New Mexico and Iowa

[zachman]

The thing about Florida is it is trending Democratic.
Here are the stats:
In 1988 Dukakis finished seven percentage points below his national average.

In 1992 Bush won Florida. Clinton was 4% points below his national average.

In 1996 Clinton was one point below his national average.

In 2000 Gore was a half-point above his national average.

The state's growing population has been trending Democratic. Kerry needs to work there.

[Gustaf]

Yes, but then I realized Vorlon was here too.  Al, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of that area and its social milieu and its voting proclivities.  How did you come by all that information, anyway?

He's a 'know-it-Al'

And Kerry can win without PA simply b/c it isn't as Dem as some people think. I see Kerry winning Florida before Pennsylkvania.

[opebo]

why do people automatically assume Bush will win these states just because they were close last time? There's really nothing that's happened to them that has made them more friendly to Bush. Iowa was actually one of the most anti-war states according to polls so I say Bush will have an even tougher time than he did in 2000, and New Mexico has been turning more Dem, more and more Hispanics are coming in and Richardson won in a landslide. Sure they're far from guaranteed for Kerry, but definately not guaranteed for Bush either.

I thought people were predicting Iowa for Bush because of an increase in GOP vs. Dem registration there.. but I looked at the Gallup weekly report thing in the library (I don't think its fully available online?) and it said Iowa has not become more Republican.  Plenty of other states have, including NM, but not IA.  

[opebo]

Personally I think Bush will win both these states, though he's probably only ahead in NM right now.

[Gustaf]

why do people automatically assume Bush will win these states just because they were close last time? There's really nothing that's happened to them that has made them more friendly to Bush. Iowa was actually one of the most anti-war states according to polls so I say Bush will have an even tougher time than he did in 2000, and New Mexico has been turning more Dem, more and more Hispanics are coming in and Richardson won in a landslide. Sure they're far from guaranteed for Kerry, but definately not guaranteed for Bush either.

I thought people were predicting Iowa for Bush because of an increase in GOP vs. Dem registration there.. but I looked at the Gallup weekly report thing in the library (I don't think its fully available online?) and it said Iowa has not become more Republican.  Plenty of other states have, including NM, but not IA.  

2 polls have shown Kerry with a clear lead there, that's my main reason.

[opebo]

why do people automatically assume Bush will win these states just because they were close last time? There's really nothing that's happened to them that has made them more friendly to Bush. Iowa was actually one of the most anti-war states according to polls so I say Bush will have an even tougher time than he did in 2000, and New Mexico has been turning more Dem, more and more Hispanics are coming in and Richardson won in a landslide. Sure they're far from guaranteed for Kerry, but definately not guaranteed for Bush either.

I thought people were predicting Iowa for Bush because of an increase in GOP vs. Dem registration there.. but I looked at the Gallup weekly report thing in the library (I don't think its fully available online?) and it said Iowa has not become more Republican.  Plenty of other states have, including NM, but not IA.  

2 polls have shown Kerry with a clear lead there, that's my main reason.

Yeah, I know.. I was trying to explain why so many people have assumed for a long time that Iowa was so likely to switch to Bush.  

[ian]

I thikn they've just been described as the most likely pickups for Bush, which is true.  

Personally, I don't see Bush picking up any Gore states, he's going to have a hard time in all of them.  

I agree.

[WMS]

youre right.  i am speculating on new mexico.

it's just a hunch i have.

Could be...north-central NM has a VERY dubious reputation, and also the NM Dems are more known for things like sending a guy to vote in his own name, AND those of his dead parents (still on the rolls, thanks to the 1993 NVRA!). There have certainly been some highly suspicious elections won by Dems here. This doesn't mean the Reps are pure and innocent, it's that I haven't heard anything about them other than their clever (and legal) use of absentee ballots to lock in votes before Election Day - something the Dems should've copied (but instead, they pass laws to restrict absentee balloting...now that's being poor losers).

As for how NM will go...I posted a poll of sorts in another thread a week or so ago, which I'll summarize as saying:no one has a lead here...

[Sibboleth]

Yes, but then I realized Vorlon was here too.  Al, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of that area and its social milieu and its voting proclivities.  How did you come by all that information, anyway?

Most coal mining areas are very similer. Southern WV is like the South Wales Valleys, but on a larger scale.
And I find out things from everywhere... and what I find scary is that I remember them...

[Gustaf]

Yes, but then I realized Vorlon was here too.  Al, you have an encyclopedic knowledge of that area and its social milieu and its voting proclivities.  How did you come by all that information, anyway?

Most coal mining areas are very similer. Southern WV is like the South Wales Valleys, but on a larger scale.
And I find out things from everywhere... and what I find scary is that I remember them...

I recognize that...good memory can be scary some times.