Bush leads in North Carolina media poll [47-42]

The State ^ | 6/22/04 | N/A

[BlackRazor]

Bush leads in North Carolina media poll

Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. - President Bush would win North Carolina by a slim margin if the presidential election was held today, according to a new statewide poll.

In the poll, 47 percent of likely voters chose Bush, a Republican, while 42 percent selected presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry.

The margin would be smaller if Kerry picks Sen. John Edwards as his running mate, according to the survey, conducted June 13-16 for The News & Observer, WRAL-TV and WUNC radio.

"Kerry doesn't have to win North Carolina to win the presidency. Everybody knows that. Bush knows that," said Del Ali of Research 2000, the Maryland polling firm that conducted the survey. "But by taking Edwards on the ticket, it really does force Bush to spend time in an area that, frankly, he can't afford to spend time in."

Both Republicans and Democrats said Monday that the numbers are unusually close for North Carolina, which hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Bush beat Democrat Al Gore 56 percent to 43 percent in 2000.

Democrats say the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, coupled with the state's continuing economic struggles, has turned North Carolina into a battleground state.

"Against an incumbent president in a state that has gone for Republicans every year since 1980, the fact that John Kerry is within five points even without John Edwards on the ticket tells me it's going to be a competitive race," said Ed Turlington, a Democrat and Edwards associate.

Republicans say Bush's popularity will pick up. They say the economy is improving and the scheduled handoff of power in Iraq on June 30 will improve U.S. opinion of events there.

"All the bad publicity in the last two months has certainly had an effect on his popularity," said Jim Culbertson, state finance chairman of the Bush campaign. "But I think this is probably going to be the absolute low point of the campaign."

Bush's job approval rating in North Carolina has slipped from 63 percent in July 2003 to 52 percent now, according to the poll.

[BlackRazor]

Poll ping!

[AntiGuv]

Here's the poll results at the News & Observer.

[Lee'sGhost]

Edwards sucks.

[codercpc]

Once again we see a poll that overpolls the Dems vs Republicans, can any experienced poll watcher explain this strategy to me? In past experience is this the norm to over poll Dems by 15%?

Democrats 292 (48%)

Republicans 212 (35%)

Independents 96 (17%)

[jmaroneps37]

This is a clasic ratmedia psyops poll. This AM on C-SPAN that nit wit vaughn ververs gushed about how close this was.
Of course he neglected to mention that it was conducted with a 13 point ( 38 to 25 - sound familiar?) over sample of rats. True many Southerners register rat for practical purposes then vote GOP, but doesn't THAT in and of itself tell an honeswt person something?
Anybody that says NC will vote for lurch is either luing or not too bright.
One more point: Verers also gleefully reported that the rats think inez tenenbaum will win the South Carolina seat.
The woman is a socialist by national standards and a communist by Southern standards - she has more chance of winning a NASCAR race than winning a SC senate seat.

[JackDanielsOldNo7]

I am sorry but Bush will blow Kerry out of the water here. Bush crushed Gore. Kerry will go down too.

[Littlejon]

Agreed. Everyone in my neck of the woods is casting their vote for Bush. It is even hard to find someone with a Kerry bumper sticker on their car around here. There are a few die-hards, but Bush/Cheney stickers outnumber the Kerry stickers 5-1.

To coin a popular phrase seen on some "high-rise" vehicles in the South:

"Ain't Skeered!"

[BlackRazor]

Once again we see a poll that overpolls the Dems vs Republicans

Actually, this poll did not oversample Democrats. According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections website, the current registration statistics in NC are 48% Dem, 34% Rep, and 18% Ind. Looks like this poll weighted their sampling to mimic the registration stats.

[THE MODERATE]

Actually that fits just about what the voter registration of the state is. What this pole represents is the excitement of an Edwards running-mate possibility. Many in the state for right or wrong believes that Kerry will select Edwards. I do not know if just that we have never been party of a national ticket or that some think there are advantages to having a home town VP. Edwards himself remains a mystery and I am not sure how he has become this popular here.

This is though a double edge if Kerry goes in another direction and there are those that think he will the voters of this state will take it as an insult and I have no doubt that a Bush lead will easily go into double digits here, I also am not sure that Kerry could recover nationally if does not do careful explaining of why.

