ND: Research 2000: North Dakota Remains Close

[Wiz in Wis]

New Poll: North Dakota President by Research 2000 on 2008-07-23

Summary: D: 42%, R: 45%, U: 13%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Flying Dog]

This makes me . Even so, I'll be even happier if this is the case in October, heck, even September.

[WalterMitty]

obama's  number  looks right.  he should get about 42% in nd.

[Flying Dog]

Party ID:

GOP: 40%

Dem: 30%

Ind: 30%


The age group results seem a bit a little weird. McCain and Obama are tied with 60+ while McCain leads by 11% among 30-44. Seems fishy.

[Aizen]

Nobody can deny ND being close now.

[Math]

Nobody can deny ND being close now.

Yes we can.

[War on Want]

Yeah I still don't think ND will be too close in November. Maybe at best for Obama, McCain will win 52-47, or so.

[elcorazon]

obama's  number  looks right.  he should get about 42% in nd.

yeah.  he might eke out 44-45%, but hard to see him doing better.  Maybe if 3rd parties can get over 5%, mccain will only get around 50%, but that's still a 5-6% loss by Obama.  Most likely more.

[Lunar]

I think Obama's margin is going to be closer than what the raw technical data of the state would indicate because McCain isn't going to campaign or run ads there.  So, while McCain may still win, the populace is going to be seeing a lot of Obama ads and local media coverage while none for McCain.

We cannot predict a state where the campaigning is going to be heavily one-sided with the same   measuring stick that we use for Ohio and whatnot.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I think it's about 52-45 McCain in the end. 

Obama peaks around 45% because he runs ads.  McCain's support is soft and 3% go to other candidates, but the state is still overwhelmingly Republican. 

[© tweed]

obama's  number  looks right.  he should get about 42% in nd.

it is interesting that you think ~100% of undecideds will break McCain in this environment.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Party ID:

GOP: 40%

Dem: 30%

Ind: 30%


The age group results seem a bit a little weird. McCain and Obama are tied with 60+ while McCain leads by 11% among 30-44. Seems fishy.

30-44 year olds are the "Gen X" cohort, which are the most conservative group of voters. 

For this election, the breakdown is as follows:

18-29 are Generation Y (most people on this forum)--reliably democratic

30-44 years is generation X-- reliably republican

45-62 are the baby boomers--evenly split

63-83 or so are the silent generation--were reliably democratic in their prime

84+ GI Generation--fair distribution.

[Sbane]

Looks like Obama will crack 46-47 here but I doubt he wins it. Montana could get interesting though and it would be sweet if Obama could force Mccain to play defense there.

[Хahar 🤔]

Nobody can deny ND being close now.

Yes we can.

Well, yes, but it's incredibly stupid.

[Alcon]

Obama visited North Dakota, is advertising in it, and he's still down three when he's up a little nationally.  This isn't going to be a tipping-point state.

[Verily]

Obama visited North Dakota, is advertising in it, and he's still down three when he's up a little nationally.  This isn't going to be a tipping-point state.

Basically agree. I'd like to see numbers from someone other than Research 2000 first, of course, but I agree.

[Keystone Phil]

I just don't get the Obama fanatics' arguments about ND being in play. They're voting for him because he's from the Midwest and they like the change message? I think that's far too simplistic.

Bush took 62% in 2004 and 60% in 2000. This is a state that Bill Clinton couldn't even get close to 45-47% of the vote. He got 40% and that was in 1996. Dukakis played well in this area in 1988. How'd he do in ND? He got 42% of the vote.

So somebody please explain this ND hype. I can understand VA. I can even understand NC. ND? No. Not happening.

[Lunar]

Obama visited North Dakota, is advertising in it, and he's still down three when he's up a little nationally.  This isn't going to be a tipping-point state.

Still, it's nice to see his rejection of Kerry's theory (which was far more limited by money) of putting all one's eggs in one basket, notably Ohio.  I'm really curious if an Obama ad bombardment in one of these weird states, ND, MT, AK, IN, GA, or NC, can gain enough traction to make McCain look weak defending.  I sort of give a decent chance of this "make McCain look weak by defending a traditionally Republican state" strategy working, due to the number of states involved and the polling in the states involved.   Politically involved Republican fundraisers would be the primary target for a "McCain is weak electorally" message.

I'm sort of concerned about Georgia, but AK, ND & MT are sort of "why the fudge not?" states.

[Flying Dog]

Obama visited North Dakota, is advertising in it, and he's still down three when he's up a little nationally.  This isn't going to be a tipping-point state.

Still, it's nice to see his rejection of Kerry's theory (which was far more limited by money) of putting all one's eggs in one basket, notably Ohio.  I'm really curious if an Obama ad bombardment in one of these weird states, ND, MT, AK, IN, GA, or NC, can gain enough traction to make McCain look weak defending.  I sort of give a decent chance of this "make McCain look weak by defending a traditionally Republican state" strategy working, due to the number of states involved and the polling in the states involved.   Politically involved Republican fundraisers would be the primary target for a "McCain is weak electorally" message.

