MyDD :: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll

Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll

by minnesotaryan, Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:16:54 AM EST

Apologies for the short diary, but it's a pretty good sign when our candidate is up by five in a state that went to Bush by 20 and 25 percent in 2000 and 2004 respectively.

I know it's just three electoral votes, but I think it's a sign of the shifting electoral map, both in terms of geography and demographics. Obama won the under thirty vote by 27 points. I know that it is common to have some degree of increased conservatism as people grow older, but it sure seems like a bad sign for republicans long term. Unless they actually become the party of small government and stop scapegoating minority groups like gays, atheists, etc (both things we democrats should hope for, even if it dilutes our majority), I don't see how they'll stay viable into the coming decades. That may be a slightly extreme extrapolation from the results of a single poll in early July, but the poll shows a 30 point swing from the last election.

Tags: poll (all tags)

Permalink :: 48 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Great news - perhaps the most important poll result since Obama won the nomination. Running up huge numbers in California and New York is one thing, but threatening McCain in what should be his base will really have the Republicans running scared. Much more of this and they will be facing some very serious strategic dilemmas on where to put their resources.

by al1 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:21:40 AM EST

Florida (none / 0)

A Rasmussen poll (June 18) showed McCain leading by 8 percentage points, 47 percent to 39 percent. But a Quinnipiac poll done on June 16 showed the opposite, Obama with 47 percent, McCain with 43 percent.

McCain and Obama were just down here in South Florida speaking to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. McCain got boo'ed by a couple of anti war protesters. The conventional wisdom is that McCain will take Florida, but Obama dominates over el viejo among Hispanic voters. Obama's spending a lot of money down here in tv ads. Florida could become verry interesting.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJyH 1GO3NGTeG0KIQjK8-P98ktwg

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST

Re: Florida (none / 0)

Antiwar protestors follow everyone around, does it make a difference...probably not.

by Jaz on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

True. But these incidents make it to the local news reports. With the ad money Obama is pumping in here it's pretty good icing.

McCain flip flopped with the off shore oil drilling issue with his buddy Charlie Crist and I'm just waiting to see how that plays out down here.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:21:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (2.00 / 1)

Wouldn't you love to see an ad of a beautiful (not rainy) Florida day, at the beach with kids playing in the water (no Jaws). And then a quick quote of McCain's on offshore drilling, followed up by that same beach scene with massive drilling platforms a mile out in the water?

Honestly, I've no idea how far out such platforms would be, in reality, but it'd be a powerful image.

No way. No how. No McCain.

by freedom78 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

"Freedom" that is so funny and effective.

by Politicalslave on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Florida (none / 0)

That's interesting. It's nice to hear where the money is going and the strategies. I7m a long way from Florida. (Japan)

by Politicalslave on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Montana is great. Obama has made a number of visits to MT in the past months. McCain hasn't set foot. One thing is clear Obama is showing that he takes the people of MT seriously and they are rewarding.

Great figures.

by Makey on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:48:17 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (2.00 / 1)

More of this and McCain will have to make a visit. And that is one day he won't be in Ohio etc.

by conspiracy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (2.00 / 1)

Exactly it's the 50 state strategy in action. Go everywhere and campaign and keep them on the offense.

Great strategy.

by Makey on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:02:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Shocker (none / 0)

That Obama has pulled ahead in a state that went 59.07% for Bush and 38.56% for Kerry is a shocker. Throw out all the conventional wisdom and maps based on the political landscape of the 90's. This is going to be a very different election.

by hankg on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST

Obama is a very different candidate... (none / 0)

...he has a very different appeal than Gore, Kerry, or Sen. Clinton.

This is one of the reasons why I supported him; he can hopefully bring blue to states that haven't seen it in generations.

I attended PUMACon '08!!!

by iohs2008 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

I think it is possible that these numbers will probably revert back.

We can thank, however, the long primary, we would never have been up in Virginia, Indiana, Montana etc etc

by Jaz on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:05:00 AM EST

They won't revert back on their own...... (2.00 / 0)

Obama is doing enough in Montana to have a good shot to win the state absent McCain and/or RNC investment there. It's clear at this point, with the several polls done this year, that Montana is no longshot for us.

