Bush Ahead in California '04 Vote

Reuters ^ | April 16, 2003

[nwrep]

Top Stories - Reuters

Poll Shows Bush Ahead in California '04 Vote

19 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites), trounced in California during the 2000 election, would win the country's most populous state if the next vote were held today, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

Reuters Photo

A Field poll of 695 registered voters found that 45 percent of Californians would support Bush, with 40 percent backing the Democratic party nominee.

In his historically narrow win nationally in 2000, Bush attracted 41.6 percent of the vote in California, compared to 53.4 for former Vice President Al Gore (news - web sites). Bush's present support was lowest in the San Francisco area, home to the country's strongest anti-Iraq (news - web sites) war movement.

Among California's Democratic voters, the poll completed between April 1-6 found that 22 percent preferred Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, followed by 16 percent for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

The poll had a margin of error of 3.8 percent for the overall sample and 5.8 percent for findings on the Democratic candidates.

[areafiftyone]

I am shocked I tell ya! Shocked!

[areafiftyone]

Since you already did the post here is another article from the San Francisco Chronicle

Californians favor Bush, poll shows President scores higher than any Democrat in race

While California is a must-win state for Democrats in the 2004 presidential derby, incumbent Republican George W. Bush holds an early lead over a largely unknown field of Democratic hopefuls, a new Field Poll shows.

If the 2004 election was held now, state voters would back the president, 45 percent to 40 percent, over an unnamed Democratic candidate.

It's anyone-but-Bush in the Bay Area, however, where 55 percent of those surveyed said they'd pick any Democrat over the president, compared with 31 percent who backed Bush.

With 11 months to go before California's March 2004 primary and better than 1 1/2 years until the November general election, the numbers likely will see plenty of changes, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.

"This is really the first look anyone's had at the 2004 presidential race in California," he said. "We'll do it again in the summer and the fall and see what changes."

Things can only get better for most of those looking to replace Bush. Of the nine potential candidates listed, more than half the Democrats surveyed had no opinion about five of them.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman led the pack in California, with 22 percent of those surveyed listing him as their top choice in the 2004 Democratic primary. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry was the first choice at 16 percent, and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt was the only other candidate to break double digits, with 12 percent.

The rankings this early are more a measure of name identification than potential strength, DiCamillo said, with Lieberman, the Democrats' choice for vice president in 2000, a likely front-runner.

"This is a very early measure, and the candidates are not all on equal footing," he said. "There are a lot of these candidates who still aren't well known."

Early or not, the survey is still bad news for North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who raised more money nationally than any other Democratic candidate in the first three months of the year.

Edwards, who has been nearly invisible in California, was the top choice of just 3 percent of the Democrats surveyed, running behind former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former Illinois Sen. Carol Mosley-Braun and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Only 18 percent of those surveyed planned to vote for him, 27 percent were disinclined and 55 percent had no opinion.

When those Democratic voters were asked who they were inclined to support, Kerry led the way with 43 percent, compared to Lieberman with 42 percent and Gephardt with 35 percent. But only 21 percent said they weren't inclined to back Kerry, compared to 36 percent for Lieberman and 31 percent for Gephardt.

While Bush's 5-point advantage is good news for Republicans, California GOP officials are a long way from breaking out the party hats. A Zogby poll released earlier this week gave Bush an 11-point lead nationally, 47 percent to 36 percent, over that same generic Democrat. California remains a stronghold for Democratic opposition.

Bush himself hasn't been seen in California since he made a daylong swing through Stockton and Orange County for GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon last August.

"We are a territory -- we're Guam (to the Bush administration)," Walnut Creek Rep. Ellen Tauscher told The Chronicle editorial board Tuesday. "He knows he can't get on the scorecard here."

The poll did provide California Republicans with some hope for the future, however. While Latino voters preferred a Democratic nominee over Bush by a 42 percent to 36 percent margin, that's a strong showing for Republicans.

