« Obama Decision On Brandenburg Gate Speech Is Imminent | Home | Tonight: Ventura To Announce Whether He's Running For Senate »
Poll Suggests Deep-Red South Dakota May Be In Play
Wow. A new Rasmussen poll suggests that Barack Obama could be putting in play the very red state of South Dakota, which hasn't voted Democratic for president since the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide.
The numbers: McCain 47%, Obama 43%. Compare this to 2004, when George W. Bush beat John Kerry by a 60%-39% margin. The last Rasmussen poll here was four months ago, and it had McCain ahead 48%-38%.
The kicker: South Dakota isn't on the list of 18 states that the Obama camp has been targeting with advertising. But with numbers like these, that list might end up growing any day now.
Advertisement
Perhaps spill-over advertising from ND?
How expensive can it be to advertise in SD anyway...?
July 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a busload of volunteers, and you could probably canvass every citizen between now and November....
July 14, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm as greedy as everyone, but even I have to admit that may not be the best use of resources. But it's fun to contemplate!
July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Wow. A new Rasmussen poll suggests that Barack Obama could be putting in play the very red state of South Dakota, which hasn't voted Democratic for president since the 1964 Lyndon Johnson landslide."
Anyone else have de ja vu with this paragraph?
July 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes... Was it for NORTH Dakota before, maybe?
July 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what it was for. But they've used that exact same paragraph for at least one other red state poll.
July 14, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Ras says Obama's opened up a double-digit lead in Iowa. McCain's discovering why it's important not to bypass that state if you actually intend on being the nominee.
All said, if this is the best McCain can do with the press acting like his official campaign spokesman, he is very, very close to transitioning from "screwed" to "utterly *****ed."
July 14, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Press acting as official campaign spokesman - I like that, you are exactly right. Imagine these numbers if the press were neutral, wow!
July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. If only.
July 14, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of blew off the whole cell phone thing as a non-issue, but today I read the stats on this, and I think I underestimated it. Not necessarily in South Dakota, but in general. I am currently in the process of obtaining a second iPhone and we will get rid of the land line. How many others I wonder?
July 14, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had a land line in probably 6 years (I'm 25).
July 14, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you're so young, I just have to ask. Are you going to be too tired to vote in November, as Cokie Roberts thinks?
July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you mean? I already voted like 3 months ago.
July 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
You were joking, right?
July 14, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
;)
July 14, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
My 30, 29 and 24 year old children will all vote, and vote Obama with glee. Cokie needs to wake up herself :0)
July 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am 54. So you are young and ahead of the curve as are two of my three children. Now the baby boomers are trending this way. That may be a good sign!
July 14, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are shitting me - we are almost the same age and I would have sworn you were no older than 30.
LOL!
July 14, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: We are aging backwards :)
July 14, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like that..aging backwards...I'm 58...
July 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
But of course my dear, and aging and disgracefully as possible, too.
I'm telling you - everyone our age should be right here in Taos, New Mexico - it's where old hippies come to die and boy am I in the right place.
July 14, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute, I thought only the kids used the Internet
(I'm 40)
July 14, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you *both* dated yourselves, silly geese!!!
July 15, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you weren't counting your 30 year-old as young, I'm going to be very upset with you...
July 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thirty year old is young, hip and gets it with politics! We are such great friends, past the mom thing and I enjoy her more than friends my age!
July 14, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Amelie I'm 52 years old, I have a deep voice I've had for the last 39 years. When I, or someone like me calls and asks for your kids and explains we're volunteers from a Democratic candidate's campaign trying to ID voters please don't get upset. I'm not some guy your daughter mistakenly gave her phone number to Friday night, an army recruiter or a NSA operative.
We're trying to figure out who we should spend time and money on to get their votes, who the McCain deadenders are we should ignore and like you and your kids who we should ask to join us.
No offense but I spent 3 hours calling indies tonight who haven't voted since 2004 for my congressional candidate and I got more than one mom who blurted out "she's married!" like I'm some old boyfriend looking her up.