This is one deep red state where McCain and the RNC really DO have to invest something now. They probably anticipated Virginia that way, but they weren't counting on having to do anything in Montana.

by DCCyclone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nut Jobs for Schweitzer (none / 0)

Tomorrow is a key day for Schweitzer VP fans (aka "nut jobs" per the Governor http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2008 /06/18/news/state/33-talk.txt). Obama will be with Schweitzer at a July 4 parade in Butte and Michelle will be able to check him out too.

Montana really being in play only helps Schweitzer as Obama VP, although the State has only three electoral votes.

Schweitzer as VP has been a below the radar possibility (which is probably a good thing) but this choice has some advocates including David Sirota, Nate Silver and Markos Moulitsas. Governor Schweitzer as VP also appears to meet the smell test of Jerome Hussein Armstrong (no small feat).

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:07:13 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (2.00 / 1)

Wow. I never though I would see such a thing. Next, he will be up in North Dakota and Alaska
:-D.

The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Could happen because his ads running up there, like in Montana, have gone unanswered.

by conspiracy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alaska (none / 0)

If Obama actually goes up there like he said he would, I would be very concerned about Alaska if I were McCain.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure he will. (none / 0)

Not just for Alaska's EVs, but it will send a much broader message of inclusiveness to rural/small state/libertarian types. Plus great photo ops, the media will love it (hasn't been visited in decades), and down-ticket races.

by lilnev on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:02:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm pretty sure he will. (none / 0)

Heh. Maybe he will get a couple of those caucus states we thought were impossible for a Democrat.

The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm pretty sure he will. (none / 0)

everything is turning on it's head.

The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"

by Hollede on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Well, this we now have confirmation.

Montana is a swing state.

How awesome is that?

by RussTC3 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:23:17 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in Montana Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Confirmation will come in the form of at least one more poll from a different outfit showing a similar result. But it is very encouraging to say the least.

by conspiracy on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:48:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

True, But (none / 0)

Obama's been close (well, within 10) in every poll I've seen come out of Montana...which seems confirmation that it's a state which cannot be taken for granted.

by thurst on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not celebrating yet. (none / 0)

My gut hunch is that this poll is at the favorable edge of the margin of error. I wouldn't be surprised if the true state of the race there was essentially tied. Which is still a great place to be, in Montana!

by lilnev on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not surprised (none / 0)

I'm not sure we'll be able to keep Montana in the (D) column, but that's not the point. The point is that there's a lot of very independant people in Montana who aren't going to let themselves be taken for granted.

McCain's gotta be feeling some blowback from his decision not to campaign on the weekends. Obama's running pretty vigorously; you can't just cede 2/7 of the week to your opponent like that.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in (none / 0)

And to everyone who said we Obama supporters were out of our minds to hope, to actually dare to hope that we could re-draw the map, I have this to say:

We don't have to win all of these new swing states (one or two will do). We've just gotta make McCain defend states he cannot afford to defend whilst running any kind of offense.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:05:21 AM EST

Re: Barack up by 5 in (none / 0)

yea, he just won't be able to win Kentucky, West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Florida, Ohio, you know, more states with more electoral votes.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in (2.00 / 2)

He's up in Ohio and competitive in Florida.

He'll clobber McCain.

Why the hell do you insist on focusing on one, and only one path to 270? It's childish.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barack up by 5 in (2.00 / 0)

Oh, and Kerry lost every single state you just mentioned and I'm pretty sure Gore did too.

Add in Virginia to their totals and either one would have been President.

Those states you mentioned are not magic states. And hell, I live in one of them.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How in the world... (2.00 / 0)

...do you back up that he won't win in Ohio? Campaigning one day less in that state at this stage won't hurt him and might even help him (oversaturation)...

by thurst on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a shame that (none / 0)

Obama is probably not going to compete vigorously in Arkansas and West Virginia; both of these states are overrun with Democrats (call them DINOs if you wish, they still are members of the party) and they really dislike Republicans in those states.

