Bush has gained 8 in the South VS 2000 according to Mr. Zogby

[Spin Police]

This is in direct contradiction of another Zogby poll.

His last national poll which showed Kerry up 5%,  had Bush up only 4% in the south. (47% to 43%)

Now Zogby says Bush is up 15% in the south?

Which is it?

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=826

Results in 2000



http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0504nation/20irtalk.html



Poll: South is sticking by Bush
Iraq setbacks notwithstanding, optimism rules; war on terror gets even higher score.

By DREW JUBERA
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/19/04

Weeks after his nephew was killed while traveling in an Army convoy in Iraq, Ray Hartman prays for President Bush in handling the war. Despite his family's loss, Hartman believes Bush is doing the right thing.

"If we don't deal with this, our children will live with this threat of terror for the rest of their lives," said Hartman, 55, director of visitation ministries at First United Methodist Church in Shelbyville, Tenn., about 50 miles south of Nashville.
 
"The cost of freedom has always been expensive," he said. "It's not an easy thing."

A majority of Southerners seem to agree with Hartman, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll of likely voters conducted by Zogby International on Monday and Tuesday.

While Americans have been rocked by the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, terrorists' videotaped beheading of a U.S. citizen, and continued bombings and American casualties, by almost every measure Southerners tend to be more supportive of Bush's policies and choices and more optimistic than the rest of the nation.

Almost 50 percent of people polled in 11 Southern states approve of the president's handling of Iraq, while 58 percent of Americans disapprove, according to a recent USA Today national poll. Sixty-four percent of Southerners approve of his handling of the broader war on terrorism, compared with a little more than half in the national poll.

The approval numbers reflect Southerners' voting intentions. If the election were held today, according to the AJC poll, Bush would beat Democratic Sen. John Kerry by 15 points — 52 percent to 37 percent .

By contrast, the USA Today poll has Bush ahead by 1 percentage point, and a national Zogby poll taken last week has Kerry leading by 5 points.

'No ambiguity'

While recent setbacks in Iraq may have taken their toll on the president and his policies nationally, a majority of Southerners view them as temporary, even expected, difficulties in a long, hard fight.

"We probably shouldn't have left after the first [Gulf] war — we should have finished the job then," said Mike Patisall, 45, a commercial photographer in Alexandria, Va. "As far as I'm concerned, it's the same war. Just a little 10-year break in between."

Supporters trust Bush's stay-the-course leadership style, which many see as consistent with the Christian values he professes.

"When George W. says something, that's it — it's going to happen, there's no ambiguity there," said Dan Clary, 30, a Scottsboro, Ala., field engineer. "I think Southerners like that."

Jennifer Earls, 22, of Grover, N.C., a preschool teacher, full-time student and single mother of two, declared: "Patriotism is more embedded in people in the South. A lot of it has to do with faith — we're in the Bible Belt — and patriotism goes along with that."

Dissent often unvoiced

There are dissenters. But in a region that overwhelmingly backs the president, they often seem reluctant to voice opposition.

"It seems in the Bush administration it is unpatriotic to ask a question or state a different opinion," said Hardy Clemons, retired pastor of First Baptist Church in Greenville, S.C. "That scares me. I thought it was e pluribus unum."

Fewer Southerners approve of Bush's handling of Iraq than of the war on terrorism, becoming increasingly skeptical the longer weapons of mass destruction are not found.

"The reason we invaded in the first place was Saddam Hussein was 'doing wrong,' " said Stan Maddox, 29, owner of a Decatur used car dealership. "There was talk about weapons of mass destruction, but they haven't found any."

The graphic photographs of prisoner abuse by U.S. troops in Iraq upset Southerners. Yet most see the abuses as an isolated incident. About 58 percent of those polled hold the individual soldiers involved, and their military commanders, most responsible. Sixty-five percent say Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld should remain in office, though about half hold him at least somewhat responsible for the abuses.

"I don't think we'd want to start out with a new guy now, and as far I know, he's done a good job," said Tammy May, 38, a seamstress from Paragould, Ark. "If he had prior knowledge and didn't do anything to stop it, I might say [he should resign] then."