"It's been a Republican priority to do better among the fast-growing Latino population," DiCamillo said. "This poll suggests that Bush is not doing too badly, since Republicans have typically had a hard time breaking out of the mid-20s."

The poll is based on a telephone survey of 695 registered voters, including 292 Democrats, taken between April 1 and 6. Sampling error for the entire poll is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points and plus or minus 5.8 percentage points for the questions asked only to Democrats.

[areafiftyone]

Just went over to the Dark Side to find out what the DUers are saying about this. Snicker Snicker. They are livid! Snicker Snicker!

[LuisBasco]

Poll Shows Bush Ahead in California '04 Vote

Another great reason to expand the term of the president to two six year terms. This perpetual compaign nonsense is patently ridiculous!

Having to put up with the likes of the puke faced Leahy, Kennedy, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Reid, Byrd-Brain, et al for six years is ridiculous.

There should be a movement afoot (unless the populace will have to throw their sorry posteriors into Boston Harbor) to return the selection of senators to their respective state legislatures. That is the sure-fire way to get their prehistoric butts off the floor of the senate.

In respect to congresscritters: two terms period!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Lieberman is up in CA and NY-- two huge sources of delegates. Give him the nomination and the Green Party gets 10%-- bank it.

[republicanwizard]

HAIL TO THE CHIEF! MY PRESIDENT! LEADER IN WAR AND PEACE, ON THE BATTLEFIELD, IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS, AND ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL!

[areafiftyone]

You are right. The Peaceniks HATE Lieberman with a passion! They as much said that if Lieberman wins the nomination they will vote Green Party. They are very much in line with Dean. He is their favorite. But they will take Kerry if he wins only because he is sucking up to them right now!

[m1911]

Bah. Before the election there's always a big group claiming they'll vote third party. Most of them end up going with the duopoly party that best fits them. In California, that'll be the democrats.

[MrB]

I definitely want to see a

COMPLETELY BLUE

US Electoral map.

Oh, they can have that little blinky red light on the right (DC) with its whole 3 electoral votes....

At least the colors will be right this time.
The Democrat candidate will be represented by RED.

[George W. Bush]

This won't last. If Bush can win California in '04, it would be a landslide so big that he wouldn't need California anyway.

I expect the Dimocrats will reassert their control over Kalifornia.

[The G Man]

Forget winning California ... just BEING CLOSE is huge ... for a couple of reasons:

* It'll force the Democrats to commit resources from other states to California when historically they wouldn't have to, thus making them vulnerable elsewhere

* "A rising tide lifts all boats" ... Bush helps the election chances of other GOPers in California if the race is competitive

[AuH2ORepublican]

This poll highlights what I've long been saying: Bush can carry the states that have "trended" Democratic over the past decade, including California, Washington, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan---states in which most of the swing was in formerly Republican suburbs that have become much more Democratic. The past decade has seen a realignment of rural voters towards the GOP and of suburban voters towards the Democrats (urban voters, already heavily Democratic, have become even more so), in each case because of social issues such as guns, abortion and the environment. These issues came to the forefront because of the end of the Cold War (since voters no longer gave much thought to foreign policy or national security) and the blurring of lines between Democrats and Republicans on economic issues (the Republican Congress cut taxes and balanced the budget, so suburban voters didn't feel as much of a need to ask for tax cuts). However, in a post-September 11 world, national security is again an important issue, and it is an issue in which conservative Republicans are deemed (correctly) to be superior than liberal Democrats. I think President Bush will keep most of the support gained by the GOP in rural areas (the old rich-poor divide is pretty much a thing of the past), and that suburban areas will swing back to the Republicans because of national security. I think Bush will almost certainly carry Pennsylvania, Michigan and Washington, and could well win in New Jersey, Illinois and California as well. I think our President will break the 400 electoral vote plateau in 2004 (although the math gets more difficult if he doesn't carry California).