[devolve]

              CBS POLL: # polled? (under 1500 for sure)
  35% - democrats - (oversampled 10%)
  25% - Republicans LA TIMES POLL: # polled? (under 1500 for sure)
  38% - democrats - (oversampled 13%)
  25% - Republicans AOL ONLINE POLLED: 600,000+
   (with poll moved inside a Teresa Heinz article 2nd day!)
  40% - Kerry
  50% - Bush WASH POST/ABC POLL: 1200+/-
  38% - democrats - (oversampled 8%)
  30% - Republicans NC NEWS & OBSERVER/WRAL-TV/WNUC POLL:
          42 - Kerry
          47 - Bush
  38% - democrats - (oversampled 13%)
  25% - Republicans

[RoseofTexas]

I accidentally tuned in to IMUS this morn, and even he says that it's hard to find persons in large quantities who say they will not vote for Bush...hmmmmmmm
Are you telling me the presswhore pollsters are lying to us? ...VERRRRRRRRY INTERESTING!

[Constitution Day]

NC *Ping*

Please FRmail me, mykdsmom or TaxRelief if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[Qwinn]

Perhaps. But let me ask you this - what were the registration stats by party in 2000, when Bush won 56 to 43%? I very much doubt it was 56% registered Republican and 43% registered Democrat. Let's take the actual result of that election, "weigh" it according to the registration stats at the time of that election, and I'll bet you see Bush's "poll" numbers climb well over 60% and Gore below 35%.

Qwinn

[THE MODERATE]

There is a certain amount of Democrats in North Carolina who are going to cross over and vote for the Republican Presidential nominee. They are mostly white voters from the Eastern part of the state. They are the same voters who will turn around and vote for Democratic nominee for Governor. Which often confuses some political pundits but it is not that hard to understand.

Anyway voter registration has changed little here in the last four years but in the twenty years before that there was a big GOP surge. If there has been growth here it has been independent voters and no one is quite sure what to make of them yet.

[Littlejon]

I don't think Edwards IS that popular here. Most that I know think of him as a snake. He didn't win his Senate seat by that much of a margin, even though Lauch Faircloth all but conceded the seat to him before the election ever took place.

I also don't think his addition to Kerry's ticket will add much to his chances of winning the Presidency. Dems like Edwards because he is a good-looking, younger candidate who is from the South, where they cannot win in national elections. THAT is why he is seen as a good add, but MY personal opinion is that people, especially those in the South, can see through a snake oil salesman like Edwards. Besides that, people in the South are decidedly pro-military and are still leery of anti-war idiots like Kerry. I just don't see Kerry having much of a chance in the South, with or without Edwards.

[MeekOneGOP]

[freddiedavis]

wow...can you believe it...a five point lead is defined as a slim lead...haha

[codercpc]

I guess I understand that part of it, but to me (again I am not a poll guru), that is comparing apples to oranges. I may be registered as a dem on the "official" paperwork even though I haven't voted dem in a decade (just an example, in Wisconsin no party registration is required), but when a poller calls me they ask for my party affiliation I am not going to necessarily say dem so that would skew the numbers. Unless they actually take a voter registration list and call the people on the list according to the party registration I think that it skews everything.

Let's take California for example, last year they had record Republican registrations because Arnold was on the ticket, and he had a huge cross-over appeal. So now let's say a pollster calls one of those people who may have never voted before, and asks them for a party affiliation and they say "Well I registered Republican, but I am voting John Kerry this year", that doesn't give you an accurate picture, because in the poll he will be counted in the Republican % leaving one less true Republican to be polled.

What is the accuracy of polls that use these over polling of one group or the other?

[BlackRazor]

I may be registered as a dem on the "official" paperwork even though I haven't voted dem in a decade (just an example, in Wisconsin no party registration is required), but when a poller calls me they ask for my party affiliation I am not going to necessarily say dem so that would skew the numbers. Unless they actually take a voter registration list and call the people on the list according to the party registration I think that it skews everything.

I tend to agree with you on that. I've noticed that in at least some southern states, party ID in exit polls does not closely reflect the party ID breakdown shown in the registration statistics. For example, in NC, the registration is 48-34 in favor of the Democrats, but in the 2000 exit polls, it was only 41-38 in favor of the Democrats. In West Virginia, registration is 59-29 in favor of the Democrats, but the exit poll breakdown was only 46-33 in favor of the Democrats.