'A higher standard'

Many Southerners believe the prisoner abuse scandal, as well as other perceived setbacks in Iraq, are overblown because of Democratic politicking. Asked which parties, if any, have attempted to use the abuse of prisoners to their political advantage, 41 percent named the Democrats. Only 7 percent accused the Republicans, while 22 percent said both parties were equally guilty.

"It's nothing but the Democratic Party taking advantage of a situation in an election year," said Dinah Bane, 45, a bail bondsman from Gainesville in Hall County. "I'm tired of watching the news because of all this crap. The media is so far left that it doesn't get reported accurately."

Others worried the prisoner abuse would overshadow the beheading of Nicholas Berg.

"I am concerned that the American people are bothered more by the small abuses we've done [to Iraqis], compared to what [the Iraqis] have done to us," said Mary Barrett, 60, a furniture company supervisor in Tupelo, Miss.

But most Southerners say any torture is unacceptable.

"They shouldn't, we shouldn't. Both ways," said Myra Marin, 31, an Arlington, Va., mail handler.

But 40 percent of Southerners think the prisoner abuses were a major setback in the war in Iraq, and 76 percent say the United States has higher moral principles for going to war than most other countries.

"It's like a policeman or a preacher. You hold people to a higher standard when you step into that role," said Vickie West, 50, an adoption social worker in Greenville, S.C. "It's like saying you're a Christian and then drinking and stealing."

Vietnam? Not really

Most Southerners don't agree with comparing the war in Iraq to the Vietnam War — "Other than we've stepped in something we're trying to scrape off our boots and we're not sure how," said John Davison, 55, an unemployed Web site designer in Concord, N.C.

And 66 percent — including many who oppose the war — say the United States should not withdraw troops until a stable, permanent Iraqi government is put in place.

"We broke it, we own it," said Robert Johnston, a New Orleans lawyer.

Speaking of U.S. troops staying beyond June 30, when the Iraqi Governing Council will take over, Barrett said: "If the terrorists are still there, we should stay until they're dealt with."

"People forget 9/11, don't they?" she added.

Contributors to this article were: Jane Dubose, Andrew Mollison, Anne Rochell Konigsmark, Ron Martz, Mae Gentry, C. Richard Cotton, Tom Baxter, Lyn Riddle and Maurice Tamman.

[elcorazon]

If true, that's good news for Kerry, assuming polls showing a close race nationally are also true.  Obviously Kerry's gaining somewhere, hopefully in places where he has a chance to win, as opposed to the South, where he was unlikely to take any states, other than possibly FL, or AR.

[California Dreamer]

there is no 'gain of 8' in the South. That assumes 100% of undecideds are breaking for Bush

This poll says that Bush got 52.85% of the votes in the last election and is polling at 52.0% support in his 'safest' states.

so...no real change, he hasnt gained any ground, in fact it looks like he has lost some.

And only 50% of Southerners support his Iraq policy...that must be the lowest number yet for the region. If he cant get a majority of Southerners to support his Iraq policy he is in deep doodoo

[elcorazon]

there is no 'gain of 8' in the South. That assumes 100% of undecideds are breaking for Bush

This poll says that Bush got 52.85% of the votes in the last election and is polling at 52.0% support in his 'safest' states.

so...no real change, he hasnt gained any ground, in fact it looks like he has lost some.

And only 50% of Southerners support his Iraq policy...that must be the lowest number yet for the region. If he cant get a majority of Southerners to support his Iraq policy he is in deep doodoo

your math skills are weak.  It is a gain of about 7 points, based on the margin of victory.  If the undecideds split evenly, Bush would be 15 points up in these states, rather than just under 8 points up.  Your logic assumes that everything goes to Kerry.  Don't forget you're comparing apples to apples here.  The 52.85% is from Bush's safest states, as are the poll results.

Don't worry, though, this is good news for Kerry.  Hopefully he makes up these points in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Oregon, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona & Nevada.

[Spin Police]

there is no 'gain of 8' in the South. That assumes 100% of undecideds are breaking for Bush

This poll says that Bush got 52.85% of the votes in the last election and is polling at 52.0% support in his 'safest' states.

so...no real change, he hasnt gained any ground, in fact it looks like he has lost some.