[Keith]

Not so sure...with Grayout Davis in such trouble, this state is winnable for the pubbies, which would mean landslide, which would mean some formerly untouchable Dem senators would be vulnerable because Left Coasties Dems stay home on the national elections where they are getting their asses kicked before their polls close...we need decent candidates to go against Boxershorts and Patty Bin Laden...

[uncbob]

So Bush can't poll what he got in 2000

Just wait until 2004 when the dems and the media start on the economy

CA is a lost cause

[areafiftyone]

I am getting really excited about this election. I predict a landslide victory for Bush! BUSH/CHENEY 2004!!

[jriemer]

Lieberman is up in CA and NY-- two huge sources of delegates. Give him the nomination and the Green Party gets 10%-- bank it.

Please be aware that if the Green party receives 10% of the nation-wide vote, they will be eligible for Federal matching funds in 2008 from the FEC. This is Not a Good Thing (TM). Once the Greens have a permenant chair at the table, there's going to be a political fight the likes this country has never seen. It will make dealing with the DNC look like a disagreement over china at a tea party.

[GraniteStateConservative]

My favorite from dudeness:

the only answer for the Dems is to provide a real alternative to the republicans..time for them to stand up..denounce this war..announce cutbacks to military spending..increases in social services..step away from the right and give the people a REAL choice..imho

---

I'd send money to the DNC if they chose that game plan.

[republicanwizard]

As of right now, I really can't see what states Bush wouldn't carry.

The only one that comes to mind is Massachusetts. Even then, if Democrats continue at the rate they are going, even the Bay State might be worth the fight. We have an attractive Governor who should be a huge boost.

Let's all pray that the economy takes off. If it does, then Bush will win more than a normal landslide. It will be a history-making landslide, the vindication of American Conservatism and the Republican Party.

[Tai_Chung]

Bush's support in California may not have grown, but Democratic support in California may have decreased.

Bush is currently at 45% (plus or minus 3.8%) which is within the margin Bush received during the 2000 elections (41.6%)

The real story is the drop of Democratic support from 53.4% to 40%. This variance is way outside the margin of error.

Why has support for Democrats in California dropped?

[LS]

"Things can only get better for most of those looking to replace Bush. Of the nine potential candidates listed, more than half the Democrats surveyed had no opinion about five of them."

Oh really? Have you heard these people talk recently? "Lurch" gets in deeper every day; Dean is so far left even the CPUSA thinks he's "extreme"; and the rest of these has-beens/never-weres are unlikely to generate any enthusiasm. It may well get worse.

[rs79bm]

Daschle is deeply saddened...and uh...concerned.

[LS]

Um, don't forget NM, Iowa, and possibly Wisconsin. Those were all VERY close, and, if I'm not mistaken, 30,000 total votes would have given Bush all three AND Oregon---could be wrong, but it seems that they were extremely tight.

[veronica]

Interesting, and GWB is probably even more popular in CA than this poll indicates, since The Field Poll has always skewed left.

[LS]

"So Bush can't poll what he got in 2000" Huh? He's already running 4-5 points AHEAD of what he got in 2000. What the HELL are you talking about?

[areafiftyone]

I believe the Democreep candidates made an agreement not to bash each other. But how long do you think they can hold out when it gets closer to the wire! These guys must be busting a gut!

[LS]

I don't see it. So what if they get funds? It means that CONSTANTLY the left vote is terribly split and CONSTANTLY the Republicans win. I see this as a great thing. (BTW, the more they are "at the table," the more people have to pay attention to their ludicrously goofy ideas, marginalizing them further.)

[AuH2ORepublican]

"So Bush can't poll what he got in 2000"

---

Actually, Bush polled 45% in CA against an *unnamed Democrat* (it would surely be higher against any particular Democrat), with 15% undecided (if the undecided stay home, Bush would beat an unnamed Democrat by 53% to 47%). This is much higher than what he got in CA in 2000, which was 41.6%.