Are the demographics really that bad in Arkansas? The state would seem to be quite favorable to Obama, compared to the other non-coastal Southern states, given its Democratic registration advantage and its large African-American population. Hell, even Kerry was leading Bush in Arkansas at this time four years ago.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Trying to REPEAT the 90's Success (none / 0)

This is greats news for Obama.

But as a reminder, some here keep forgetting that Bill Clinton carried Montana.

Basically, the democratic party in 2008 is trying to achieve & mirror the electoral college success of Bill Clinton in the 90's.

The Obama campaign is trying to compete & hopefully win in states like Montana, Georgia, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, NH, Colorado.

States that Bill Clinton carried.

Realistically, despite all democratic money & the GOP brand name in the garbage, achieving the
370 electoral votes earned by Bill Clinton in 1992 & the 376 electoral votes by Bill Clinton in 1996 will be very hard to reach.

Anyone in 2008 should be very happy with a 290 to 300 electoral count by Obama in November.

by labanman on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:52:32 PM EST

Re:Trying to REPEAT the 90's Success (none / 0)

My assessment: Best case scenario with average non-controversial or earth-moving VP for Obama is 306 electoral college votes

1) Obama keeps all Kerry states fairly easily, all of which will be won by a larger margin than Kerry with the exception of Massachusetts

2) Obama takes Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado by 1-2% and he moves Iowa and New Mexico into the blue column by a relatively decent margin.

3) Lay the groundwork for the future by coming within 5% in North Carolina, Indiana, and Montana while losing by under double digits in Alaska, Georgia, and Mississippi.

4) Missouri and Florida will remain the tough nuggets that we can quite figure out to get beyond the 5% loss, though both are doable with the right running mate and demographics.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is Working NC (2.00 / 1)

8 staffers just in the Raleigh area right now.
Dozens of voter registration events today and tomorrow.

by parahammer on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Trying to REPEAT the 90's Success (none / 0)

the Obamalites are gonna try to claim that Ross Perot changed the outcome of that election, even tho not only did the exit polls show pro-choice pro-gay anti-NAFTA Perot taking equally nationally, but with Colorado and Montana, being that Dukakis did pretty well in those states for a loser when Bush was popular, and Bush had abysmal approvals in 1992, its very likely Clinton still woulda won them without his prescence, unlike Blazer's Edge and other Clinton haters are gonna try to peddle. Missouri was won by such big margins both times that it isn't even in question, as was Florida in 1996, New Mexico both times, and with New Hampshire, considering that it went for Clinton again and for kerry in 2004 and got Nadered in 2000, its very obvious Clinton triggered something in terms of instincts that made New Hampshire turn to Democrats. Iowa, I wont' even bother. Its just that I go to the Daily Kos and see more people spouting the Perot myth, as do some here. Also, not only did Clinton take Louisiana in 1992, he won an absolute majority there in 1996. I think Obama's race does take Appalachia off the table, but he can likely get Ohio, which Clinton won twice, and should win New Mexico. Florida is winnable if the Redneck Riviera stays home and south Florida goes for Obama. Obama will likely win with 300 electoral votes. The loss of Appalachia is why so few.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:30:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Trying to REPEAT the 90's Success (2.00 / 0)

Me a Clinton hater? I think you need to correct that portion of your post, I'm a big supporter of Hillary Clinton and her husband. I called bs on the Perot myth for every other state with the possibility of Colorado and Montana and yet, I'm a Clinton hater somehow and pushing the Perot myth?