And only 50% of Southerners support his Iraq policy...that must be the lowest number yet for the region. If he cant get a majority of Southerners to support his Iraq policy he is in deep doodoo

You are so strident in your hatred of Mr. Bush that you have blinded yourself.

A poll showing him up 15% in an area he won by 8& last time means he has lost ground?

You must be drinking the same Koolaid you accuse others of drinking.

By that logic, since Gore got 48% Nationally, and is some polls today is only getting 45% (even though he leads by 2 or 3%) has actually lost ground also?

If you wish to advocate on  behalf of your man, certainly do so, but at least be reasonable about it and don't declare that up is down and black is white.

Explain to me again how Kerry up 1% in California and up only 3 in New Jersey are good news for Kerry again?

Let me guess - States Gore won by large margins and thus "wasted" a lot of votes will now be close, so these "extra" votes will magically fly to Ohio...?

Grape or Wild Berry... Which is your favorite flavor again?

[California Dreamer]

where did you learn your math son?

Bush recieved rougly 53% in the south
Bush is polling rougly 52% in the south.

looks the same to me

[elcorazon]

please, cal dreamer, stop making that claim.  It is erroneous.  All polls have some UNDECIDEDS and at this point often overrepresent 3rd party candidates (read Nader).  Note how Kerry's support compares to Gore's totals.  Clearly, this poll shows Bush doing significantly better in the South than he did in 2000.  Please try to understand.  Please.

[millwx]

This is in direct contradiction of another Zogby poll.

I see your confusion!!  However, both the Zogby site and the AJC site reflect their numbers more than once each.  So, I really doubt there's any typo or error.  So, what's going on??

Well, while we can't know for sure, I'd bet that the 11 selective Southern states for AJC is different than the definition in Zogby.  Two possible example of this...

AJC may not include Florida... a very high population, but evenly split non-Southernesque state.  Also, in fact, it looks for sure (based on interviewees in the article) like they did include VA.  So, KY was probably also included.  That means only one of the following "borderline" states was included... FL, TX, or MO.  Most likely, it was MO.  But, to my second possibility... what if it was TX?  That would also give Bush a huge boost, but could be in Zogby's "West" definition.  Still, though TX is unlikely... MO is the most probably candidate.  That means FL was NOT in the AJC numbers.  Based on the breakdown on Zogby's page, it MUST be in his "South" section.  

To go a little overboard here with this analysis... The total population of AJC's PRESUMED 11 states is about 45 million.  Florida is close to 10 million.  45 million at 52%-37% Bush, averaged with 10 million at 45%-45% even comes out to..... Bush 50.7% Kerry 38.5%.  While that does fall short of the 47%-43% split on Zogby's page, I've been very elementary here.  For one thing, the average age of the Florida population is such that probably a much greater percentage of the population votes (in 2000 almost 60% of the population... not 60% of registered voters, but 60% of the population!!... voted).  That could tighten things up considerably more.  Plus, if Zogby had Kerry in the lead slightly in Florida (possible... since some polls show that), that'd tighten it even further.

Point is... THAT is probably the reason.  AJC's 11 states includes VA, so it likely includes KY and MO.  That would require it to exclude FL.  Zogby's numbers on his page include FL.

[millwx]

...and I should add that IF I'm correct, be careful in your comparisons to Bush's 2000 vote total.  Make sure you compare apples to apples and compare the same "South".  I would guess, based on the numbers we see, that AJC and Zogby are defining it the same with the one notable exception that AJC excludes Florida.  So, AJC's south is... VA,NC,SC,GA, KY, TN, AL, MS, MO, AR, LA.  Zogby's is the same, plus FL.  Again, that's just my presumption based on the numbers, interviewees in the AJC article, etc.  So, make sure you use the same states when you compare to 2000.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think there is some truth to this poll....Bush will probably win the South by a greater margin than he did in 2000 unless he puts Edwards on the ticket.  Bush has been pandering to Southern conservatives with issues like gay marriage and faith rhetoric.

That doesn't mean Bush will win the election...but it does open up the possibility that he will win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.  Bush doesn't need to win any more support in the South...he need to hold on to Ohio, Arizona, and New Hampshire while picking up states in the Midwest.

[Spin Police]

This is in direct contradiction of another Zogby poll.