I'm sort of concerned about Georgia, but AK, ND & MT are sort of "why the fudge not?" states.

^^^^^^^

I think some people mistake our enthusiasm for these polls as actually thinking we're going to win them. The truth is that most of us just want McCain to be forced to spend money here so he'll have less to spend in places like MI, PA, NH, WI, etc, for offense.

[RJ]

I just don't get the Obama fanatics' arguments about ND being in play. They're voting for him because he's from the Midwest and they like the change message? I think that's far too simplistic.

Bush took 62% in 2004 and 60% in 2000. This is a state that Bill Clinton couldn't even get close to 45-47% of the vote. He got 40% and that was in 1996. Dukakis played well in this area in 1988. How'd he do in ND? He got 42% of the vote.

So somebody please explain this ND hype. I can understand VA. I can even understand NC. ND? No. Not happening.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say this state still leans McCain. However, the poll says McCain by just 3. There have been other polls with similar results. I'll trust facts and numbers over someone's belief or gut instinct any day.

It wasn't very long ago that people said the same things about VA and NC you're saying about ND. There have been elections in the past in which similar sentiments prevailed, especially in the early going. Dukakis couldn't lose in 88'. Clinton was supposed to be the Democratic nominee this year. I. for one, didn't believe a word of what the polls were telling us in Virginia's senate race in 2006 until the day before the election, and even then I still thought Allen would creep by by about 3%! It's quite possible that ND will settle into a McCain state by 8-10%, but right now it's polling consistently inside 5% and that's why people are saying it's in play.

[Keystone Phil]

I just don't get the Obama fanatics' arguments about ND being in play. They're voting for him because he's from the Midwest and they like the change message? I think that's far too simplistic.

Bush took 62% in 2004 and 60% in 2000. This is a state that Bill Clinton couldn't even get close to 45-47% of the vote. He got 40% and that was in 1996. Dukakis played well in this area in 1988. How'd he do in ND? He got 42% of the vote.

So somebody please explain this ND hype. I can understand VA. I can even understand NC. ND? No. Not happening.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say this state still leans McCain. However, the poll says McCain by just 3. There have been other polls with similar results. I'll trust facts and numbers over someone's belief or gut instinct any day.

Except it's not "gut instinct;" I backed it up with historical facts. Just because a "poll and numbers" say something doesn't mean it's true. It's summer polling. It's ridiculously inaccurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Judge a state on whether or not it is in play by looking at polls from the summer is silly.

[RJ]

Except it's not "gut instinct;" I backed it up with historical facts. Just because a "poll and numbers" say something doesn't mean it's true. It's summer polling. It's ridiculously inaccurate.

Virginia and North Carolina have gone Democrat a grand total of 1 time in the last 10 elections combined. Why didn't you add that to your historical analysis? If you can see those 2 states being contested, you must be able to see ND being contested.

Judge a state on whether or not it is in play by looking at polls from the summer is silly.

Everyone picks on summer polling, but I argue that it is relatively more important than most people realize. It provides the foundation for the fall. Both candidates will create a strategy based on what's happening now, and a status quo will be developed. It's the same as the given in a math problem or Major League Baseball games in April. Once again, I'm going to point out that people said the exact things about Virginia 3 months ago you're saying about North Dakota today.

[Keystone Phil]

Virginia and North Carolina have gone Democrat a grand total of 1 time in the last 10 elections combined. Why didn't you add that to your historical analysis? If you can see those 2 states being contested, you must be able to see ND being contested.

Are you really that stupid? Seriously.

I would agrue that that's a reason why Obama might not be favored to win those states but those states have changed a great deal. Just because Obama has a chance at picking them up (though I really don't buy that), that doesn't mean he has a chance to pick up another state that doesn't usually go Democratic. That's not the way it works. ND isn't trending Democratic. VA is.

Once again, I'm going to point out that people said the exact things about Virginia 3 months ago you're saying about North Dakota today.

But not to the same degree. Just because VA changes doesn't mean ND is just as likely to change.

[Lunar]

I think it's unfair to label RJ as "stupid" when he didn't say anything stupid, Phil.   He makes a valid point that sometimes polls check our gut instincts (which would have not said that MN, WI, IA, VA or CO would be anywhere close to where the forum consensus says they rest today).  You also make a valid point to that polls can be off and ND and VA are very different states (VA has elected a black governor and has large growth of white-collar white intellectuals that Obama appeals to).  But, just because North Dakota is different from Virginia doesn't mean that Obama is necessarily less appealing there (although he is)!  You didn't disprove his "stupid" point because he wasn't declaring the two states identical but rather the need to occasionally check our gut instincts against the observable facts in front of us.

Summer polling does tend to go all over the place.  But there's no need to get all insulting, yo.

[Keystone Phil]

You didn't disprove his "stupid" point because he wasn't declaring the two states identical but rather the need to occasionally check our gut instincts against the observable facts in front of us.

I presented the facts. Some of you need to go against your gut insticts with this "Obama is appealing in ND!" What facts do you have backing that up? Two or three polls?