How can Mn, Wi, and Iowa be so close?

[joanne]

HAvent they always been reliably Democratic?

I know Gore won them with razor thin margins, but think a lot of that had to do with Nader. Cant see that being a factor this year.

Maybe someone living in those states can comment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Large Rural Populations (nt)

and I don't think Minnesota is all that close....


Unfortunately the further a Democrat gets away from the farm the better he does...

[joanne]

3. True, Dems do a lot better in the cities.....

but as I said, I thought those states were reliably Democratic.

[JHBowden]

2. Money in Iowa might be spent wrong.

I've heard that Democrats are putting their money on the less expensive cable channels, while the Republicans are putting ads on the standard channels. In addition, a few GOP PACS are dumping millions into the state.

Wisconsin has 2-3% consistently going for Nader this year.

[featherman]

4. Not sure they are as close as the polls would have you believe

but a big part of the DEM advantage here was the tradition of a progressive farm vote with roots dating back to the Farmer Labor Party and "Fightin' Bob LaFollete". Not sure but that this vote has not been eroded somewhat by time and replaced somewhat by a gain among evangelical rural voters. May also be a problem with the Catholic vote and the abortion issue to some degree.
All that being said I expect all to be giving their EV's to Kerry on Nov 2.

[joanne]

7. I cant imagine any of those states going to *

and meanwhile, they are pulling out of states that are within Kerry's reach... such as Arkansas, Va and WV.

[ciaobox]

5. They aren't close.

The polls are all BS. Kerry by a landslide:

[FrankenforMN]

6. Abortion Abortion and Taxes

I'm from Minnesota and almost everyone that is voting for Bush says that they simply cannot vote for someone that is "pro-abortion". If it was not for this wedge issue, Minnesota would be as blue as Karl Rove's face after we win. The second reason is that they economy has been strong in Minnesota (for some people), more people seem to be making good livings in the surrounding areas of the Twin Cities, and they do not want the government to tax them.

[nine30]

12. Abortion: Chris Mathews view

Why is it always the doctor or the govt that is to blame ? Why not hold the woman responsible for her decision ?
Chris wasn't taking one side or another on the issue last week on Hardball, but merely asking a very good question.

And my question - Repukes are always big on keeping the govt. out of peoples' lives. Why not keep them out of the bedroom and of a woman's internal body parts !

[FrankenforMN]

20. My take on his point (I agree)

If conservatives want to decrease the size and power of the federal government, how can they advocate having government officials declaring that a woman cannot do something with her own body? Seems hypocritical to me. You cannot pick and choose, you either want the government involved in other people's lives, or you do not.

[Quadrajet]

13. "abortion" in MN

I agree, most of the Republicans I and my wife talk to can't stand any of Bush's policies or actions, but they are strong "pro-lifers". They say "if it weren't for his stance on abortion, I'd be voting for Kerry." You don't know how bad that hurts to hear, take this one issue out of play and it would be a landslide!

I am pro choice, but I also feel that federally funded and so called "partial birth abortion" isn't necessarily a good thing and would sway a LOT more voters to Kerry if he didn't support them.

Another thing that would help a lot imho would be HUGE tax breaks for people who give their children up for adoption AND people who want to adopt.

Just my 2 cents.

[nine30]

15. Why are they blaming Kerry for it ??

If you murder someone, YOU are held responsible, NOT the govt. for allowing it to happen. I just don't get it.

Why are pro lifers always blaming the govt? Whatever happened to personal responsibility that they always advocate ? So in their minds the woman is still an angel after "murdering her own child"? And its all the govt's falt?
WTF ????

[FrankenforMN]

21. They blame Kerry because...

He believes women have the right to make that choice, he voted against the ban on partial-birth abortion. They think the government should force women to have the child (see my above post on the hypocrisy in this), and Kerry would not let this happen.

One thing that you can always point out to a "pro-lifer", is that the number of abortions have increased dramatically in the past four years, in part because the republicans have had control of the house, senate and presidency due to their economic policies. It shuts them right up.
http://yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_14332.shtml

[question everything]

29. It is NOT "partial birth abortion" The fetus is already dead

and has to be removed from the woman's body and this is the best way to do so to cause her minimum damage so that she can bear children in the future if she wants to.

If people are against abortion they should promote, use tax dollars to promote birth control. Why do insurance company pay for Viagra but not for birth control? Of course, the Pople is against birth conrol, too. And why are they against the "morning after pill?" It prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. Are four cells really a "baby?"

