WOW! Obama makes Alaska competitive with McCain (new poll plus numbers out of NM and OH)

Alaska: McCain is ahead of Obama 48-43; McCain is ahead of Hillary 57-32
New Mexico: Obama is ahead of McCain 45-42; McCain is ahead of Hillary 46-43
Ohio: McCain is ahead of Hillary 47-42; McCain is ahead of Obama 47-40

www.rasmussenreports.com

Hillary has always been unpopular here, and McCain came in last in the Republicans' presidential preference poll (their caucus) in February. Obama gets a boost by default.

Alaska is usually very red in presidential races with a big emphasis on patriotism.

...but I know he benefits by the dislike that many Alaskans feel towards the other two.

Considering how cold it gets during the winter, It's already pretty bluish around the edges as it is...

:P

I keed, I keed.

I don't think so.

Alaska is a safe red state.

He should do much better than Kerry and Gore did there, however.

The political winds are shifting greatly in Alaska. There has been a huge shift in attitude over the past two years. We have a bipartisan majority in the state senate with a Democrat as the president. Anchorage just elected a left-leaning assembly. Our Democratic mayor Mark Begich will most likely run against Ted Stevens and is polling even or slightly ahead. Don Young is toast, and may not make it out of the Republican primary. We have solid Democratic candidates in that race, so it will be competitive.

The majority of Alaska's electorate is registered Independent, and they're not happy. I think anything is possible here this year.

That is what the 2004 exit polls say. Unless Obama can win some Republican votes in Alaska (around 15-20) and then win the independent vote by a wide margin, it is very unlikely that he wins the state.

Think about it. Only 19% of registered voters in 2004 (according to the exit poll) were Democrats. That is an uphill battle for any Democrat to climb.

Alaska registration as of 2/4/2008

http://www.elections.alaska.gov/statistics/regbyage2-4-08.html

Undeclared 186,084
Nonpartisan 75,361
Republican 118,933
Democratic 68,856

The total number of registered voters in Alaska who are neither Republican nor Democrat is 293,723, over 100,000 more than the major parties combined.

As I said, a lot has changed since 2004.

My own husband switched from undeclared to Democratic on 2/5 for the caucus, as did many, many others.

Bush won the independent vote 55 to 41, Obama will have to win it by more. 60-40, 62-38, etc.

As I said, again, things have changed a lot up here, and McCain is not liked. I would not be surprised to see a lot of the more conservative Republicans and independents here stay home since they don't think they really have a choice this year. These are the people who call Republican governor Sarah Palin a socialist, and there are some of those around.

Before Big Oil, Alaska used to be a solidly Democratic state. People are fed up with the "Corrupt Bastards Club." I believe anything is possible this fall. You could be right, but I think Obama, if he's the nominee, will do much better than people expect. If the nominee is Hillary, then McCain will win, no doubt.

are the biggest group around here to swing elections. Blue is right. Things are in play here in a way I haven't seen since the 70's. You can throw your stats away. they were made by cheating on the voting machines.

it just doesn't comport with the people i know who are from there.

are libertarian, small l, sort of "live and let live" types, not big on government interference. We're actually quite progressive in a lot of ways. Our state Constitution has one of the strongest privacy clauses of any state constitution in the country, which is why we have noncrimnalized marijuana, safe abortions, no death penalty. And we're really quite friendly, at least I think so. :) We're not to be feared.

i do see where that libertarian thing can go wrong. nothing personal here, but what i usually say about them is that people who don't believe in government should not be allowed to play. i know one around here who doesn't even think the government should build roads or maintain bridges.

:rofl: And people still seem happy to accept Uncle Ted's earmarks, so the anti-government bias here I think is somewhat of a front. It sounds good though. Frontier spirit and all that.

that are red or purple than Hillary.

First of all, Alaska polling is notoriously bunk. It's a very difficult state to poll and historically the polling overstates Democratic strength in statewide races. That has been true since I started following this stuff closely in '96. By '04 I was very confident Lisa Murkowski actually led Tony Knowles in the senate race, despite year long polling giving Knowles the edge in literally every poll. I bet Murkowski heavily and sure enough, she took a quick lead and it was fairly routine.

Many other examples. Fran Ulmer was close in the polling in '02 vs. the elder Murkowski, then was buried in actual results.

So basically you have to adjust every Alaska statewide poll, at least several points toward the Republican.

Also, federal races particularly for president are exponentially more difficult to crack than local races. I'm sure the Democrats in Alaska are doing a great job building the party but that doesn't mean it pays immediate dividends in presidential terms. We'll get smothered in Alaska for the foreseeable in presidential terms. The partisan index is blatantly pro-GOP (state margin compared to national margin), as indicated in NJSecularist's numbers. Bush won Alaska by 25+ points more than his national figure. Everything else is comparative trivia.

Obama gathered more votes than any other candidate, Republican or Democratic, in the February caucuses, three times more than McCain, and almost 1,000 more than Romney who had 44% of the Republican votes. Even Ron Paul beat McCain here. McCain barely got 2,000 votes.

And as for Tony/Lisa in 2004, the results of that election were very irregular, and it's by no means clear that it wasn't stolen like many other elections around the country that year.

They mean nothing. They are not indicative of what will happen in the GE.

The Democratic caucus ordinarily has something like 250 people present statewide, so I think our numbers were fairly significant this year, but you apparently have your mind made up that Alaska is a hopeless cause, so I'll leave you to wallow in your pessimism.

court to release the data and they won't. How can 17 or 18 of the 41 or so districts poll over 100%, sometimes into 200% voting in an election?
They cheated so none of the old figures are accurate.

then the GOP will divert resources there (and elsewhere), leaving swing states more vulnerable.

I was getting tired of arguing with the naysayers. :)

I live in Indiana, so I feel your pain.

Getting 200% of the vote in some districts is a tipoff. :) I agree with Blue. The state used to be blue. I hope it is again.

If things are looking good down your way, too, I'm guessing a lot of people will be surprised by Alaska in November. And I don't believe Mr. Secularist is familiar with the Corrupt Bastards and what an effect all the investigations, indictments and trials have had on the political mind around here.

So that issue is off the table.

No matter how bad the economic woes, we can't seem to get over the top there. (I know it's just one poll, though.)

and go west where Obama has a good chance to pick up New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada for us and is much more competitive in Montana and Alaska than Hillary. Heck, polls show Hillary losing Oregon and Washington to McCain while Obama wins them.

But hey, she can win FL and PA! And those are the only 2 states that vote in the GE.

then I don't want to hear them complain about the economy or loss of jobs there.

small state remember?! errrr, small big state....

get with the program people! :sarcasm:

48% McCain
43% Obama

54% McCain
36% Clinton

link

Obama-McCain 46-42; McCain-Clinton 46-42

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/04/electability_in_obamas_favor.html

for Obama.. The old "pre-Obama" map is out the window now.. HRH would still need it and would pour millions into PA, OH, FL , only to end up losing again...but Obama can do an end run in cheaper , easier states and get the EVs.. He's proven in the primaries that many small numbers add up too..
......

make your own predictions @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/electoral-college/

................
my map..
add alaska for extra :)

Southwest, and, yes, Texas.

After the convention in Denver Obama will be leading, or close to leading, in most of these states. McCain's not going to have time to try to steal any Kerry states like PA or NJ. He's going to have his hands full desperately trying to hold on to the Bush states.

he would really help cement the trend for O out west and also make Texas very doable, imo.

Wait until the spotlight is put on him

Jumping to Rassmussen's tune aside- :eyes: - the swing required would be enormous.

61.07% vs. 35.52%

The chances of that happening are slim to none.

I'd love to know.