[My Favorite Headache]

Unfortunately...the election is another year away. Hopefully these numbers can stick. Time will tell.

[Tai_Chung]

I have the feeling that the media is trying to make Bush appear strong now so they can push him down later. It's the same thing as the war. After a few days, they said it was a quagmire to make people affraid. Now, they pretend it never happened.

[section9]

Interesting, and GWB is probably even more popular in CA than this poll indicates, since The Field Poll has always skewed left.

I'm not overjoyed at this news, as I recall that up to the late spring of 2000, Bush was still ahead in CA. However, Bush looks as if he's got some solid support out there. All he has to do is to force the issue in CA. That will force the Dems to spend precious matching fund dollars out there. If the economy is on the upswing in 2004, as I expect it to be, then Bush can take the state.

If he happens to have Rice on the ticket, he can take CA and New York.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[gulfcoast6]

Someone needs to advise the Republacract Grassley of this.
That turncoat.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Um, don't forget NM, Iowa, and possibly Wisconsin."

---

I'm not forgetting them (or Oregon)---they're already in the GOP column! Gore carried each of these states by less than 1% of the vote, but, other than possibly Oregon, this wasn't due to a realignment of suburban voters. Iowa and Wisconsin saw Gore do well among rural voters (for some reason, or perhaps no reason in particular, Gore carried both banks of the Mississippi River, but Bush carried both banks of the Ohio River), and I don't think we'll see that again in 2004 (unless Gephardt wins the nomination, which, as I've said repeatedly, could give Bush headaches in the Midwest and in blue-collar areas). And in New Mexico, Bush did abysmally among Mexican-Americans (around 40% of whom voted for him over Gore in Texas), and that will surely not be repeated. So I didn't think it was worth it to mention the "gimmees," just the ones that seemed out of reach but actually aren't.

[Mr.Clark]

Very true. A strong Lieberman could really mess things up for the dems.

[areafiftyone]

Well it is still early yet. I am hoping that is not the case. Bush has a better team behind him than his father ever did and they know that the economy is the one thing the Democreeps are going to try to drag Bush down with. They need to start working on that as quickly as possible. The American people have a short attention span and their focus quickly turns back to their pocket books!

[Tailback]

Oregon was very close in 2000. Right now Bush would win Oregon but he has to give the impression he's trying to fix the economy from now until the election.

[Reeses]

the only answer for the Dems is to provide a real alternative to the republicans

What I think has happened is the Republicans have moved to the left forcing the Democrats to move to the far left to differentiate themselves. If JFK were to run today, he would be a Republican. The far left is a place socialists have no trouble moving. They’ve taken the bait, choosing socialist Nancy Pelosi as their leader.

Could Lieberman actually be the Democrat's presidential nominee, or is he just the eternal running mate? The Arab countries would flip if a mostly Christian America elected a Jewish president.

[jriemer]

I don't see it. So what if they get funds? It means that CONSTANTLY the left vote is terribly split and CONSTANTLY the Republicans win. I see this as a great thing. (BTW, the more they are "at the table," the more people have to pay attention to their ludicrously goofy ideas, marginalizing them further.)

Although my examples come from Europe and parlimentary systems, the Green party has seen amazing growth, like a virus, without diminishing the power of the more mainstream "liberal" parties. If anything, it outsources the kooks to give legitimacy for more moderate liberals to the undecided middle for excutive branch elections. Come legislative elections and action, they all work together against conservatives.

1st Example: The Green party went from a handful of kooks to the fourth largest party in fifteen years of viral growth. The "mainstream" center-left party is still in power.

2nd Example: The Green party is the 6th most powerful party in France's parliament out of 18 parties. When they combine forces (often) with the French Communist Party (the 5th largest party), they become the third largest Parlimentary voting block in France.

This too could happen here.

[John123]

I expect the Dimocrats will reassert their control over Kalifornia.

Not on your life. I think Bush is doing the correct thing by asking for a tax cut. He won't make the same mistake his Dad made. The tax cut will get the economy going.