And I don't see those, who think that it is their business to get between a pregnant woman's legs, standing in line to adopt children who are already here.

And for those who use pictures of Gerber babies - most abortions take place in the first trimester, when there are no babies there, only small tissue. Indeed, most pregnancies end in the first month, before the woman even knows that she is pregnant.

So I suggest we collect all the used tampons and pads and send them to the ones who just want to save the unborn child.

Give me a break.

[Quadrajet]

33. partial birth ?

"It is NOT "partial birth abortion"

That's why I put it in quotations. I'm not doubting you on the fact that the fetus is already dead. It's one of the issues they're fighting against, I just called it what they do to get my point across. No worries.



"If people are against abortion they should promote, use tax dollars to promote birth control."

You're absolutely right AND they should give huge tax breaks to those who want to put the baby up for adoption!




"And why are they against the "morning after pill?" It prevents the fertilized egg from being implanted in the uterus. Are four cells really a "baby?"

Yes, the religious right believes that. Hell, they believe that by PREVENTING conception you're killing a child, hence protests against the morning after pill. With that type of thinking, just THINKING about having sex but not being able to is preventing a child. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[FrankenforMN]

46. You are preaching to the choir

[question everything]

28. That's why it is important to spread the oped from today's strib

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=80984&mesg_id=80984

[Zynx]

8. Iowa and Wisconsin reliably Democratic? HA!

Iowa has always been thought of as a marginally Republican state historically and Wisconsin is always close.

[tcfrogs]

11. Iowa is unusual, that's true

Until Vilsack, two Republican governors (Ray & Branstad) ran the state for 30 YEARS! Grassley's been around forever in the Senate (so has Harkin, for that matter) and traditionally 4 of the 5 house seats go Republican.

Yet, the state has trended Democrat in presidential elections. Go figure.

[cavanaghjam]

14. That may be

because they are not slave to party. Iowans are sensible people, not prone to herd instinct, perhaps because so many are familiar with herds and recognize the instinct as beneath human dignity.

[Lindacooks]

9. MN isn't close.

Last poll I saw had Kerry up by 8 points.

[goodhue]

23. Yet candidates continue to flock here!

So they must have some closer internal numbers.

We had all four here last week. And in the upcoming week we get Kerry in Rochester, Edwards in Minneapolis and Nader in Northfield.

[Wickerman]

10. The primary polls in Iowa were all wrong

history can repeat itself.

Minn will be delivered for Kerry, I am certain as I live here and I see a lot of support and disgust at what Republican policies have wrought. Wisonsin has been hammered hard for the last 4 years and previous. I lot of Chicago repugs have migrated North, as has some Chicago Industry/business. Even then, I still Kerry will pull it out.

Iowa should go Dem (I was raised there) but the Republican party has made some real inroads there. :shrug:

[nine30]

16. The polls are AS WRONG AS

..the ones showing Dean/Gephdt/Kerry in a dead heat the weekend before the Jan 19 Caucuses. I still held out hope for Dean that weekend...we had hoped for a 'pefect storm'. There was - and it blew Dean away. The rest is history.

[foo_bar]

24. the primary in Iowa was a caucus

Kerry could've lost a straight primary in Iowa. He diverted all the free radicals from the Gep/Lieberman/Clark camps who couldn't make quorum, so he was everyone's #2 choice where Dean was the choice of fewer #1s. That's serious game theory for a pollster.

[Cats Against Frist]

41. Well, from the caucuses that I heard about, and watched on C-SPAN

Kerry had a HELL of a following, and didn't need any stragglers to beat any of the rest of the candidates. I was pissed, because I was for Dean -- and I was AMAZED to see how many people went for Kerry. He was a dark horse, back in those days, and everyone thought Dean was a shoe-in. Also, I live in the most liberal county in the state of Iowa, and there were more Kerry supporters than Dean supporters.

Kerry would have won in a straight primary.

[foo_bar]

44. I hope we see the "silent Kerry voter" phenomenon in a week

Kerry beat the polls in his '96 race by five points (against a telegenic pro-choice republican). Seems a lot of people connect with Kerry who don't admit it publicly.

[Cha]

34. Republicans would not be what I want

but they would be better than neo-fascists..which is what we are dealing with now..surely Iowans can see that.

[mermaid]

17. Undersampling of Democrats, Oversampling Of Republicans In Polls

gives them the APPEARANCE of being close. They aren't.

After weeks of complaints that Gallup's samples had a GOP bias, note that their likely and registered voter results in yesterday's poll were based on party ID samples composed very closely along the lines of the 2000 exit poll turnout.