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ross Perot-Colorado (2.00 / 0)

Diamond Jay/Lakrosse isn't going to like this little nugget. At a Colorado fundraiser last night, Obama claims that when him and Bill Clinton talked about Colorado, Clinton admitted that Perot's presence in the state helped him win the state in 1992.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:19:32 PM EST

he's lying. I'll wait until Bill (1.00 / 0)

actually says that himself.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:21:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he's lying. I'll wait until Bill (none / 0)

Obama was only saying that Bill had admitted that about Colorado, which I kind of buy. I agree that the Ross Perot helped Bill Clinton narrative is bs for nearly every other state, with the possible exceptions of Colorado and Montana.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he's lying. I'll wait until Bill (1.00 / 0)

with Colorado, before Perot returned, Clinton was actually in the lead which means if Perot had not returned, and the trend held, which because Bush Sr.'s debate skills were awful was likely, he woulda have won an absolute majority there. I'll wait for a quote about Perot. I'm tired of that innuendo being peddled about the entire election. Still, you gotta also consider Colorado was won by Bush by under 10, and in 1992, when Bush's approval ratings were low, a Clinton victory was likely. Also, consider that its been a very close swing state since 1992. Something had to have triggered a response which turned it from a solid GOP state to a swing state. Montana, another close state in 1988, Bush only won there by 6, 52-46, with 1992 approval ratings, a swing was very likely. Its a toss up, but Perot helping should not be said so declaratively, and I'll wait for a quote and confirmation on that quote you said Obama said.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice try with hitting (none / 0)

me as a Clinton hater by the way; I agree that Big Daddy was a badass president and Obama will have to fill some pretty big shoes if he's sworn in as president.

Tell me why then did Clinton lose Montana and Colorado in 1996, when Perot was not as much a factor.

In 1992, Clinton won Montana 38-35; in 1996, he lost it to Dole by 44-41 (a six point swing).

In 1996, Clinton won Colorado 40-36; in 1996, he lost it to Dole 44-46 (a six point swing).

All I've said is that the Perot narrative, which I agree with you is complete bs, may only have merit in Colorado and Montana.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

states swing in different elections, (none / 0)

just because those swung in 1996 does not mean because of Perot, anything. Missouri swung to Stevenson from Eisenhower in 1956, the only state to do so. But they both won absolute majorities in each election. There was no third party candidate. States just swing, especially if there were close the previous election. hell, you could look at the CO exit poll, and in a two way contest, its still in the MoE, with Clinton actually ahead one point. In in Montana, it has Dole still winning by 3, but if you look at the Perot vertical, Clinton is more preferred by his voters there. Close states have varying results. Its that simple. Also, Colorado has become a swing state since 1992. It has been close every election except in 2000 because of Nader. So something about Bill Clinton turned it into a very close state for years to come. That is why Clinton winning CO is very conceivable. It was also swing in 1988, Dukakis didn't do half badly there.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's the quote (2.00 / 0)

"I was talking to Bill Clinton this week. We were talking about Colorado. He said, when I ran the first time, it would have been tough to win if Ross Perot hadn't been in the race, but you've seen a seismic shift in attitudes here."

http://thepage.time.com/pool-report-for- obama-colorado-fundraiser/

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST

Re: Here's the quote (none / 0)

It sounded like you were implying, as have many others on the Kos, etc., that he would have lost the state outright if Perot had not been in the race. He never said that. When people say "helped," they usually mean to say "won it for him" and that is what I was fighting against. Also, Mark Halperin has never been too Clinton-friendly. Its still more than likely Clinton would have won the state without Perot. 49.8-49.5 or 50-48 is still a win. I say its more likely due to Bush I's sagging approvals, and that Clinton was way ahead of Bush in the polls until Perot returned. He was ahead in CO before Perot came back as well.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's the quote (none / 0)

Since when does "helped" mean the same thing as "won it for him?" Perhaps Big Daddy would have defeated Bush by 1% in Colorado and Montana, instead of 3% in both states had Perot not been in the race. I agree with you though that the Perot narrative is bs in every other state but these two states do stand out to me.

by Blazers Edge on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

come on, you know the innuendos (none / 0)

peddled by some people. When they "helped by Ross Perot," they always mean to say "would have lost without him" in a very declarative way in such a context. Also, with the electoral college, a win is a win is a win is a win. Even if margin of victory would have been smaller, Clinton winning by 3 is the same as Clinton winning by .3. He gets 100% electoral votes each time.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

do you have (none / 0)

any of those linky things?

Thanks.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.