A September 9th Zogby International Poll of Maine LV’s for the Portland Press Herald and the Maine Sunday Telegram has Kerry tied with Bush at 43 percent, with 3 percent for Nader and 10 percent undecided.
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 26: The Obama Coalition Revisited
It’s pretty obvious Kamala Harris’s candidacy changes the 2024 presidential race more than a little, and I wrote at New York about one avenue she has for victory that might have eluded Joe Biden:
During her brief run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2019, Kamala Harris was widely believed to be emulating Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy. She treated South Carolina, the first primary state with a substantial Black electorate, as the site of her potential breakthrough. But she front-loaded resources into Iowa to prepare for that breakthrough by reassuring Black voters that she could win in the largely white jurisdiction. She had the added advantage of being from the large state of California, where the primary had just been moved up to Super Tuesday (March 3). For a thrilling moment, after her commanding performance in a June 2019 debate, Harris seemed on track to pull off this feat, threatening Joe Biden’s hold on South Carolina in the polls and surging in Iowa. But neither she nor Cory Booker, who also relied on the Obama precedent, could displace Biden as the favorite of Black voters or strike gold in the crowded Iowa field. Out of money and luck, Harris dropped out before voters voted.
Now Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for 2024 without having to navigate any primaries. But she still faces some key strategic decisions. Joe Biden was consistently trailing Donald Trump in the polls in no small part because he was underperforming among young and non-white voters, the very heart of the much-discussed Obama coalition. Can Harris recoup some of these potential losses without sacrificing support elsewhere in the electorate? That is a question she must address at the very beginning of her general-election campaign.
There’s a chance that Harris can inject a bit of the Obama “hope and change” magic into a Democratic ticket that had previously felt like a desperate effort to defend an unpopular administration led by a low-energy incumbent, as Ron Brownstein suggests in The Atlantic:
“Polls have shown that a significant share of Americans doubt the mental capacity of Trump, who has stumbled through his own procession of verbal flubs, memory lapses, and incomprehensible tangents during stump speeches and interviews to relatively little attention in the shadow of Biden’s difficulties. Particularly if Harris picks a younger running mate, she could top a ticket that embodies the generational change that many voters indicated they were yearning for when facing a Trump-Biden rematch …
“In the best-case scenario for this line of thinking, Harris could regain ground among the younger voters and Black and Hispanic voters who have drifted away from Biden since 2020. At the same time, she could further expand Democrats’ already solid margins among college-educated women who support abortion rights.”
Team Trump seems to believe it can offset these potential gains by depicting Harris as a “California radical” and a symbol of diversity who might alienate the older white voters with whom Biden had some residual strength. Obama overcame similar race-saturated appeals in 2008, but he had a lot of help from a financial collapse and an unpopular war presided over by the party of his opponent.
Following Obama’s path has major strategic implications in terms of the battleground map. Any significant improvement over Biden’s performance among Black, Latino, and under-30 voters might put Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina — very nearly conceded to Trump in recent weeks — back into play. But erosion of Biden’s support among older and/or non-college-educated white voters could create potholes in his narrow Rust Belt path to victory in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
These strategic choices could definitely affect Harris’s choice of a running-mate, not just in terms of potentially picking a veep from a battleground state, but as a way of amplifying the shift produced by Biden’s withdrawal. Brownstein even thinks Harris might consider following Bill Clinton’s 1992 example of doubling down on her own strengths:
“The other option that energizes many Democrats would be for Harris to take the bold, historic option of selecting another woman: Whitmer. That would be a greater gamble, but a possible model would be 1992, when Bill Clinton chose Al Gore as his running mate; Gore was, like him, a centrist Baby Boomer southerner—rather than an older D.C. hand. ‘I love Josh Shapiro and I think he would be a great VP candidate, but I would double down’ with Whitmer, [Democratci consultant Mike] Mikus told me. ‘I don’t think you have to go with a moderate white guy. I think you can be bold [with a pick] that electrifies your base.’ I heard similar views from several consultants.”