GB will win in '04.

Arnold the Terminator will take Feinstein's job even though he is most probably a RINO.

Condi will be the next Gov. of California and do a damn good job because she is smart and strong enough to repair the damage the Democrats have done.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"As of right now, I really can't see what states Bush wouldn't carry. The only one that comes to mind is Massachusetts."

---

I don't think Bush can carry Rhode Island, either. I hope I'm wrong.

One extremely Democratic state to keep an eye out for is Hawaii. Hawaiians are immensely patriotic and have a hard time voting against the Commander-in-Chief, especially at a time in which troops are deployed. Even with their Democratic leanings, Hawaiians gave 48% to Gerald Ford in 1976 (although he hadn't been Commander-in-Chief for long and the Vietnam War had already ended); compare that result to 1980, when they only gave non-incumbent Ronald Reagan less than 43% in the midst of his first national landslide. Commander-in-Chief Reagan got 55% of Hawaii's vote in 1984, but then-Vice President George H.W. Bush saw the number drop to 45% in 1988. In Bush's reelection bid in 1992, Perot, whose campaign manager, Orson Swindle, was from Hawaii, did very well with pro-military voters in the state, and that allowed Clinton to win with 48%. Commander-in-Chief Clinton (ugh!, I can't beleive I just wrote that) got close to 57% in 1996, and in a battle of two non-incumbents, then-VP Gore got 56% in 2000. So Hawaii's recent election of Republican Linda Lingle as governor is not our only reason to feel bullish about Bush's chances in the Aloha State in 2004.

[republicanwizard]

Great!

I'm not sure about Rhode Island. Overshadowed by its neighbor to the north, it did vote for Reagan the second time and Nixon the second time.

[okiesap]

The economy won't be robust enough in a year to help Bush and, as was demonstrated in 1992, we all know the Dems will use that fact to their advantage. Bush will unfortunately wear the record number of bankruptcies and rising unemployment rate around his neck, even though the economic slowdown started long before Clinton left office.

Look for the Dem presidential candidate to follow history by campaigning left during the early primaries and gradually move to the center or even right of center as national election draws near.

Bush is gonna need a bad-ass campaign adviser.

[fieldmarshaldj]

The only thing I caution at this point is that it's very early. If the election were held now, it's conceivable that Dubya might carry all 50 (minus the cesspool of DC, they'd vote for Saddam if he were the 'Rat nominee). A lot can happen in the 18 1/2 months between now and the election. Must not get complacent.

[HamiltonJay]

While this is good news, the election is a full 1.5 years away.. remember Bush's dad was riding high aver Gulf War, and lost reelection. ITs a long way to 11/04.

I would love to see cali go republican in a national election... if Cali goes for the R then you know it truly is over for the D's.. But its just after a war, and election is 1.5 years away, lets not write too much into this.

[Jim Noble]

Waste of time.

Waste of money.

If an anonymous RAT starts off with 40%, victory is certain after the real RAT is in the race after 90 days of sheeple brainwashing.

Spend the time and money getting rid of RAT Senators from red states (ND, SD, NC, SC, GA, LA, AR).

[lawgirl]

Wow - a trip to DU? You're a brave soul. I'll bet Daschle is deeply, deeply saddened this morning. And probably popping a Pepcid or two.

[Jim Noble]

>>If the election were held now, it's conceivable that Dubya might carry all 50<<

You're not feeling well...

MA, RI, CA, OR, WA, HI are guaranteed RAT no matter what.

[socal_parrot]

Nothing a little voter fraud can't overcome.

[The Wizard]

Grey Davis at work for you

[lowbridge]

It's still a long way from now untill election time. just wait untill the liberal media abuses their powers to promote the Democrat candidate. And they will do that no matter who he is. On top of that, all the voter fraud the Democrat party is famous for. On top of that, all the lawsuits they will bring in order to try to sue their way into office.