Likely Voter Samples

Poll of September 13-15
Reflected Bush Winning by 55%-42%

GOP: 40%
Dem: 33%
Ind: 28%

Poll of September 24-26
Reflected Bush Winning by 52%-44%

GOP: 43%
Dem: 31%
Ind: 25%

Poll of October 1-3
Reflected Dead Heat 49%-49%
772 Likely Voters

GOP: 35%
Dem: 39%
Ind: 26%

Folks, for Gallup’s likely voter methodology to be accurate you would have to accept that there was a 16% swing in party self-identification in one week, with 8% fewer likely voters self-identifying as Republicans and 8% more self-identifying as Democrats.

This is happening in many other places, too!!
Just the only actual documentation of this I can put my hands on at the moment.

[DU9598]

18. Iowa

I still am confident that we will go for Kerry, but the economy here in central and eastern Iowa is booming.

[ISUGRADIA]

45. Booming yet half those working in the state make

$20,000 a year or less. So a lot of people with poor paying jobs.

[hansolsen]

19. Dems are short about 10% of our "natural" vote lead because of guns

and candy ass environmental issues. We are losing 40% of union members who are all hunters and ATv and snowmobile owners. Dems here (Minnesota)love the outdoors, consider themselves the original environmentalists, are true conservationists, and hate "Greens" because they go too far with stupid rules and regulations that don't really improve the environment but are a pain in the ass.

The urban, gun contolling, latte drinking wing of the Party seems to have no idea how much their little self indulgences have cost us.

Don't get me wrong -- I think we will win anyway in Minnesota, probably going away. But this is a long term problem. If Kerry were running against Ike or Reagan right now, you wouldn't be able to find his standing in the polls with a flashlight. This is an ABB election that covers a lot of sins. Let's not forget that after we win.

[Cats Against Frist]

43. Hey, I'm from Seattle, I like espresso and I love guns

so what's your fucking problem? :)

(actually, I'm in Iowa, now -- but I'm from Seattle.)

[hansolsen]

47. Sorry, no insult to Latte drinkers meant. I'm just trying to get the Part

on the right track on guns.

[goodhue]

22. MN

Growth of suburbia and exburbia and influx from other states has made MN increasingly republican over last 10 years. Nader got over 5% in 2000. He will get at least 1% if not 2% this time round, making him a potential spoiler here. But Kerry will likely win by at least a couple percent provided we GOTV.

[dflprincess]

37. Don't ya just love the yuppied scum that has moved to Minnesota

because of our great quality of life then start whining about the taxes that made that quaility possible? I wish they'd all follow John Kline back to Texas.

[tedoll78]

25. Minnesota is ours. So are IA and WI.

Minnesota has always been ours. If Bush has ever been ahead there, it hasn't lasted very long. Kerry is consistently polling ahead of Bush or tied there. Nader's threat is reduced there as well.

Iowa? I detect a trend with early balloting. As of reports this weekend, voters identifying themselves as Democrats are returning twice as many early ballots as Republicans. Yes, you read that correctly. Many polls have shown the race here within the margin of error.

Wisconsin? The trend, once again, is in our direction. Kerry was definitely behind in most polling in the early part of the month, but now he's charged to at the very least a tie. Some polls are even putting him narrowly ahead. The GOP has pulled support for its challenger to Senator Feingold (who is now running away with his race), so this could serve to slightly depress GOP turnout. Meanwhile, Wisconsin residents have the chance to elect their very first African American representative to Congress; this will serve to boost African American turnout.

So I feel quite confident about each of these three states. Most polls in 2000 before election day were also showing a tie race, and Gore swept the region. For what it's worth..

And if Kerry wins Ohio (quite probably now), he can even afford to lose one of the three. Pretty sweet!

[Charles19]

40. WI will be the closest of the three but will go Kerry IMHO

I am from there but living in PA now. In my opinion they are generally independant minded there and lean progressive. I was just in my hometown in Wisconsin and saw about 9 yards with Kerry signs for every 1 Bush sign. Rich suburbs of Milwaukee might work well for polling high Bush numbers but they aren't going to outweigh everyone else in the state voting for Kerry.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. You named 3 of the 4 states on my danger list, compiled in early 2001

The other is Oregon, which will be much closer than DUers estimate, even minus Nader.

All four states have steadily drifted toward 50/50 partisanship. Wisonsin and Iowa, in particular, are much more bellwether states than Democratic states.