July 15, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mark: Regarding my daughter, I would say call her, and let her handle it, I am pretty easy going about these things. I think my 24 year old (S.F.) is so/so about voting. I had to actually ask her to register to do so for Mother's Day as a gift for me which she insisted she should have gotten. Job done. She is just not engaged in the process much yet. But the 29 (NYC) and 30 year olds (CA rural) are. My daughter, 30, is big into the environment and and this has to do with having two children of her own. My son is a doctor and single, his deal would be health care. All would say they are independents. They are a hard group to convince that their vote is vital. I have done phone calls locally, and I guess the first thing I like to find out is what is the most important issue to the voter, and back that up with facts as to why they should vote for the candidate you are calling on behalf of. I do think with this age group, the privatization of Social Security does resonate, though not to a large extent, as they see themselves paying for all the baby boomers, forgetting all the boomers paid for the over 65's now drawing. I admire your volunteering, it is time consuming and frustrating at times. With a deep voice, I would call all the women first !!
July 15, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, everybody, I'm 116, win marathons, and look like a *fashion model*! GOOD GENES!!!
July 15, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah same here (22)
July 14, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is totally anecdotal, so you can take it with a large grain of salt, but I do rather question the premise that cell-phone-only tilts hard to Obama. My grandfather recently passed away, so my grandmother decided to move into a senior center apartment because she did not want to live alone in the country. When she moved into the senior center, she began to make arrangements to get a phone number in the center, but was told that it was a huge hassle and that most of the residents in that center just used cell phones. On the assumption that this particular senior center was not an anomaly, it would appear that more than a few elderly Lutherans are also cell-phone-only.
In other words, it is not just the tech-savvy, young kids in the cell-phone-only category. My grandmother is a lukewarm McCain supporter and I expect that most of her neighbors would answer to that same description. With that in mind, I am not entirely certain that leaving these people out of the surveys is really depressing Obama's numbers as significantly as that article might lead one to believe.
July 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh holy shit... Obama up 17 in Minnesota.
July 14, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know? I was sort of wondering about why the McCain campaign was so strident today. The "brazen attempt" language, for instance, of Graham.
The "Obama wants us to lose!" language. The immigration comments.
And I started to wonder if McCAin had internal polls telling his campaign some not so good news, or, if the McCain campaign had advance knowledge that Chuck Hagel OR Colin Powell might be coming out to publicly endorse Obama...So all the negativity to offset what would be obviously good news for Obama.
July 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that 18.
So the question is...
with Michigan and Minnesota drifting out of contention, does that hurt or help Romney and Pawlenty?
Do the South Dakota numbers open the door for Thune?
July 14, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It hurts both. McCain wouldn't choose either unless he knew they could put him over the top in either of those two states. A VP choice might bring in 3 to 5 percentage points but 15 to 20 is out of the question; I don't care how popular they are.
July 14, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Texas, anyone? Pretty please?
July 14, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man I hope so. I've got family down there that would LOVE it if it went blue this year. And I know Tena has been crossing her fingers too...
July 14, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell 'em to stop "lovin' it" and start "makin' it happen..." We need all the boots on the ground we can get. I live in Maryland and I'm going to spend the next several months trying to help swing VA and NC, and I don't let my family in those states mention how excited they are without asking them what volunteer work they're doing, when they last donated, etc. WE is the most important word in "YES WE CAN!"
July 14, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wildly optimistic about us in Texas because the trend has been so clear: '04, Kerry only missed carrying Dallas Co. by .01% of the vote. '06 - the entire country pulled a straight Democratic ticket lever - we threw out 49 Repug judges and replaced them with Democrats, thus reversing the Reagan massacre of our judiciary in '84.
Primary night in Dallas Co. in one precinct in Oak Cliff, 4000 people turned out for Obama. That precinct saw a total of 58 votes in '04.
July 14, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me or do some of these polls point to a somewhat disturbing scenario?
Say Obama does lose some of these deep red states that Bush won by 20pts but he only loses them by 1 or 2 pts.
Could we see a scenario where Obama wins the popular vote by several million votes but loses the electoral college by a delegate or two?
July 14, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, of course that's possible, but if he's pulling within 1-2% in these deep red states, he's going to be doing fine in the traditional battlegrounds.
