washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

Battleground States Results

More from Alan Abramowitz.

Here are the results in the 10 battleground states in which polls have
been conducted since the first debate. The number shown is the mean
difference between Bush support and Kerry support in the polls. A
positive number means that Bush was leading and a negative number means
that Kerry was leading. The number of polls is shown in parentheses.
Colorado: 0.0 (1)
Florida: +2.2 (5)
Iowa: +1.0 (2)
Minnesota: -4.0 (2)
New Hampshire: 0.0 (1)
New Mexico: -1.3 (3)
Ohio: -1.0 (1)
Pennsylvania: -5.0 (3)
Washington: -4.0 (2)
Wisconsin: +0.7 (3)
All of these results are based on three-way contests including Ralph
Nader in states where Nader is on the ballot. All of the results are
for likely voters when available or for registered voters when results
for likely voters were not provided. The source for these numbers is

12 comments on “Battleground States Results

  1. tony on

    I wish I could say. I know that they lean conservative as a site. I believe that they use a pretty consistent rule for deciding what poll gets included. I found it somewhat unsettling that the ICR poll got included only when it showed Bush leading more than any other concurrent poll. I read their site, http://www.pollingreport.com, http://www.race2004.net, http://www.electoral-vote.com, http://www.electionprojection.com, and http://www.cookpolitical.com, as well as this site. Then I try to come to a common conclusion across these sites. It’s clear that all show the race to be close. Jeff’s point on another thread about turnout seems right on target. Beyond that, I think there are others here far more expert than I on such matters.
    In the meantime, enjoy a pint of someone’s best bitter for me. There’s nothing quite like it.

  2. Stephen haseler on

    A question from London. Watching your polls in the Us with great interest. Can you give me an assessment of the way in which the realclearpolitics website posts polls. Are they, as they say, ‘seekers after truth’, or are they biased, conscious or not?
    Steohen H.

  3. tony on

    It’s a conservative site, but realclearpolitics has a nice analysis of the state of the electoral vote.
    For Kerry, it’s all about Ohio, with New Hampshire and Nevada as secondary targets. They miss Colorado, either by outright win or by referendum getting him 4 votes.
    For Bush, the targets of opportunity are Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Maine’s more conservative district.
    They given Florida to Bush and Pennsylvania to Kerry, for now.
    Per this analysis, for Kerry, losing Ohio means he has to get New Hampshire, Nevada, and some Colorado votes, while holding New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin.
    If he wins Ohio and New Hampshire, even if he loses Wisconsin and the Maine district, Kerry wins, if he can hold Iowa and New Mexico.
    So…it seems time to focus on Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Maine.
    In the back of my mind, I see some opportunity for Kerry in Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Florida, and some danger in Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

  4. PWestre on

    All I am going to say is that in doorknocking and registering voters. I have reached and registered people without phones who are adamantly opposed to Bush.
    If the dems turn those voters out to vote GWB should be very very afraid on Nov 2……
    Gallup would never try to develop a model to sample the phoneless…

  5. bruhrabbit on

    Post Debate 2: We did well enough to keep the Big Mo’ so let’s keep at it. GOTV is crucial. So enjoy the post debate glow, and if you have not done so already, sign up for GOTV drives.

  6. Galaxy on

    Sorry, I fail to see the problem with choosing a sampling from people who watched the first debate. Anymore than I fail to see the problem with sampling only people who watched either one of the debates, no matter what the outcome of either one. It’s just as valid an assumption that people who watch the debates are likely voters than any criteria Gallup is using. What seems to be your main gripe is not the methodology, it’s that it shows Bush doing worse than all of the other polls (except those you arbitrarily dismiss as “partisan”).
    But all of the polling shows that even a majority of Republicans felt Kerry did better in the first debate, so it does not defy reason that Kerry would score somewhat higher with the subset of people who watched that debate. Likewise, if Bush did better in that debate it would likely show him doing better overall than other polls that did not only sample that subset. I doubt that Ipsos knew going into their polling that Kerry would “win” the debate, but conspiracy theorists might believe that.

  7. Paula on

    ARG and Zogby are Dem polls? I must’ve missed that. BTW, go ahead and ignore the AP poll if you want. Every other poll shows the race basicallly tied and Kerry with all the momentum. Tracking polls have him gaining, and even the Time poll that had Bush up 12 a month ago has it tied.
    As for state polls, that poll for Colorado you dismiss is by Gallup, which is hardly pro-Dem. And most of the states Mr. Abramowitz cites have multiple polls, which he averages, hardly a Dem conspiracy tactic to boost Kerry.
    The race is far from over, but Kerry’s debate performance has changed the dynamic, at least in the short term. Anyone who can’t see that is in denial.

  8. Tim on

    Smooth: I suppose you also wouldnt change a thing about Iraq and that the economy is turning a corner. Are all of you in complete denial?

  9. DS on

    What happened to MO, NV, OR, & WV? These four states also appear to be swinging.
    Jazz’s comments are somewhat valid, but let’s limit the reposting of an entire link.

  10. Alan Snipes on

    There is no question, despite the protestations of Smooth Jazz to the contrary, that Kerry is on a roll. Smooth Jazz discounts as partisan polls that give him bad news like Zogby. Smooth Jazz should be aware that Zogby called both the 96 and 2000 elections accurately. While showing Kerry ahead in the battleground states Bush has a 1 point lead in the popular vote. Instead of trying to go to great lenghths to debunk polls that he doesn’t like he should go back to the right wing web sites and figure out what to do about it. It seems to me there is only one valid point to make about these polls and it comes out on the Democratic side: If the reports about new registrations are accurate in Democratic areas of battleground states and a reasonable number of these new voters turn out, pollsters just may be UNDERESTIMATING support for Kerry. Whatever the argument we will find out for sure on Nov. 2nd providing ALL legitimately cast ballots are counted this time.

  11. tony on

    Smooth Jazz-
    That’s potentially interesting news on Ipsos. I went to the website, but would have to pay to actually use it.
    As you point out, there report comes from a Bush partisan, so perhaps should be taken with of salt, though I’m sure he worked very hard at it.
    It’s particularly interesting to me that he only selected 6 polls to look at as the non-Ipsos. At the RealClearPolitics site, I see 10 polls conducted post-survey, using a 3-way race. From these, I get a Bush lead of 48.0-45.9, which is a bit closer than the author’s 49.2-45.5. He wouldn’t by any chance be inclined toward cherry-picking would he? I’m perfectly willing to believe that Bush is up by 2.1% at this point. In fact, if I add in the two Ipsos polls (using two-way numbers from the AP one, since they seem not to have gone three-way), only narrows it to 47.6-46.3. If he’s interested in fighting over a difference of less than a percent in the Bush lead, he should be my guess. Seems like a sign of desparation to me, though.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.