New Polls Show Bloomberg Candidacy Would Flip More States To Blue
A new batch of polls just out from SurveyUSA provides us with the first detailed snapshot we have yet of the state-by-state effect a Bloomberg candidacy would have on the 2008 Presidential race.
Bottom line: Bloomberg's impact depends entirely on who the Dem and GOP nominees are, but it's clear that in more cases, his entry actually flips the states from red to blue than the other way around.
One other interesting point: The polls suggest that the two candidates who would be most hurt in a general election by a Bloomberg entry are Mitt Romney and, surprisingly, Barack Obama. And Bloomberg flips states when either of those two are nominated — at least for now.
We have a detailed chart on exactly how Bloomberg's candidacy would affect the race in each state after the jump.
Here are the ways Bloomberg's entry would impact each state, according to the polls:
Alabama: Would flip from red to blue in the case of Romney vs. Hillary vs. Bloomberg. With Romney vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg, the state would tie at 36%-36%, with 18% for Bloomberg.California: If it's Rudy vs. Obama, this state could potentially flip from blue to red: Rudy 42%, Obama 39%, Bloomberg 11%.
Iowa: Flips from red to blue no matter who the GOP and Dem nominees are.
Kansas: Would flip from red to blue if Romney is the GOP candidate — Bloomberg apparently eats into the Republican column the most with Romney.
Kentucky: Would flip from red to blue under Romney.
Massachusetts: Would flip from blue to red with Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.
Minnesota: Stays blue by a very strong margin, no matter what.
Missouri: Flips from red to blue for all match-ups.
New Mexico: Flips from red to blue in all caes — except Giuliani vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.
New York: Flips from blue to red if it's Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg.
Ohio: Flips from red to blue for all match-ups except Rudy vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg — then it is tied.
Oregon: Dems leads by a good margin no matter what.
Texas: Flips from red to blue if Romney is GOP nominee.
Virginia: Flips from rid to blue if Romney is GOP nominee.
Washington: Stays blue in all cases.
Wisconsin: Stays blue in all match-ups.
Some of those Rudy/Obama/Bloomberg numbers sure are scary though - New York, California and Mass go to Rudy
Mike - this is not what we need!!!!!!
June 20, 2007 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure if Clintons numbers looked as bad as Obamas here, then we'd all be hearing how this is the end of Clinton's campaign. Etc. Etc.
June 20, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting.
June 20, 2007 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers make no sense at all that I can find. CA would flip red if Bloomberg ran? Bull.
June 20, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a Bloomberg campaign appears to hurt Obama because of Obama's (comparatively high level of) support among independents and Obama's own use of post-partisanship as a goal. There's more than a little rhetorical overlap, based on Bloomberg's recently published opinions. Just speculating...
At any rate, it's hard to take polling this early seriously, especially when it is trying to measure the impact of the hypothetical entry of a third-party candidate.
June 20, 2007 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
These polls are meaningless. Most people have no idea who Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues.
When they find out he is an ultra liberal on social issues he will be a bigger threat to Dems than to the GOP.
June 20, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a Bloomberg campaign appears to hurt Obama
A lot of Obama support is due to the "fresh face" factor. Bloomberg is also seen as a fresh face. And if he enters the race later on this year he will be seen fresher than Obama.
June 20, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls this early are unreliable even when the matchups are not totally hypothetical and involve announced candidates who've been scrutinized. This poll is even more unreliable -- indeed it's completely worthless -- for two reasons.
First, it uses two unannounced candidates in its hypotheticals (Bloomberg and Thomspon) and then, to compound the error, the survey, inexplicably, does not poll Obama-Thompson-Bloomberg but only Hillary-Thompson-Bloomberg. So there's an apples-to-oranges problem.
Second -- and this wonkish but very fundamental -- the whole methododology is deeply flawed, because ARG calls something a Red to Blue "flip" if the Dem is ahead by even one point, even though the sampling error in each State is 4.5 percent, and vice versa for a Blue to Red flip. At the same time, ARG calls something a Blue state "hold" even if the Dem is ahead by one point and the error is 4.5%, and it likewise calls something a Red state "hold" even if the Repub is ahead by one point. That's junk science because, to take just one state, Washington, Bloomberg's entry is deemed a Blue state hold for Hillary and Obama, even though the Rudy - Hillary - Bloomberg race has Hillary up by 1 point, where as the Rudy - Obama - Bloomberg race has Obama up by 5 points. That should be labeled a "flip" from Blue to "Tie" in Hillary's case, and a Blue state hold for Obama.
P.S. ARG is, if I am not mistaken, a web survey poll, and web survey polls are notoriously flawed, because the surveyed group opts in, so the poll does not reflect true random sampling.
June 20, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. This is yet another reason to ignore these polling data.
June 20, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure seems to be a lot of denial in the comments.
June 20, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
What I'm reading is that people are saying such polls are unreliable, which is most probably an accurate observation.
June 21, 2007 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 21, 2007 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink