Is Pennsylvania "in play"..?

[ian]

Much to my own surprise, when I did my weekly prediction map update, I have (oh so marginally) swung Pennsylvania into the Bush column.  This, along with moving Washington State from Lean Kerry to Solid Kerry, were my only two changes.

There have been 7 polls I could find on Pennsylvania in the past 5 weeks, showing anything from Kerry +2 to Bush +4.  Most telling, however, is the shift in voter registration.  Since 2000, the state has gone from a modest +4 Democratic advantage in registrations to essentially parity.  Given that Gore won by just a tad over 4%, it is clear that Pennsylvania should be a barn burner..


[

I freely admit how close Pennsylvania is surprises me, I had expected Kerry to be able to run a fairly modest campaign to hold the keystone state - I was thinking Kerry +5 or 6 initially..

To the degree that the playing field gets bigger, this certainly hurts Kerry in the sense that McCain/Feingold has hurt the Democrats far more the the GOP, and the Bush cash advantage, in practical terms, is far larger in 2004 than it was in 2000.

Does anybody else have any states that they think are a "surprise" this time around, and why...?

Thank you for putting Arkansas as making a significant change to the correct side.  We're goin' Kerry!!!

[ian]

Setyourselfonfire stated: "I live in Blue Earth County, in south central Minnesota. It voted for Bush rather marginally in 2000, with Nader taking 6%, more than twice of Gore's margin of loss. The sentiment here has moved to definately being more anti-Bush. The economic conditions in the outstate areas, especially the northwest, have gotten far worse, and this will definately hurt Bush. I think too many people overestimate the signs of the 2002 elections, since not a single Republican in a statewide race got over 50% of the vote. Only Attorney General Mike Hatch, a Democrat did with 54%. What I think happened is the media making a mountain out of a molehill with the Wellstone Memorial increased GOP turnout tilting some marginal races. The biggest issue though I think, is the Nader factor. Nader got 5% here in 2000, and he definately won't be doing that well this year. Also, the voters in suburban Hennepin and Ramsey counties are like the voters in suburban PA, NJ and NY, and while they voted very marginally for Bush in 2000, I think it'll flip and they'll vote for Kerry now because of Bush moving too far to the right on social issues. The most recent poll showed Bush: 41, Kerry: 43. Doesn't look like a resounding lead for Kerry, but keep these things in mind:
1) Undecideds break 2:1 against the incumbent
2) That was long before Kerry started campaigning here for Super Tuesday.
41 is a very weak showing for an incumbent, so I think it would closer to Kerry: 47, Bush: 42 if polled today. So I would have the state as leaning Kerry, although the GOP's going to try to win here and I'll have to put up with their nonsense. "

These are the most interesting posts.  I love hearing takes on things from a local.  We should have more of these.  *hint, hint*

[ian]

You are giving Connecticut Dems a bad name.

You give Texas a bad name.  Oh wait Texas is already the toilet of this country.

I hate to laugh, but that's the funniest thing I've ever heard.  On another note, how is it that every time I go to any thread CTGuy has just pissed someone off?

[ian]

Drop Cheney and the likely choices would be either Gov Bill Owens (R-CO) or Bill Frist (R-TN) both would not alienate the base and would strengthen the likleyhood of an easy sucession in 2008 without the need for a bloody primary battle... having said that Owens has marridge problems and Frist...well...he killed cats but generally either would have a better effect nationwide than Cheney ever could, Cheney was a good "choice" back in 2000 but Bush should no longer need him, at least electorally... but who can say what Bush needs Cheney for these days, proably as an adviser more than anything...          

or a brain.