Here is my partisanship chart from those states, with comparison to the national popular vote average at right:

Iowa:
'88: Dukakis (54.71 - 44.50) = + 17.93% Democrat
'92: Clinton (43.29 - 37.27) = + 0.46% Democrat
'96: Clinton (50.26 - 39.92) = + 1.81% Democrat
'00: Gore (48.54 - 48.22) = + 0.19% Republican

Minnesota:
'88: Dukakis (52.91 - 45.90) = + 14.73% Democrat
'92: Clinton (43.48 - 31.85) = + 6.07% Democrat
'96: Clinton (51.10 - 34.96) = + 7.61% Democrat
'00: Gore (47.91 - 45.50) = + 1.90% Democrat

Oregon:
'88: Dukakis (51.28 - 46.61) = + 12.39% Democrat
'92: Clinton (42.48 - 32.53) = + 4.39% Democrat
'96: Clinton (47.15 - 39.06) = + 0.44% Republican
'00: Gore (46.96 - 46.52) = + 0.07% Republican

Wisconsin:
'88: Dukakis (51.41 - 47.80) = + 11.33% Democrat
'92: Clinton (41.13 - 36.78) = + 1.21% Republican
'96: Clinton (48.81 - 38.48) = + 1.80% Democrat
'00: Gore (47.83 - 47.61) = + 0.29% Republican

[fujiyama]

31. I don't think OR

will be the problem. Bush pulled resources out of the state. OR has been polling somewhere between 2 and 8 points. I predict Kerry to win it by about 5.

The other remaining potential "danger" state is New Mexico, which was decided by 366 votes in '00. This state wasn't much of a win, as much as a tie. Richardson did win though and that's somewhat encouraging, that too in a year that was disasterous for democrats. I also heard that this state could determine Richardson's own political future. If he doesn't deliver it, he may doom his own future.

If Kerry takes MN, IA, WI, and NM I'd be thrilled and somewhat surprised. But I am hopeful he will take FL and/or OH, which help make up for any potential loss from the other states.

If Kerry is relying on OH and NH as potential pick ups, then he must keep MN, and either WI, or NM and IA. I am hoping FL will not be a mess and KErry will win it by a large enough margin that makes it more difficult for them to steal it.

[Awsi Dooger]

38. I should have explained I didn't count New Mexico as a "blue" state

That's why it wasn't on my danger list. I was looking for longterm Democratic states that were trending against us, and red states trending away from the GOP. Since New Mexico voted for Bush in '88 (by 5 points, in fact) unlike the other four states I mentioned, I don't consider New Mexico a classic blue state.

I think Kerry will win Oregon by 2-3 points, regardless of which side advertises there or does not. We have not managed more than 47.15% in Oregon since Dukakis pulled 51% in '88. The Kulungoski gov race in 2002 was much closer than anticipated and our 2002 senate candidate was blown out. Plus, a very good indicator is the '96 presidential vote in which Clinton did not manage his national margin in Oregon, even without Nader on the ballot.

[zulchzulu]

27. WI was hammered with SBVFT ads and other Chimpaganda ads

Doing grassroots stuff in WI has been interesting in terms of angry Freepers and their spawn basically brainwashed by the ads parroting the usual garbage.

Just this past weekend, one Chimpy fan (missing his front teeth and wearing ragged clothes and his two glaring kids by his side) started yelling "Flush the Johns! Flush the Johns!" all the while gaffawing like a lost insane asylum patient. His kids were bearing their corn cob teeth as us as we tabled for Kerry.

Obviously, this man is voting against his own interest. The hell with him.

[harpo]

30. Places where them pulling money from the farm bill might play well

[milkyway]

32. This is the last battleground. If it's close, Kerry will need 2 of these

plus N.M. (But I don't think it will be close--Kerry in an electoral landslide!)

[Robeson]

35. He may not need N.M. if he gets Ohio...

...but as you said, he will need to get two out of three of Minnesota, Wisconsin, or Iowa. Florida would be gravy, but I'm not counting on it, since it is owned by the Bush cabal.

[Davis_X_Machina]

36. Frightened White People.

[Robeson]

39. Yep!

[LSK]

42. MN is not close

That is just part of the media spin whoring. I offer this proof:

http://gallery.johnkerry.com/viewphoto.aspx?page=2&photoId=ec35d9c7-cf75-48d0-b766-d5bb0b609609

[John_H]

48. My prediction: We'll win 2 of 3 plus pick up 2 of 3: VA, CO, NV

[WI_DEM]

49. they were all close in '00

and no they haven't always been "reliably democratic" Up until 1988, all but Minnesota had been reliably Republican in most presidential races.