I have a feeling that in the south, a significant number of registered Democrats might today think of themselves as a Republican and say so if you polled them. Therefore, polls of southern states that attempt to match registration statistics may be undersampling those old-time conservative Democrats who nowadays tend to vote Republican on the federal level.

[JohnnyZ]

MY personal opinion is that people, especially those in the South, can see through a snake oil salesman like Edwards.

From what I've seen, snake oil salesmen like Clinton and Edwards do very well in the South.

[THE MODERATE]

"What is the accuracy of polls that use these over polling of one group or the other?"

I have no idea. The poll may be accurate, but this is just a snapshot of mid june. In four months the mood may well change. History has shown that things will improve for Bush, the question is, is this the groundbreaking year or not.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Did this poll include the dead people, who seem to vote democrat enmasse?

[F.J. Mitchell]

I'm no eye doctor, Johnny Z, but from your view of snake oil salesmen in relation to many of my southern brothers and sisters-I declare you to have twenty-twenty vision.

[marblehead17]

poll ping

[Coop]

Here's a poll from Jun 2000 that basically ended up mimicking the final NC results. FWIW. :-)

[Josh in PA]

This poll was conducted by Research 2000, and they were very accurate in 2000.. among the best. I think it's close to being accurate..

Mason-Dixon had Bush by 7 in a mid-May poll., Mason-Dixon was also very accurate in 2000.

Two of the best polling services from 2000, have similar results, I think we need to accept them as fact, unless you want to keep your head in the clouds and only accept good news and ignore bad.


Research 2000, 6/13-6/16, Bush 47-42.
Mason-Dixon, 5/14-5/17, Bush 48-41.

I would put Bush's North Carolina lead at 6.

[BlackRazor]

I think we need to accept them as fact, unless you want to keep your head in the clouds and only accept good news and ignore bad.

Please cite where I have kept my "head in the clouds" and only accepted good news while ignoring bad. I think most people who read my posts on a regular basis would vouch for my objectivity in interpreting poll results, and say that I probably lean a bit to the more cautious side.

[Josh in PA]

Sorry.. My post wasn't directed towards you. I replied to the main post after reading all the other threads and put all my thoughts into one post. Sorry about that.

[ken5050]

Wasn't there a poll a few days ago showing the Dem with a double digit lead in the Senate race?..That's a lot of ticket splitting..

[Littlejon]

Huh? Are you talking about the Irksome Bowles/Richard Burr race? I am not sure about recent polling on that race, but last I heard Bowles was ahead. Of course, he has been running ads for a while now and Burr has not run any in most of the state. I saw one last weekend while visiting relatives on a Raleigh station and that was the first one I have seen.

I am not too worried about that race either, as Burr can more than hold his own in a debate and has been a champion of tobacco and manufacturing interests here with a record to back that up. All Bowles has is his time in Clinton's Administration where he was not as friendly to the tobacco and manufacturing interests here, especially with regards to furniture.

Add to that the fact that Bush will likely be making appearances with Burr and that Bowles is trying everything he can to distance himself from Clinton and I think the race is far from over.

But, I am a "glass half full" type by nature so take it for what it's worth! :)

[ken5050]

Yup..that's the one..I'm not to worried about it either.. look, Edwards "dropped out" to run for president because he wasn't sure he could hold the seat, an if he lost, his political career is over..and Liddy clobbered Bowles last time out, and she's working really hard to defeat him again..I've become a big fan of hers..but I was just mentioning the race in the context of the polls in the articles...notice now a 5-7% lead for W is "slim" in the story...it also seemed inconceivable that Bush coudl be ahead by that marging, and Bowles ahead by an even bigger margin..it doesn't compute..

[Littlejon]

Gotcha! I wasn't clear on what you were saying. I generally don't put a lot of stock in polls, as I have found that they aren't that accurate at the local or national level. I remember a poll showing a race was "close" several years ago (may have been a Helms/Gantt race, I don't remember!) all the way up to the election. Turned out not to be that close at all in the end. All I really remember was how the pundits were left scratching their heads!

I think local polls, especially those in MY neck of the NC woods (Peidmont/Triad) are so skewed they are pathetic. I know the Greensboro News & Excuse does them from time to time and they are almost predictable before they come out. They are disgustingly left-wing in their views and are becoming more brazen about it.

I think NC is pretty safe this year in Senate and Presidential races. Now, if we could just get Tax Hike Mike out of office.....