I see your confusion!!  However, both the Zogby site and the AJC site reflect their numbers more than once each.  So, I really doubt there's any typo or error.  So, what's going on??

Well, while we can't know for sure, I'd bet that the 11 selective Southern states for AJC is different than the definition in Zogby.  Two possible example of this...

AJC may not include Florida... a very high population, but evenly split non-Southernesque state.  Also, in fact, it looks for sure (based on interviewees in the article) like they did include VA.  So, KY was probably also included.  That means only one of the following "borderline" states was included... FL, TX, or MO.  Most likely, it was MO.  But, to my second possibility... what if it was TX?  That would also give Bush a huge boost, but could be in Zogby's "West" definition.  Still, though TX is unlikely... MO is the most probably candidate.  That means FL was NOT in the AJC numbers.  Based on the breakdown on Zogby's page, it MUST be in his "South" section.  

To go a little overboard here with this analysis... The total population of AJC's PRESUMED 11 states is about 45 million.  Florida is close to 10 million.  45 million at 52%-37% Bush, averaged with 10 million at 45%-45% even comes out to..... Bush 50.7% Kerry 38.5%.  While that does fall short of the 47%-43% split on Zogby's page, I've been very elementary here.  For one thing, the average age of the Florida population is such that probably a much greater percentage of the population votes (in 2000 almost 60% of the population... not 60% of registered voters, but 60% of the population!!... voted).  That could tighten things up considerably more.  Plus, if Zogby had Kerry in the lead slightly in Florida (possible... since some polls show that), that'd tighten it even further.

Point is... THAT is probably the reason.  AJC's 11 states includes VA, so it likely includes KY and MO.  That would require it to exclude FL.  Zogby's numbers on his page include FL.

The graphic from the story Included in the 1st post) specified the 11 states polled by AJC, and those were the 11 states in the 2000 comparison graphic.

Maybe the "south" in Zogby's national poll is different than the "south" in his AJC poll..?

Anyway, regardless of the flavor of Koolaid Dreamer is drinking, it shows Bush a bit better in the South than last time.

[millwx]

The graphic from the story Included in the 1st post) specified the 11 states polled by AJC, and those were the 11 states in the 2000 comparison graphic.

Well, so much for all my nice logic.  :-)  I seemed to have forgotten how to count, as I only counted 10 states in that graphic (which is why I went down the long convoluted argument).

Still, as I pointed out and you re-iterated, it does remain possible that Zogby used different states.  For example, if he used the Mason-Dixon line as his delineator (VERY possible), he would have included DE, MD and WV.  Likewise, MO is usually included in "the South" by pollsters.  While MO and WV lean Bush in most polls, they do so by a much smaller margin than AJC's numbers.  And Kerry is up in DE and MD (probably rather comfortably in MD).  Oops, and we'd also need to include D.C.... heavy Kerry.  So, I STILL suspect that's the answer to the Zogby dilemma... nothing contradictory, just a different definition of "South".

[12th Doctor]

This poll shows Bush in his worst 2 months.  Not all the months leading up to to election are going to be like the past two.  Also, Bush (no thanks to the media) seems to have considerable trouble getting his message out.  This will change as the campaign kicks into higher gear.

[12th Doctor]

If a reputable poll comes out next month showing Bush down by 15%, then I'll start to worry.

[agcatter]

Wonder what section of the country Zogby thinks Texas is in?

[12th Doctor]

Wonder what section of the country Zogby thinks Texas is in?

South west

[Rococo4]

is anyone really surprised by this poll?  Team Bush should be happy to see this, now they now they can spend their money and time in places like WV, PA, OH, NH, NM, etc.

[elcorazon]

I'm surprised.  I thought much of the south would be closer this time, although I also thought Bush would win all the states, I just feel that VA, NC, SC & GA could be closer.  Although I do think TN and AR will be less close, as will FL, which could account for much of Bush's increased lead.

[Sibboleth]

Most state polls are showing most Southern states as closer than in 2000.
Actually most states appear to be closer than in 2000... Anyhow, Zogby is... er... rather... erratic...

National polls do not and cannot show how each state will go.

[Sibboleth]

After a second read, it looks as if this is a poll to compliment a story rather than the other way round... shame on you Zogby for sinking so low...