland needs to lay off the weed.

[angus]

45 percent is hardly amazing approval, and I don't think it matters if people approve of him or not. A good amount won't vote for him under any circumstances, they will vote for the Democrat no matter what. Anyone who thinks Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning Maryland needs to lay off the weed.

In the end, you're right.  But it's certainly not a matter of liberal vs. conservative.  It's a combination of the fact that Baltimore is the 'hood, and a plethora of wedge issues, and a general disdain of GWB in urbanity.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why wouldn't Bush win Maryland?

Maryland is rich, suburban, and not particularly liberal on economic issues. That's one state you'd think would be more Republican than it is.

The Democrats ought to have no trouble in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, or Iowa, but for some reason they all ranked far behind Maryland in 2000. In other words, states that should be Democratic trended Republican in 2000 - and vice versa.

The area of Maryland that I live in, which is the rich suburban part, is rather economically liberal.  There are a lot of federal government employees who live here, and they usually want to keep federal spending up.

[Beef]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

[angus]

Why wouldn't Bush win Maryland?

Maryland is rich, suburban, and not particularly liberal on economic issues. That's one state you'd think would be more Republican than it is.

The Democrats ought to have no trouble in states like Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri, or Iowa, but for some reason they all ranked far behind Maryland in 2000. In other words, states that should be Democratic trended Republican in 2000 - and vice versa.

The area of Maryland that I live in, which is the rich suburban part, is rather economically liberal.  There are a lot of federal government employees who live here, and they usually want to keep federal spending up.

The town of 75000 where I live is the same way.  Mostly federal employees who know what butters their bread.  But ask 'em about politics, and they'll begin to diatribe about the most trivial matters, and not about economics.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

Mason Dixon had Kerry up 11 points.

You'll make a lot more money betting on Mason-Dixon than you will  on "Gonzales Marketing & Research"

Yeah, the name of that firm who did the poll was a little odd to me. I had never heard of them before.

Gonzales does a lot of polling in Maryland.  I've usually seen them refered to as "Gonzales-Arscott"; I'm not sure if they have changed their name.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

Regardless of he's right or not, Bush could never win New Jersey because of social issues. No Republican to the right of Christie Todd Whitman stands a chance there.

[dunn]

they are in MD so don't treat them like that just b/c they have some Latino name in it.these are serious people

http://www.garesearch.com/

[HockeyDude]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

Regardless of he's right or not, Bush could never win New Jersey because of social issues. No Republican to the right of Christie Todd Whitman stands a chance there.

I didn't get into this stuff until about when McGreevy was elected, what exactly did she stand for?

And yes, social issues alone would never allow Bush to win here.  Not to mention subrubs are trending Dem, and NJ is basically one big suburb.  It'd have to be a landslide.  

[So the Heroes Fall]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

Regardless of he's right or not, Bush could never win New Jersey because of social issues. No Republican to the right of Christie Todd Whitman stands a chance there.

I didn't get into this stuff until about when McGreevy was elected, what exactly did she stand for?

she was known as the most pro-choice and anti-gun Republican elected to a statewide position.

[angus]

Md went dem with southern candidate (Gore, Clinton, Carter) but went rep with guys like Dukakis or Mondale (so Kerry can loose)

The Northeast Corridor has become much more liberal in the last 12 years.  PG, Monty, Baltimore City/County, up through the Wilmington 'burbs, are the bulk of the population, and have become solid Dem territory.  Bush only takes this state in a landslide.

Hardly.  before Clinton you could find people openly willing to discuss things like socialized medicine and the like in the NE corridor.  Not that I'm complaining.  It's not that they have become more liberal, it's that the DLC was fairly successful in the early and mid 90s in converting the Dems to a more conservative party.  Now they appear set to be dragged the other way.  Meanwhile the GOP has become more liberal, big deficit spenders and big government intrusion.  The populace isn't shifting, the parties are.

Your hypothesis (which is a very good one, btw) will be tested this November.  If you are correct, Bush will win New Jersey.

Regardless of he's right or not, Bush could never win New Jersey because of social issues. No Republican to the right of Christie Todd Whitman stands a chance there.

I didn't get into this stuff until about when McGreevy was elected, what exactly did she stand for?

she was known as the most pro-choice and anti-gun Republican elected to a statewide position.

This is exasperating!  We have 200 billion dollars invested in the Iraq project which must be seen through, we've pissed off most of the islamic world to the extent that we have freaking color codes telling us whether to expect to have to remove our belts in airports, we have a fledgling economic recovery that expects a business-friendly victor in November, and my stocks are on the line.  And you people are worried about abortion rights, gun control, and gay marriage!  Grow up.  I find it incredible any sane adult would give a damn either way about what a candidate says about these trivial issues, when our economic security lies in the balance.  Kerry is a good and decent man.  I've never claimed otherwise, but he's not the one.  I guess I was wrong about there being other logical voters out there.

Our Armies, Navies, Universities, and public schools should be second to none.  Take as much as you need from my paycheck to make it so.  But we need to get past these wedge issues, as a nation, or we're doomed to be a second-rate empire till China knocks us off our perch.