Whitmer’s expressed disinterest in the veepstakes may take that particular option off the table, but the broader point remains: Harris does not have to — and may not be able to — simply adopt Biden’s strategy and tweak it slightly. She may be able to contemplate gains in the electorate that were unimaginable for an 81-year-old white male incumbent. But the strategic opportunity to follow Obama’s path to the White House will first depend on Harris’s ability to refocus persuadable voters on Trump’s shaky record, bad character, and extremist agenda. Biden could not do that after the debate debacle of June 27. His successor must begin taking the battle to the former president right now.
I think many of you are overreacting to this.
Generally, the poll has a small sample and probably
isn’t reliable. But if we take it at face value,
it gives roughly the result we should expect.
Maine is a state that is a few percent better for
Kerry than the national average, so he will win Maine
by a few percent if the national result is very close (and
by more if he has an edge nationally); with
current polls showing that Kerry is a few percent behind nationally, it is not surprising that Maine would be close.
I think Maine was expected to lean Kerry’s way, but not overwhelmingly. A Bush victory there is possible, but I don’t think very likely. My guess (and like all my predictions is only a guess) is that Kerry will win statewide but Bush might get an extra electoral vote.
Was this expected to be a battleground state?
Apparently the mere mention of ancient text killed the thread.
Back on topic:
Maine has 4 electoral votes and they split.
Kerry will outpoll Bush, there, however.
Publius,
Nom de plume of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in their excellent 87 essays, published in the colonies as support and explanation for the newly created Constitution of 1787.
That type of thoughtful written argument by politicos in power is seldom if ever seen these days.
Every time I hear some Republican start talking about what the founding fathers wanted, I always ask if they have read the Federalist Papers. Anyone who is serious about original intent must read and assimilate them.
It’s one poll, taken not too long after the GOP convention. It doesn’t mean we have to “fight for Maine”.
Maine was always “in play” to the limited extent that, because of the electoral vote allocation, there is the possibility that Bush could get one electoral vote corresponding to the Second (more rural) district. The First District, which includes Portland, is a solid Democrat District, which should give Kerry a wide enough margin to carry the state overall.
Considering the high number of French Canadians in upper Maine, it’s hard to see how an administration with such utter francophobia could have much support in this neck of America.
Yeah, ME is not a liberal state. It is very libertarian. Hell, Ross Perot almost won it in 1992. So, this is no surprise for this Dem.
Pardon my ignorance regarding Maine, but aren’t we basically talking about one or two electoral votes here? According to http://www.electoral-vote.com, “Maine is one of the two states that does not use a winner-take-all system for allocating its votes in the electoral college (Nebraska is the other one). The winner of each of the two congressional districts gets one, and the statewide winner gets the other two.”
Personally, I think the Colorado proposition which would do the same thing, and take effect immediately, might be a bigger threat to JFK ’04 than Maine.
Ryan, try not to post unless you have something to say.
As Alan R. correctly observes, Maine went for Gore by only 5 points, with Bush getting 44.6% of the 3-way vote, It’s not surprising that he’s at 43% now.
Ryan — It’s true that Kerry shouldn’t have to work on Maine, but at the same time, who would have thought Bush wouldn’t have locked down Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Tennessee, and Arkansas?
The Zogby poll is undeniably bad news for Kerry-Edwards.
Maine should be a safe blue state, not in play 45 days out from Election Day.
If Kerry-Edwards has to work to lock-down Maine, hard to see KE ’04 winning.
Maine was actually pretty close (Gore by 5) in the 2000 election, the same margin by which he won Michigan and Pennsylvania. Perhaps because Kerry is from New England, people expect Maine to be a slam-dunk for him, but it really should be more in the “lean Kerry” category than “safe Kerry.”
Having said that, Bush’s 43% for an incumbent, at a highly opportune time for him (shortly after the RNC convention), suggests that Kerry should ultimately prevail in Maine.
2000 results:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html