Kerry + Iowa + New Mexico + Colorado
Kerry + Iowa + Nevada + Colorado
Kerry + Nevada + New Mexico + Colorado
Kerry + Ohio
Kerry + Iowa + Virginia
Kerry + New Mexico + Virginia (with a congressional tie-breaker)
Kerry + Nevada + Virginia (with a congressional tie-breaker)
If McCain can't put any of these Kerry states into play, he's got a lot of combinations to worry about, even if Obama doesn't pull an upset in Flordia, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Georgia, North Carolina, or the Dakotas.
July 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right.
I'm a worrier by nature and the above seems like the cruelest possibility.
I guess my biggest concern is if he loses PA. He would have to pick up quite a few to make up for that.
July 14, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And based on the latest polls it is looking more like: Kerry + Iowa + New Mexico + Colorado + Ohio + Virginia + Missouri and possibly Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Montana, the Dakotas and Nevada too along with one Electoral Vote in Nebraska.
July 14, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Possible, but highly unlikely. I'd worry if the opponent was more appealing than John McCain is.
July 14, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay!! Good news!
July 14, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The latest Zogby indicates a close race in Texas:
McBushSame: 42%
Obama: 39%
Barr: 6%
Nader: 2%
Undecided: 7%
Other 4%
Good news for McBushSame
July 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zogby actually IS good news for McSame
July 14, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confused. In many, if not most, of the so-called battleground states there is a clear Obama lead. And then in some states like SD where Obama should be expected to be down by double digits, he is down by 5 points or less. So why do the daily national polls show a 3% edge for Obama?
One explanation could be that Obama is getting clobbered in the popular vote of some Southern states, including TN, but Obama is beating McCain in all other regions. This may make for a narrow popular vote win but a sizable electoral vote win.
July 14, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
North and South Dakota don't have many people, so they'll hardly have any impact on the national polls. The two states together have about 1.5 million people, so in a country of 300 million, they'd be worth about 5 people in a 1000 person polling sample. Not enough to swing the national numbers at all, really.
July 14, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure, but I think the national polls tend to reflect the impact of the media narratives, while the state polls are more reflective of ground level organizing.
July 14, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
All polls have underlying assumptions and those assumptions can vary considerably. Different polling companies can have assumptions that range from reflecting reality to magical thinking.
I never understood the polling for the Missouri primary when I could not match those polls to what I was actually encountering in my neighborhood. I heard loudly and clearly from supporters for Obama, Edwards, and any Republican. I only located "very quiet" Hillary supporters. Guess who won?
Right now I'm hearing loudly and clearly from supporters for Obama and the "base" Republicans. I can only locate "very quiet" McCain supporters--and I suspect a lot of these would simply pull the covers over the head and not vote on election day.
If you are someone who can canvass door-to-door, then get cracking. You'll be energized by what you discover.
July 14, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
if obama wins south dakota he's going to get about 450 electoral college votes. it's a great sign that he's doing well there, but i have a hard time getting too worked up over it.
July 14, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The times, they are a-changing and so is the electoral map.
July 14, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arizona:
McBushSame: 39%
Obama: 42%
Barr: 7%
Nader: 2%
Undecided: 5%
Other: 5%
Another good news for McSameBush:)
July 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
O that's great news for McLame - he's going to lose his own state.
Ouch!
July 14, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: Having lived in AZ for a decade, and having a lot of family there, I suspected this. He is not adored by any means. He has barely ever had to campaign there with any fervor, except maybe his first election. He wins by default.
July 14, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Moley!!!
July 15, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is killing him Iowa and Minnesota as well.
July 14, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lived in Minnesota for 15 years. Great state. They will come through for Obama, they will figure it out.
July 14, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chew over this speculation on my part. Recall all the outcry from the Net-Roots about Senator Obama moving to the center, with his FISA vote, his faith based program, and other centrist positions.
Now some of the National polls are tightening, and the Net-Roots are rushing to claim it is because Senator Obama broke with them. Think about this: what if the vast majority of those liberal activists that are no longer behind him are in safe big states such as NY, Ill, and CA. They may show up in the national polls but they will not make a difference in the outcome of those safe big states.
On the other hand, might not his move to the middle be what is showing him making gains in those red states, and that is what is now putting them in play. After all, it is the states that you carry, and not the popular vote size that matterd. He just might be willing to lose some of the left fringe in big liberal states in order to put other states in play. If carrying New York state by a smaller margin would give him a couple of the small states that he would not otherwise get, then that would be a very good trade off.
What do you think of that notion folks?