Bush 51/43 in Florida - 56% Approval Rating - Mason-Dixon

[The Vorlon]

A Mason Dixon Poll.

http://www.mason-dixon.com/news_text.cfm?news_id=189

Mason Dixon is a good firm, other than the 625 person sample size which I still hate.  
+/- 3.92% 19 times out of 20.

+8 strikes me as a tad high for a lead.

This is excellent news for Bush, lousy news for Kerry...

But Hey.. It's still 30 weeks out...

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGAXBXSQOSD.html

Also... New Colorado poll with Bush + 9

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_2783338,00.html

FLORIDA - Marginal Bush State - Current Estimate - Bush +2

[Lunar]

Interesting that it has been dropping, has it bottomed out though?

[The Vorlon]

Interesting that it has been dropping, has it bottomed out though?

They are comparing it to November, when the Dems had no candidate...

[Lunar]

Does Bush do better or worse with an anonymous candidate?

Also interesting that the tone of the Colorado article was showing the strong opinion that Kerry could have a chance, perhaps even making it 04's Florida.  It noted two other polls that indicated a "statistical tie" as well.

[zachman]

There was a Colorado poll? I'd like to see that.

[Lunar]

There was a Colorado poll? I'd like to see that.

First post.

[© tweed]

Aagh crap

[zachman]

I found it. I'd use a 50% strategy. If Bush is below 50% in a state, Kerry needs to refine the opposition. He is behind in the polls recently not because Bush has gained, but because Kerry has sunk. In the end he should be able to get 95% of the non-Bush vote.

[agcatter]

As bad news as the Mason Dixon Florida poll is for Kerry, Michigan Survey USA poll showing Kerry up 51 - 41 has got to lift the spirits of the Kerry faithful.  I expected Michigan to have Kerry up 3 to 5 pts.

We are truly two nations.  Culturally, Socially, politically.  Red and blue states might as well be two separate countries.  

[zachman]

We are truly two nations.  Culturally, Socially, politically.  Red and blue states might as well be two separate countries.  

I will live in a little fenced zonem and I will have to go through Canada just to get to Boston!

[Beet]

agcat, the South and the North are probably more similiar now than they were 100, 50 or even 25 years ago. I think a lot can be answered by population densities. The South is "developing" thus it needs low taxes, weak regulation, in order to grow. Once the sprawling cities have consolidated, people will demand higher-up goods, such as clean environmentment, development control, better public services, etc. It's one at a time. What you need depends on the level of development of the local economy.

[agcatter]

Divide the country right down the middle.  We will take the South.  Libs can take the North.  Two governments each with differing governing philosophies.  If you support partial birth abortion, gay marriage, racial quotas, outlawing the death penalty, higher taxes, and turning over defense to the UN, feel free to move north.  You'll be happy and so will we.

As it stands now it's winner take all.  One side or the other will wake up the morning after the election vomiting their guts out.

[agcatter]

Population density is for sure one factor, but only one.

[Beet]

All right agcat, but in that case GW will have to step down as President.

[Beet]

Population density is for sure one factor, but only one.

There is a very SERIOUS correlation between population density and the 2000 election results. Here's what I could find:

http://www.demographia.com/db-landstatepopdens.htm

[agcatter]

No doubt there is.  We see it in even conservative Texas.  Republicans run 15 to 18 pts ahead of their percentages in Houston and Dallas.  However, in the surrounding counties like Montgomery and Collin counties which are extremely dense in population, John Cornyn in his Senate victory garnered 72 - 75% of the vote.  This indicates race might be an even bigger factor.

[agcatter]

By all means Bush should step down and be inaugurated in the new Southern capital of Richmond.  Swear in Kerry, Dean, or anyone you want.  Both sides will be joyful.  As it is one side or the other is going to want to get the hell out of the country.

[Lunar]

There is a very SERIOUS correlation between population density and the 2000 election results. Here's what I could find:

http://www.demographia.com/db-landstatepopdens.htm

That is pretty interesting.

Top 10 Highest Densities:
8 - Gore
2 - Bush (9 & 10)

Top 10 Lowest Densities:
8 - Bush
2 - Gore (6 & 10)

As to the whole seperatist crap: relax.  There aren't any regional issues, just slight population shifts.  For example, 55% of the people in California may support Kerry, but that number may only be 35% in Texas and 42% in Arkansas.   Ooooh, 10-15% of the population has slightly different views, oooOooooh.

[agcatter]

"SLIGHTLY different views"

Hahahah.  Yeah, I'd say half of us have "slightly different views" from say the John Kerrys and Howard Deans.

[Lunar]

"SLIGHTLY different views"

Hahahah.  Yeah, I'd say half of us have "slightly different views" from say the John Kerrys and Howard Deans.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.  I'm merely saying that there might be a 15% ideology switch from one state to another, and likely far less.  I'm not saying that the opposite ends agree, just that there are a large number of people in Connecticut that agree with Bush, and a large number of people in Arkansas or Texas that agree with Kerry.

[agcatter]

Got ya.  i think there is 40% on each side that disagree ferociously.  The scary thing is that the remaining 20% that decide the election could care less.  They are more interested in watching Fear Factor.  God help us all.

[opebo]

I think 51% for Bush in FL sounds right on the money.  Kerry will get more than 43% though.  

[agcatter]

51`- 47 - 2 is my prediction for Florida.

[angus]

51`- 47 - 2 is my prediction for Florida.

that 51 is for George?

[© tweed]

florida:

Bush/Cheney 56%
Kerry Edwards 43%