By Matt Hurley for the TIB Network:
There is a poll out that I've not heard a lot about but is good news for the President. Bush/Cheney has a 5 point lead in Ohio with this poll of 801 likely Ohio voters.
If the 2004 presidential election were held today, would you vote for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans, John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats, or Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, the independents?Now, I'm not a big fan of polls this early; but I am encouraged by these results.
Bush / Cheney (R)- 48%
Kerry / Edwards (D)- 43%
Nader / Camejo (I) - 1%
Undecided - 8%
There is still plenty of work to be done though, as these results also show us. 8% of Ohioans are still undecided and with a 3 point margin of error, this could still get ugly.
Keep the faith, folks, and keep on supporting the President!
Hat Tip
Rob Bernard was all over this one.Original (7/21 8:59PM) Post:
Source:
When political pundits started touting Ohio as the key battleground state in the presidential election, University of Dayton political scientist Nancy Martorano shrugged it off as hype.
Today, Ohio has become the new Florida. It's a must-win state for either candidate, but particularly George W. Bush. No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio. Only two Democrats -- Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy -- have won the presidential election without Ohio. Ohio holds 20 electoral votes. In 2000, Bush won the state by less than 4 percentage points.
"It's going to be tight. If Kerry and Edwards can pull it off, they'll squeak it out," predicts Martorano, assistant professor of political science. "It's going to come down to turnout. Whichever side can turn out the votes will win."
In general, Ohio is Bush country, but the loss of more than 200,000 jobs in the state since Bush took office may change the tide, according to Martorano. "Bush controls the state. The only chance Kerry has is in the urban areas. Kerry will probably safely carry the Cleveland/Akron area. That's the strongest Democratic stronghold in the state. Cincinnati is Republican. Columbus is a toss-up, and the Dayton area will be a fight, especially in some of the wealthy suburbs. That could tip it Republican."
Matt's Chat
Reasonable analysis so far. I concur that Ohio is, for the most part, Bush country and that it is essentially his race to lose.She identifies the two key issues: jobs and terrorism.
On the jobs front, I will again remind my fellow Ohioans that the President has helped us out quite a bit but our RINO governor and our legislature need to get on board. If the President loses Ohio and thus the re-election it will be because of Bob "Tax" Taft.
She doesn't seem to have an answer on the terrorism front. I can't say I blame her actually...this is a tough one to call. Here's the thing: what will matter is not whether or not we're attacked between now and the election, but rather which candidate is more serious about national security and homeland security. While the President does have some weaknesses on the homeland security front, only the rabid partisan will argue against the President on national security. While the world is not yet safe, we are all definately safer than we were before and that counts.
Another topic that the professor brings up is "presidential election fatigue" which I do think has some merit, especially in Ohio. You have to be a pretty serious political junkie (like me!) to really have the stamina for a two year presidential race. And the President has been under assault his entire Presidency, so the Republicans in this state are pretty fed up with the nonsense. The mainstream (read radical) Democrats have been infected with Moore's Disease (thanks Hugh!) and have become totally unhinged (which is a national trend that has carried over in to Ohio).
She doesn't address the legal team that the Democrats have assembled to attack the use of electronic voting machines. We're looking at Florida 2000 all over again unless it is a blowout.
If you didn't know it before, my fellow Buckeyes, know it now: this is the big one and we're in the thick of it.
