You've seen this question a million times already: “If next year’s election for President was held today, do you think you would vote for George W. Bush, or some other candidate?” Suppose I told you that in a recent poll, the numbers broke down as follows:
George W. Bush 46.4%
Other Candidate 42.4%
Not very unusual, right? Bush has been running no better than even against an unnamed Democrat for some time now in national polls. He's actually doing a little better here than in some of those surveys.
Now suppose I told you that this was a poll taken in Montana (scroll down to "Vote Intention in 2004"), a state which Bush carried in 2000 by a 58-34 margin over Al Gore (Nader got 6%). Some "statistically significant relationships" from this MSU-Billings poll:
A majority (52.6%) of males planned on voting for Bush, a majority of females (59.4%) favored some other candidate.
A majority (76.8%) of Republicans said they would vote for Bush. A majority of Democrats (78.6%) and Independents (48.1%) supported some other candidate.
Majorities of respondents with 1-11 years (55.6%) and 13-15 (some college) years of education (59%) said they would vote for Bush. A plurality of college graduates (46.9%) and majority of individuals with a post-graduate education (57.4%) said they backed some other candidate.
Now, of course, there are tons of caveats: The margin of error is 5%. Other candidates combined for 42% in 2000, so while Bush has lost ground, the Democrats haven't necessarily gained any. A generic candidate often does better than a specific one. Some 20% of Democrats still seem to support Bush.
But still. The Mountain Time Zone was very friendly to Bush in 2000, with every state except New Mexico a red state. If his support slips there (and I've said before that Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada are all within reach for the Democrats), he's got trouble. The solid South can only take you so far.
Via Not Geniuses.Posted by Charles Kuffner on November 25, 2003 to The making of the President | TrackBack